Frankl didn't go into the camp unprepared. He didn't invent logotherapy from scratch while he was in the camp. — baker

Baker, I'm assuming you're jesting, right?

I am not talking about the gestation of Logotherapy in Frankl's mind. I am talking about it as a psychotherapeutic product in the existential psychology tradition today. As Frankle himself said (and it was the original title of Mans' Search for Meaning) - Logotherapy is a journey from "From Death Camp to Existentialism."

I have no real comment on Logotherapy's efficacy and developmental history - it has been memorably accused of being authoritarian by some existentialists - esp May. In essence L says, if you can identify a reason for living (meaning) you are likely get through adversity. In counselling this is also called identifying a client's strengths and or protective factors. In other words meaning is made from within by looking without.

perhaps the absurd opens relations with others once the usual drudgery of unquestioned social armour has been cracked and experience can be shared (like through books)? — Cate

No idea. Absurd can be kind of mysterious can't it? With Camus I always thought the word 'absurd' was really just his rage masquerading as alienation. Camus seemed to detest all the trappings and rituals of the middle class culture he knew - education, marriage, family, work, religion. There is a point where rage can have a blunting affect (as suggested by the character Meursault in The Stranger) which can make everything seem.... unreal... absurd. Now this can be used in two ways (maybe more) as a source of terror and retreat, or as a fulcrum for transformation.

Sure. My point is, it's backwards, which makes it useless. — baker

Jeez, Baker - the point I made has nothing to do about chronology. Logotherapy was developed as a tool to help people deal with adversity and was born in the experiences of the concentration camp. It's used in so many ways and has some application in helping people recover from substance use and anxiety.

If they were the proverbial trees with weak roots when they had to face the storm, how did the weather it? — baker

Sorry can you be clearer on this? Do you mean how does someone with no belief in a divine plan or purpose have the resilience and inward psychological strength to face life's considerable challenges - (especially in the face of poverty, sickness and death)?

Maybe true. Although the older atheists I have known got there despite being disowned and shunned by their working class communities and families.

Really? And you have empirical data to back this up? — baker

Of course not. But I think it would be safe to bet that of the many millions of atheists who have lived, millions of them have done just this.

No, that's not the right chronological order. — baker

Err... what order? I was simply saying that Logotherapy was developed with this in mind. I was not trying to classify it in any context other than the obvious.

Sure, science is indispensable, but without self-knowledge and practical wisdom it can be put to diabolical ends. Good people can be good scientists, but being a good scientist doesn't necessarily make you a good person. — Wayfarer

True. I would never say science is good. Just reliable. I would not say science is certain. Just reliable.

But the question of goodness or virtue is too complex and elusive to ever attach to any particular discipline or activity. It is equally true that being a good believer or philosopher does not necessarily make you a good person.

I would also not make a necessary connection between the pursuit of spirituality or philosophy with self knowledge either. It could just as readily be self-deception.

Yes Abrahamic religions are not "about morality" but about – Kierkegaard is instructive here – "the teleological suspension of the ethical" or, in lay terms, obeying the "will" (PLAN) of the ALMIGHTY — 180 Proof

This is clear even in the holy books. Simple divine command theory. I find it telling that God commands his people not to wear mixed fabrics or to eat shellfish but is fine with slavery. So we could add it is the divine command theory of a moral monster.

What would be an example of
: 'the efficacy of methodological realism as the only useful tool we have for determining the nature of our experience' in everyday life ? — Amity

All I am saying is that the scientific method remains the single most reliable pathway to truth. Can you name an alternative that can provide us with reliable knowledge about the world?

You mean psychoanalytic theory, S-R theory and cognitive behavioral theory are also inconsequential, — Joshs

Just that theories like these, for the most part, are imprecise, interpreted variously and lacking in precision. CBT or DBT has application in some instances to help change behaviour but it is not a robust epistemology.

This is of course a gross simplification, but I think it captures the idea enough. — Nagel

There are numerous possible uses of the term genius and it is one of those words that is overused and often used poorly when the word 'talented' or 'maverick' would be preferable. For me, the best examples refer to someone who is remarkable and unprecedented and possibly able to embrace a wide range of talents to a prodigious effect at once, like Da Vinci -someone who changes the world in some way though a great talent. But where is the line between a person of prodigious and conspicuous talent and a genius? One person's genius may be another's bete noir.

As far as the social sciences are concerned it is a different story, especially in psychology. Here we do have post-realist alternatives in hermeneutic, enactivist , constructivist, social constructionist, and phenomenological approaches. These accounts recognize that one can maintain naturalism while jettisoning realism. — Joshs

You will have to provide a simple example. If you're simply talking theory then this is largely inconsequential.

What this doesn’t see, is what the mind brings in order to make such judgements, even the judgement of what the world must be in the absence of observers. I say it is meaningless to contemplate a world as if seen from no point-of-view, as the very fabric of time and space itself has a subjective pole. — Wayfarer

I don't disagree with most of what you say but I don't think it makes an impact on the efficacy of methodological realism as the only useful tool we have for determining the nature of our experience.

Let's get the facts straight. We know, almost to the point of certainty, what to do and what not to do. — TheMadFool

I wish that were true.

No need for a cheap snipe D.

Making meaning, despite all absurdity, is Camus' solution. That's not the same thing as saying he resolved it. But he does see this as a pathway to a rewarding life. I'm saying we are radically free to choose our own meaning, but admittedly that reads more like Sartre.

If you have questions about biological processes, an answer based on materialism is probably what you're looking for, even if it is a polite fiction. It's really enough to get you to accurate predictions. As Dewey said, "truth is the end of inquiry." — Count Timothy von Icarus

In some ways, the history of philosophy has been the quest to deny the existence of the real world independent of our minds. Sure materialism is incomplete, like most science, but until there is evidence of a metaphysical world, we are stuck with the only one we can reliably identify.

But how did their life evolve? Earth is just a circumstantial prop in this debate of the origin of life (organism from the non-organic). — Outlander

How do you know that an alien from an alien cosmos are bound by rules of cause and effect? Any technology sufficiently advanced will look like magic to us. Any belief can be defended and if it looks dumb to you and me, our views look dumb to others. No different to the notion that God is a magic man and is exempt from cause and effect.

I like how your mind works but I guess (in case you hadn't guessed) we come to different conclusions on these issues. The devil is in the detail with all belief systems. Most atheists are battling against the vast mobilized army of literalists so they have no choice but to pitch the discussion at a vulgar level. Religion pitched at a vulgar level is harmful to human beings.

I don't think anyone should apologize for being an idealist as long as robust critical thinking has been undertaken to arrive at the position.

It's also easy to misread atheists. Most atheists I know don't concern themselves with believers who are progressive and have a sophisticated theology. Tillich or Bentley Hart's Gods are not worth contesting and ultimately do not contribute to life denying, bigotries and superstations that cause real harm in communities. Are they even theists?

There are many shoddy, untheorized atheists who are convinced theism can be disproven and that science has answered everything. There are atheists who believe in astrology and idealism. All a responsible atheist can say is there is no good reason to accept the preposition that a god exists. The idea hasn't met its burden of proof. And for any other proposition there ought to be a good reason. But certainty on anything is not possible. I understand that your epistemology doesn't appreciate this kind of frame.

However for me what matters is actually how people relate to their fellow creatures. The real test of a belief system is not how much 'metaphysics' or anti-realism it holds, but what it looks like in action in the world.

People don't necessarily proselytize to "prove the strength of their faith".
Some do it "to share the joy with others". — baker

Sure. I never said it was the only reason. I simply said not doing so suggested a more secure faith. That has certainly been my experience of Christians. Maybe I should have said It can be the sign of a secure faith. One is not always precise in typing.

So, the suggestion that living organisms can't be wholly understood through the objective sciences implies 'the supernatural'! — Wayfarer

I'd need know more about where you would take the notion of 'non-material things' because this can be a bit slippery. You hint/highlight that I keep coming back to the theme of the supernatural, or dualism or a superphysical proposal as some kind of unthinking, reactive blurt. Yes, you are partly right.

Because generally this is exactly where people go with these ideas. Maybe not you... By definition, if you say there are 'things which exist that are not verifiable as things' you heading towards a supernatural proposition, surely? Apologies to quantum theory, by the way. Can your non-material things be used to make predictions?

The more crassly expressed version of similar notions might be: 'There is a limit to science; therefore Jesus.' or Aliens. It can also lead to a kind of language game. A revived version of idealism proffered that studiously avoids talking about God in a deliberate way, but is clearly used as a foundation for some form of theism or prime mover - even Tillich's Ground of Being, say.

This is also a problem that has made itself clear through the observer problem or measurement problem in physics. — Wayfarer

Yes, agree. I've referenced this problem before and am quite partial to the idea. With a correspondence theory of truth it is argued you can't survey the relation between the evidence (say) and the reality. But is this just a confusion generated by conceptual language?

By doing instead of (over)-thinking, we are able to transcend the mistakes made by human misinterpretation and miscalculation (normal thinking) and live a better life without ever asking, "What's next?" — synthesis

This is nice idea - overthinking or analysis/paralysis is a pet hate of mine - but how do we put it into practice exactly? How do we determine the level of reflection versus action? Or am I overthinking it? :joke:

f one simlpy likes living, going to ones not-so-fantastic job, do whats needed in the family and then just chill, driving ones wife half crazy by saying no to all fany plans for the future, does that qualify a guy to the ranks of the soft nihilists? — Ansiktsburk

There is no reason why a nihilist needs to be living in miserable circumstances. In fact it could be argued if a person is living comfortably, and they accept nihilism, they are not merely reacting to their situation. They are actually choosing their ideas based on the merits of the idea. It would certainly be easier to be a nihilist whilst living in a Soviet gulag, say, in 1950. But do you really own a philosophical system brought on by circumstance? That's a thorny one.

When I worked in an acute admissions unit, a lot of the staff were very judgemental in their attitude and the term 'PD' was often used by some of the staff in a critical tone. — Jack Cummins

All over the world you find this. It is unfortunate, but a reflection of the difficulties of working with this cohort who are deemed almost untreatable (for the most part) and time consuming (as in needing years). This sets them up as 'difficult' in relation to the high volume, rapid turn around work of clinical services.

Methodological naturalism v philosophical naturalism.
What are they and why is it important to make the distinction ? — Amity

They are important because the first says it is not possible to gain reliable knowledge outside of using this method. The second, which I do not accept, is that all which is extant is natural subject to natural laws. We would need to demonstrate this before making that claim.

But there are also many foundational axioms that are held without evidence. Scientific materialism is one. It is a metaphysical stance, not a testable hypothesis as evidenced by the fact that its proponents keep defending it, even while the scientific notion of matter is in constant flux. — Wayfarer

Yes, I understand this and the logical absolutes are good examples too. There are many presuppositions we all need to make that cannot be justified. Reason is one. Do we go as far as to call them properly basic?

But even so, I fail to see how it gets us to a supernatural. It just tells us of our limitations. I know Christian apologists are fond of saying atheism is a self refuting philosophy (via the theological thinker Alvin Plantinga, and via Kant I suppose) and that materialism can't account for morality , etc. All hoary old favorite arguments.

But in the we can't get away from science being the only reliable source of knowledge, for all its limitations. Is there another source that can be demonstrated to be reliable? I don't believe we can get to ultimate certainty but seems to me that a multitude of sins are often crammed into any gaps we have in science, without any real quality control.

Yes, all the personality disorders are strongly associated with post trauma behaviour and dissociative states. More commonly borderline for females; anti-social PD for males. Yep, trauma needs psychosocial support, talking and, perhaps, medication - depending on the complexity of the trauma. It takes time and resources to overcome.

Nihilism is a word used in many ways. Bottom line any world view that supports or triggers depression - whether it be Christianity or nihilism - still requires intervention. Plenty of suggestions on mental health support websites for this.

Lots of younger men tend to go through periods of bleakness it seems. Some like to call this nihilism, perhaps it sounds less banal.

Existentialism and nihilism was very popular when I was young. Most of us found the proposition of nihilism a cheerful alternative to the false values of a religion or an off the rack suburban worldview. Nihilism meant being free to invent yourself as much as you felt able to.

Only one person I knew developed suicidal despair and a heroin addiction to manage it. He had a mental health issue and fortunately with treatment he recovered, but it took close to a decade.

Perhaps there are hard and soft nihilists. The hard nihilist says that 'nothing matters', not even their own life and, perhaps, this results in them withering and possibly dying. I suppose this has more to do brain chemistry and/or life circumstances than philosophical reflection.

The soft nihilist says there are no transcendent values, no external source of meaning, nothing. I am free to invent myself. This could be considered exciting.

When you speak of 'evidence' you're already assuming an empirical stance, when the nature of the question may be such that it can't be adjuticated by empirical means. — Wayfarer

I know but - and I am serious about this line of questioning, I am not trolling - what else is there but evidence based knowledge? Can you demonstrate any other kind?

What possibly can the difference be between measurement and meaning in practical demonstration (and I recognise the irony in my question)?

I've generally not seen theism as providing ethics or moral thinking at all but it does have commandments or codes of conduct, which are vastly different and no more than traffic lights to obey.

Well I'm pushing buttons here, as it's a philosophy forum, best to ask yourself why. — Wayfarer

Well, you are making the argument that there is a fatal gap in science, two really: abiogenesis and consciousness - is it not the case that these notions are traditionally the first steps in the contemporary advocacy for a supernatural realm?

Yet one of those those who made that voyage became an alcoholic, the other had a life-changing epiphany. — Wayfarer

Funny, but so what?

Sorry poorly expressed. I'm asking you this not saying you said this.

I'm no philosopher, Wayfarer but the fact that science can't yet explain the origin or nature of consciousness to our satisfaction does not mean it won't and it doesn't mean we have to say, 'therefore a deity or supernatural realm exists'. That would be the fallacy from ignorance, surely?

The fact remains that there are no known cases of a mind without a brain. Conceptually it may well be that the experience of consciousness is the brain's equivalent of digestion - a neurobiological process - and our use of language and capacity for abstract concepts serves to create a series of confusions about categories. The kinds of confusions that lead idealists to be skeptical of naturalism.

Daniel Dennett may be a bore, but cognitive science has made way more progress in understanding the human mind than, say, Episcopalianism. It's early days and until there is evidence for a soul or some such dualist notion, let's not take it too seriously. The default setting in the absence of any evidence of supernatural forces is surely naturalism? For all the bad press naturalism gets, (and you are right that science is concerned with what is objectively measurable - should it be concerned with the subjectively immeasurable?) it is the only known way to acquire reliable knowledge about the world. That said, i am a methodological naturalist not a philosophical naturalist.

The denigration of the scientific method (by increasing numbers) reminds me of a lecture John Searle gave where he said, 'How can you send man to the moon and back and seriously wonder if reality exists, or is it really possible to make secure predictions using inductive reasoning."

The "linguistic turn" is basically meaningless. It's a historical construct. Ditto "existentialism," "continental philosophy," "analytic philosophy," and so on. No one really agrees on what these terms mean, and we shouldn't get hung up on them any more than "postmodern" or "post-World War II."

Thinking is what's called for these days -- and that doesn't end. What we need is different kind of thinking, which is defined by the questions being asked. The questions being asked these days should be in response to our current place in time, our historical situation. To ask "what next?" is a good question, but it could have been asked in any period in history, even during what's now labeled the "linguistic turn." — Xtrix

Nicely put.

Thank you that was interesting and helpful. I haven't explored this material in detail since the late 1980's

I think the hallmark fo a secure faith is the lack of proselytizing.
— Tom Storm
Why?? — baker

A person comfortable in their spirituality (as opposed to their religion) does not need to proselytize or harangue others to prove the strength of their faith.

Brass tacks: if you're interested in the text, say something about what you think of it. — csalisbury

That is what I think of it. Sorry.

To achieve this, power wasn't taken out of the equation but rather transferred from man to a celestial being, god. — TheMadFool

Except that this is not what happened. The power was held entirely by human beings - by a very strong political force complete with an army and a figurehead, absentee CEO

I've come to realise that I accept the divinity of Jesus, although I know many don't, and I wouldn't try and persuade anyone. — Wayfarer

Nice summary of those early years, W. I think the hallmark fo a secure faith is the lack of proselytizing.