3 ms·

It's a bit bizarre as a book review. Here's my review of this book: it's the single most useful book I have read in my life. I have used the basic ideas of the

It's a bit bizarre as a book review. Here's my review of this book: it's the single most useful book I have read in my life. I have used the basic ideas of the book to navigate all the challenges of my life so far, including the greatest one: becoming old and sick. Frankl survived a death camp and came out with his humanity all blazing. If he can do that, then I can face my milder challenges. I'll be okay. Meaning is found in how we respond to the challenges of life. Especially in how we respond to unavoidable suffering. It's an action and an attitude. It's never merely information and it isn't theory.

unmole 3y ago
> It's a bit bizarre as a book review. Facinating essay but not really a book review. Here's my review of the book: Literal survivorship bias taken to the absolute extreme. Bluntly put, Frankl attributes his survival to his postive attitude and uses it to flog logotherapy. In one instance, Frankl comments on the increased number of deaths in the camps around Christmas. He attributes it to dejection and loss of hope amongst the inmates. One would imagine the weather in December having something to do with it but that isn't brought up. To be fair, the book opens with a disclaimer that it "does not claim to an account of facts and events". The bulk of it consists of wishful thinking and feel-good nonsense.
- satisfice 3y ago
  You might not have read it carefully. He says in the book that he was lucky. Right down to the last day, where he didn’t get on a truck taking other inmates to apparent safety because he stayed behind to look after someone (later to discover the men on the truck were executed). [I hope I remember this incident correctly, but you can check] He never presents his mental attitude as sufficient to survive a death camp, only that something like it was necessary. He also doesn’t present it as a scientific study of anything. It’s a first person account with analysis and explanation. When you call it feel good nonsense, I am gobsmacked. Apart from the fact that his ideas demonstrably work, even for skeptical, stoical, atheist, misanthropes like me, the first part of the book is utterly bleak. Do you remember? He is in a DEATH CAMP. He speaks of UNAVOIDABLE SUFFERING. He is giving us his thoughts as he speaks of imaginary conversations with his wife whom he knew must be dead. There’s no “feel good nonsense” here. Read it again.
  - unmole 3y ago
    > When you call it feel good nonsense, I am gobsmacked. I'm using feel-good to mean relating to or promoting an often specious sense of satisfaction or well-being. I'm not claiming the book is cheerfully sentimental. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feel-good https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feel-good

unmole 3y ago

> It's a bit bizarre as a book review. Facinating essay but not really a book review. Here's my review of the book: Literal survivorship bias taken to the absolute extreme. Bluntly put, Frankl attributes his survival to his postive attitude and uses it to flog logotherapy. In one instance, Frankl comments on the increased number of deaths in the camps around Christmas. He attributes it to dejection and loss of hope amongst the inmates. One would imagine the weather in December having something to do with it but that isn't brought up. To be fair, the book opens with a disclaimer that it "does not claim to an account of facts and events". The bulk of it consists of wishful thinking and feel-good nonsense.

satisfice 3y ago
You might not have read it carefully. He says in the book that he was lucky. Right down to the last day, where he didn’t get on a truck taking other inmates to apparent safety because he stayed behind to look after someone (later to discover the men on the truck were executed). [I hope I remember this incident correctly, but you can check] He never presents his mental attitude as sufficient to survive a death camp, only that something like it was necessary. He also doesn’t present it as a scientific study of anything. It’s a first person account with analysis and explanation. When you call it feel good nonsense, I am gobsmacked. Apart from the fact that his ideas demonstrably work, even for skeptical, stoical, atheist, misanthropes like me, the first part of the book is utterly bleak. Do you remember? He is in a DEATH CAMP. He speaks of UNAVOIDABLE SUFFERING. He is giving us his thoughts as he speaks of imaginary conversations with his wife whom he knew must be dead. There’s no “feel good nonsense” here. Read it again.
- unmole 3y ago
  > When you call it feel good nonsense, I am gobsmacked. I'm using feel-good to mean relating to or promoting an often specious sense of satisfaction or well-being. I'm not claiming the book is cheerfully sentimental. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feel-good https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feel-good