One of the basic questions that rise when people think of philosophy is the meaning of life. We can state that this question is associated with philosophers and that it passes into our social consciousness as a question that is the preoccupation of thinkers is related to the fact that questioning the meaning of life is a painful process. There are many philosophers who have dealt with this subject. I will try to evaluate and criticize the views of two of these philosophers and to explain my own views on this subject.
Viktor Frankl’s thoughts on the meaning of life are reinforced by his observations during his time in the concentration camp. He loses his father, mother, wife, son and brother in the camp. Despite his work burned in Theresienstadt and his terrible losses, he somehow clings to life and by 1959 his work became a bestseller (The Life of Viktor Frankl – the Viktor E. Frankl Institute of America % %, n.d.). “Saying yes to life in spite of everything”, which is both the title of his work and the part of a song circulating in the language of the prisoners in the camp, is actually quite enough to get an idea of Frankl’s point of view (Frankl, V. E. (2020), p.3). In his conversation with a patient, Frankl (1946, p.167) states how happy his patient is that his suicide attempt was not successful, that after a while he understands that there is actually a solution to his problems, and that he can give a meaning to his life, and Frankl explains that the way to understand these is to live.
Living in spite of everything. Well, we have managed to live, how to reach meaning? He talks about 3 ways to find meaning in life. Doing a job or creating a work, relating to something or someone, and using a personal tragedy and pain as the last step in the search for meaning by going beyond himself (Frankl, 1946, p.170). Pain is inevitable and what a person can do in the face of this unchangeable situation is to determine how to suffer (Frankl, 1946, p.172).
The paths to the meaning of life differ from person to person. Just as there is no one type of person, there is no one-size-fits-all search for meaning.
I think the three ways he proposes to find the meaning of life are really logical ways that can be applied to those who are looking for the meaning of life. It can be a logical way for a person to search for meaning within himself and transfer what he feels to someone or transform it into something, using the pain he has experienced as a step in finding the meaning of life and empathizing with them within himself. What leaves me with questions in Frankl’s ideology is that man is a community-dwelling being who is always surrounded by others. An entity that can only appreciate the value of its own success in comparison to the success of others. In the capitalist 21st century world we live in, being successful at something starts with leaving someone else behind. I think that it is impossible for people to withdraw into their pure shell, in this period when we are exposed to unlimited technology and constant flow of information, even “what reality is” is a mystery to us. In this case, I’m undecided as to what the criteria would be to turn a personal tragedy into a success.
The other philosopher whose ideology I will argue about the meaning of life is Sartre. Jean-Paul Sartre divides the existentialists into two, considering them in terms of faith and defines himself as an atheist existentialist (p.20). Stating that the only being whose existence comes before his essence is man, Sartre argues that man is responsible for creating his own essence and that the decisions taken in this self-creation project should be taken as if they were making decisions for the whole society (p.24). There is uncertainty in the nature of humans and nothing about humans is predetermined. Despite this uncertainty, Sartre’s philosophy says that we must reach the meaning of life with our own actions (p.22). In connection with his being an atheist, he argues that religion or any authority cannot determine the meaning of life (p.28). Sartre (1946) discusses how our will creates the existence of the values and how choices are always ours to make. We are doomed to freedom because even choosing not to make a decision is a decision and what kind of a return this conviction will be is determined by our decisions (p.29). Rather than offering ways like Frankl, he dictates that human beings should avoid being coward and not try to shrug off the responsibility of making decisions with bad faith (p.38).
What I cannot fully understand in Sartre’s ideology is that our existence precedes our essence, but the opportunities given to us to create this essence are not under our control. To put it more clearly, consider 2 families; We can all agree that it is simpler for the child of a financially stable family to live the life they wish than it is for the child of a family in financial hardship to do so. Then, is it laziness that this child, who cannot choose the family they will be born into, avoids making decisions, or is it a helplessness that they have to learn? As Frankl stated, pain is inevitable, but the inevitability of pain does not affect the environment in which you will experience this pain. And while experiencing the pain I think that giving meaning to life through religion is perfectly normal and inevitable for some people. We are prisoners in our own brains and it may not be easy for everyone to admit that they are lonely. I think it is the most humane behavior to escape from the existentialist vacuum that Frankl talks about and to find its cure in religion.
To sum up Sartre and Frankl are not very far-flung philosophers about the meaning of life. The approaches of both converge on the point that human decisions will draw a roadmap. Even though we can’t escape the pain, we can’t choose the world we will be born in, I think that being able to reach our peace in this life is directly related to our being the center of the decision maker in our lives. I am sure that both ideologies can guide people struggling with their thoughts.
Resources:
- Sartre, J. P. (2007). Existentialism Is A Humanism (C. Macomber, Trans.). In J. Kulka (Ed.),
- Existentialism Is A Humanism (pp. 17-73). New Haven & London: Yale University Press. (Original work published 1946).
- Frankl, V. E. (1985). Man’s search for meaning. Simon and Schuster. The Case For A Tragic Optimism (pp. 17-54)
- The Life of Viktor Frankl. (Accessed 2023, May 26). https://viktorfranklamerica.com/viktor-frankl-bio/
- Photo by Greg Rakozy on Unsplash