Response to Frankl

He says that we are shaped by experience, good or bad. This is apparently is taken as "Suffering is good". This was an inspiring read but it seems more enticing to me to criticize it rather than praise and analyze it. He explains how we can survive the most troubling times by utilizing things like apathy or recognition of your inner self. Through his experiences he believes his survival came from pure strength of will and perseverance, not focusing on his physical form but rather his love, thoughts, imagination, and memory. It was through his torment that his appreciation for art and nature grew, since it was only then that he began to recognize his inner self.

He explains his experiences as if he reached a sort of enlightenment that was only made clear as he struggled and suffered. However, in my opinion true recognition and celebration of your inner self can only come through the struggling of others. Your actions and feelings towards others are decided based on what the outcome will be, but this is wrong. It is not until we feel empathy subconsciously and act without thinking, living for others and feeling what they feel, will we truly recognize our inner selves. Only then will we make decisions that will not be a product of avarice or clout.

 It is hard for me to be critical of someone how has endured as he has; His words are powerful, but some of his ideas only strike the surface of a much larger conversations. When he says that abnormal reactions to any abnormal situation is normal behavior, it is sensible at first. But by definition, normality is conforming to what is standard and expected by society. Shouldn't we not be discussing the results of acting normally, but emphasizing the importance how actions taken based on a strong sociological connection with others  and an understanding of the individuality of our inner selves cannot be judged.. whether they are normal or not.