See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318543347

Human beings and humanity

Chapter · July 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 602

1 author:

John Horsfield
Alliance Research Group
2,388 PUBLICATIONS   280 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Older age UK View project

Celtic Nations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John Horsfield on 24 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Being human – Meaning and suffering

Hearts & Minds Media 2017

 Human beings and humanity? Meaning in a world of suffering

The Oxford dictionary defines humanity as “the quality of being humane,

benevolent”. And it defines human being as ” A man, woman, or child of the
species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental
development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.” Being human is given,
we all are born the same but keeping our humanity is a choice. At one hand we see
mankind being the biggest enemy to mankind whereas on the other hand we see
man not always living up to humanity but at least coming closer to it by trying.

The recognition of one’s humanity can be an uncomfortable pill to swallow. Life’s

fragility, life’s impermanence, life’s intertwinement with imperfection and
disappointment—bitter medicines are easier to accept. The Romantic poets called it
“the burden of full consciousness.” To look closely at humanity can indeed be a
realization of dread and despair.

To begin I believe we need to determine what constitutes the nature of a human

being as a species. Its distinguishing characteristics—including ways
of thinking, feeling, and acting—which humans tend to have or follow to function
normally.

In philosophy and science. The concept of human nature is traditionally contrasted

not only with unusual human characteristics, but also with characteristics which are
derived from specific cultures, and upbringings leading to a standard of normalised
behaviour which society basis’s its functioning upon. This is partly because human
nature can be regarded as both a source of norms of conduct or ways of life, as well
as presenting obstacles or constraints on living a good life.

Philosophy in classical Greece is the ultimate origin[] of the Western conception of

the nature of a thing. According to Aristotle, the philosophical study of human nature
itself originated with Socrates, who turned philosophy from study of the heavens to
study of the human things.[9] Socrates is said to have studied the question of how a
person should best live, but he left no written works. It is clear from the works of his
students Plato and Xenophon, and also by what was said about him by Aristotle
(Plato's student), that Socrates was a rationalist and believed that the best life and
the life most suited to human nature involved reasoning. The Socratic school was the
dominant surviving influence in philosophical discussion in the Middle Ages,
amongst Islamic, Christian, and Jewish philosophers.

The human soul in the works of Plato and Aristotle has a divided nature, divided in a
specifically human way. One part is specifically human and rational, and divided into
a part which is rational on its own, and a spirited part which can understand reason.
Other parts of the soul are home to desires or passions similar to those found in
animals. In both Aristotle and Plato, spiritedness (thumos) is distinguished from the
other passions (epithumiai).[10] The proper function of the "rational" was to rule the
other parts of the soul, helped by spiritedness. By this account, using one's reason is
the best way to live, and philosophers are the highest types of humans.

Aristotle—Plato's most famous student—made some of the most famous and

influential statements about human nature. In his works, apart from using a similar
scheme of a divided human soul, some clear statements about human nature are
made:

• Man is a conjugal animal, meaning an animal which is born to couple when an

adult, thus building a household (oikos) and, in more successful cases, a clan or
small village still run upon patriarchal lines.[11]
• Man is a political animal, meaning an animal with an innate propensity to develop
more complex communities the size of a city or town, with a division of labor and
law-making. This type of community is different in kind from a large family, and
requires the special use of human reason.[12]
• Man is a mimetic animal. Man loves to use his imagination (and not only to make
laws and run town councils). He says "we enjoy looking at accurate likenesses of
things which are themselves painful to see, obscene beasts, for instance, and
corpses." And the "reason why we enjoy seeing likenesses is that, as we look,
we learn and infer what each is, for instance, 'that is so and so.'"[13]

For Aristotle, reason is not only what is most special about humanity compared to
other animals, but it is also what we were meant to achieve at our best. Much of
Aristotle's description of human nature is still influential today. However, the
particular teleological idea that humans are "meant" or intended to be something has
become much less popular in modern times.[14]
For the Socratics, human nature, and all natures, are metaphysical concepts.
Aristotle developed the standard presentation of this approach with his theory of four
causes. Every living thing exhibits four aspects or "causes": matter, form, effect, and
end. For example, an oak tree is made of plant cells (matter), grew from an acorn
(effect), exhibits the nature of oak trees (form), and grows into a fully mature oak tree
(end). Human nature is an example of a formal cause, according to Aristotle.
Likewise, to become a fully actualized human being (including fully actualizing the
mind) is our end. Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics, Book X) suggests that the human
intellect (νούς) is "smallest in bulk" but the most significant part of the human psyche,
and should be cultivated above all else. The cultivation of learning and intellectual
growth of the philosopher, which is thereby also the happiest and least painful life.

In Chinese thought[]

Human nature is a central question in Chinese philosophy.[15] Human nature was

considered by Confucius and Mencius to be essentially good.[15] From the Song
dynasty the theory of the original goodness of human beings dominated Confucian
thought.[16] However, Hsun Tzu taught that human nature was essentially evil.[15] As
suggested by these contrasting views, the question of human nature has generated
a long debate among Chinese thinkers.[16]

Christian theology[]

: Christian theology

In Christian theology, there are two ways of "conceiving human nature". The first is
"spiritual, Biblical, and theistic", whereas the second is "natural, cosmical, and anti-
theistic."[17]The focus in this section is on the former. As William James put it in his
study of human nature from a religious perspective, "religion" has a "department of
human nature."[18]

Various views of human nature have been held by theologians. However, there are
some "basic assertions" in all "biblical anthropology."[19]

1. "Humankind has its origin in God, its creator."

2. "Humans bear the 'image of God'."
3. Humans are "to rule the rest of creation."
By Adam's fall into sin, "human nature" became "corrupt", although it retains
the image of God. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament teach that "sin is
universal."[31] For example, Psalm 51:5 reads: "For behold I was conceived in
iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me."[32] Jesus taught that everyone is a
"sinner naturally" because it is mankind's "nature and disposition to sin." [33] Paul, in
Romans 7:18, speaks of his "sinful nature."[34]

Such a "recognition that there is something wrong with the moral nature of man is
found in all religions"[35] Augustine of Hippo coined a term for the assessment that all
humans are born sinful: original sin.[36] Original sin is "the tendency to sin innate in all
human beings."[37] The doctrine of original sin is held by the Catholic Church and
most mainstream Protestant denominations, but rejected by the Eastern Orthodox
Church, which holds the similar doctrine of ancestral fault.

"The corruption of original sin extends to every aspect of human nature": to "reason
and will" as well as to "appetites and impulses." This condition is sometimes called
"total depravity."[38] Total depravity does not mean that humanity is as "thoroughly
depraved" as it could become.[39] Commenting on Romans 2:14, John Calvin writes
that all people have "some notions of justice and rectitude . . . which are implanted
by nature" all people.[40]

Adam embodied the "whole of human nature" so when Adam sinned "all of human
nature sinned".[41] The Old Testament does not explicitly link the "corruption of
human nature" to Adam's sin. However, the "universality of sin" implies a link to
Adam. In the New Testament, Paul concurs with the "universality of sin." He also
makes explicit what the Old Testament implied: the link between humanity's "sinful
nature" and Adam's sin[42] In Romans 5:19, Paul writes, "through [Adam's]
disobedience humanity became sinful."[43] Paul also applied humanity's sinful nature
to himself: "there is nothing good in my sinful nature."[44][45]

The theological "doctrine of original sin" as an inherent element of human nature is

not based only on the Bible. It is in part a "generalization from obvious facts" open to
empirical observation.[46]

Empirical view

A number of experts on human nature have described the manifestations of original

(i.e., the innate tendency to) sin as empirical facts.
• Biologist Richard Dawkins in his The Selfish Gene states that "a predominant
quality" in a successful surviving gene is "ruthless selfishness." Furthermore,
"this gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual
behavior."[47]
• Child psychologist Burton L. White, PhD,[48] finds a "selfish" trait in children from
birth, a trait that expresses itself in actions that are "blatantly selfish."[49]
• Sociologist William Graham Sumner finds it a fact that "everywhere one meets
"fraud, corruption, ignorance, selfishness, and all the other vices of human
nature."[50] He enumerates "the vices and passions of human nature" as "cupidity,
lust, vindictiveness, ambition, and vanity." Sumner finds such human nature to be
universal: in all people, in all places, and in all stations in society.[51]
• Psychiatrist Thomas Anthony Harris, MD, on the basis of his "data at hand,"
observes "sin, or badness, or evil, or 'human nature', whatever we call the flaw in
our species, is apparent in every person." Harris calls this condition "intrinsic
badness" or "original sin."[52]

What is humanity as a virtue?

Confucian philosophy[]

Confucius said that humanity, or “Ren”(仁), is a “love of people” stating “if you want
to make a stand, help others make a stand.”[3] That is, the Confucian theory of
humanity exemplifies the golden rule. It is so central to Confucian thought that it
appears 58 times in the Analects.[4] Similar to the Christian process of seeking God,
Confucius teaches seeking Ren to a point of seemingly divine mastery until you are
equal to, or better than, your teacher.[5] The Confucian concept of Ren encompasses
both love and altruism.[6]

Greek philosophy[]

Plato and Aristotle both wrote extensively on the subject of virtues, though neither
ever wrote on humanity as a virtue, despite highly valuing love and kindness, two of
the strengths of humanity. Plato and Aristotle considered "courage, justice,
temperance" and "generosity, wit, friendliness, truthfulness, magnificence, and
greatness of soul" to be the sole virtues, respectively.[3]

Abrahamic religion[]
Humanity is one of Thomas Aquinas' "Seven Heavenly Virtues."[7] Beyond that,
humanity was so important in some positivist Christian cultures that it was to be
capitalized like God.[8] Kindness, altruism and love are all mentioned in the bible.
Proverbs 19:22 "states the desire of a man is his kindness." On the topic of altruism,
emphasis is placed on helping strangers (Hebrews 13:1) and the biblical adage "it is
better to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

Strengths of humanity[]

Love[]

Love has many different definitions ranging from a set of purely biological and
chemical processes to a religious concept. As a character strength, love is a mutual
feeling between two people characterized by attachment, comfort, and generally
positive feelings. It can be broken down into 3 categories: love between a child and
their parents, love for your friends, and romantic love.[9] Having love as a strength is
not about the capacity to love, as such, it is about being involved in a loving
relationship.

Love, in the psychological sense, is most often studied in terms of attachment to

others. A degree of controversy surrounds defining and researching love in this way,
as it takes away the “mystery of love.”[10] Because love is mysterious, to an extent, it
is most often studied in terms of attachment theory, because it can be studied in the
way across ages. In infants, attachment is studied through the Strange Situation
Test. Attachment to an individual, usually the mother, is determined by how
distressed the infant becomes when the mother is taken out of the experimental
setting.[11] There are several models of adult attachment including the Adult
Attachment Interviews (Kaplan & Main), Adult Attachment Prototypes (Hazan &
Shaver) and more. Generally adult attachment models focus on the mental
representation of the visible signs of attachment seen in infants.[12]

Evidence in support of the benefits of love are seen in the negative affect states that
result from lacking love. Orphaned children have been targeted in studies about
negative attributes resulting from lack of attachment. Smyke et al. found that children
raised in an environment that didn’t allow children to become attached to their
preferred caregivers experienced attachment disorders.[13] Additionally, individuals
who develop securely attached have a lower likelihood of depression, high-self
esteem, and less likelihood of divorce.[14]

Kindness[]

The strength kindness encompasses most related terms that evoke feelings of
altruism, generosity, helpfulness and a general desire to help people. That is, a
disposition for helping humanity. The following statements are from the Values in
Action (VIA) psychological assessment, aimed at determining people's strengths in
kindness: others are just as important to me, giving is more important than receiving,
I care for the ungrateful as well as the grateful.[15] Kindness, as a part of humanity, is
deeply rooted in philosophical and religious traditions, each having words for the
altruistic love aspect of kindness, such as agape in Greek, chesed in Hebrew, and
the Latin word philantropia, the root of the word "philanthropy."[15] Kindness is so
valued as a strength beyond religious and theoretical concepts that it is advocated
through school community service programs and national programs like AmeriCorps.
Additionally, while gender differences in kindness are statistically significant, they are
minimal, and the methods of testing used may not always have construct validity. [16]

Kindness is most often measured on a case by case measure and not usually as a
trait. The Self-Report Altruism Scale and the Altruism Facet Scale for Agreeableness
Measure of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) psychological
assessment are often used to ask people how often they engage in altruistic
behaviors and gauge their concern for others.[17] The former, however, only asks
about 20 specific altruistic acts, leaving out a wide range of altruistic behaviors.

There are numerous benefits from kindness and altruism on both sides of the action.
For some, the motivation to be kind comes from a place of egoistic motivation, and
thus the benefit to them is the positive affect state they receive from the
action.[18] Another study found that the process of being kind develops pro-social
skills in children, which positively effects their attachments and
relationships.[19] Additionally, volunteerism in the elderly has shown to lead to
decreased risk of early death, and mental health benefits.[20] One thing to note is the
difference between altruism as a trait and as an act.[20]
A good example of kindness is a program founded by Bahadur Chand Gupta, which
provides free airplane ride experience to the underprivileged and poor Indians for
just 1 USD.[21]

Social Intelligence[]

Social intelligence is the most modern of the three strengths associated with
humanity. The Character Strengths and Virtues (CSV) psychological assessment
defines social intelligence as the ability to understand “relationships with other
people, including the social relationships involved in intimacy and trust, persuasion,
group membership, and political power.”[22]

Intelligence has many psychological definitions from Weschler’s intelligence to the

various theories of multiple intelligence. The CSV divides intelligence into hot and
cold, hot intelligence being those intelligences related to active emotional processes.
(338) Individuals with high social intelligence are very self-aware, and effective
organizers and leaders.[23] Additionally, it combines elements of the other two hot
intelligences, personal and emotional intelligence. Personal intelligence being the
internal counterpart to social intelligence and emotional intelligence being the
capacity to understand emotions. The CSV highlights three social intelligence
measurement scales: Factor Based Social Intelligence Tasks, Psychological
Mindedness Assessment Procedure, and Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
intelligence Test.[24]

Social Intelligence research is limited, however, there is much literature on the

characteristics associated with social intelligence. Zaccaro et al. found social
intelligence and perceptiveness to be integral to effective leadership; that is, good
leaders are “social experts.”[25] Emotional intelligence, too, plays a role in leadership.
Another study found that emotional intelligence enables leaders to better understand
their followers, thereby enhancing their ability to influence them. [26]
Human Mind vs. Animal Brain
Why So Different?
BY BRADFORD G. SCHLEIFER

Human beings possess a capability far beyond animals. Many ideas exist to explain the mind,
but few understand the truth.

Both evolutionists and religionists agree there is “something” about mankind that differs from
animals. Each offers explanations, certain the other side is wrong. How can you know which is
correct?

What is the human mind? How does it relate to the brain? Why do we not see animals with minds?
Most people do not understand the plain answers that have been available for thousands of years.

The argument can be summarized as the “mind-body problem.” It has been recognized that the
physical characteristics of the human brain do not warrant the extreme creative and processing power
that defines human ingenuity.

The answer is either physical or spiritual in nature—it can be explained no other way.

Unique to Humans

Consider just a few of the qualities man possesses that are unique among all living creatures. Many
attributes are so common and assumed that few give them much thought. Yet it should become clear
how special human beings are.

Ask yourself: Why does man have so many distinctive characteristics?

Self-consciousness: Beyond a simple recognition of self (as seen in a few animals), man can step
back and become a spectator, critic or admirer of the world around him. He is able to see his place in
the greater picture and analyze what needs to be done to affect his role.

Appreciation of beauty: Man is able to appreciate all kinds of beauty. This can be as simple as a
sunset, a work of art, or the intricate design of a flower.

For example, take someone to see New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, and he will likely feel
emotionally moved by the seemingly limitless number of paintings and sculptures on display, dating
back hundreds of years. Take a dog to the same museum, and it will be more excited about the trip
and seeing the crowd of art lovers than anything else.

Humor: No other creature is able to appreciate, create and express humor. Not only does it require
creativity, but humor also requires the ability to detach oneself from one’s surroundings to see the
odd, surreal or ironic.

Awareness of death: While animals have a survival instinct, man is able to consider that he will one
day die. Aware that his days will not last forever, he has a deep respect of his mortality. In fact, nearly
all cultures perform some form of funeral ritual. This is not found in the animal world.

Understanding time: Animals are only able to relate time to themselves. They have no ability of
relating time to third parties. Humans can wonder, speculate and search the annals of history for
lessons, and apply those lessons to goals far into the future.

Connections between words: While animals can understand simple words or tones, they do not
comprehend syntax or communicate in complex sentences. Human beings have created hundreds of
languages (and thousands of dialects), even though they are born without any way in which to
communicate.

Meaning of life: The simple act of asking about life’s meaning and purpose makes man unique. No
animal contemplates its reason for living—nor would it be willing to live or die for specific values and
ideals.

Malleability: Humanity is able to adapt to its surroundings. We wear clothes, build shelters, and
modify our environments to suit our needs. While animals build homes for themselves, they do not
have the ability to live in an environment for which their bodies are not suited. Bring a polar bear to a
tropical rainforest or an elephant to the South Pole and they will not survive for long.

Lack of harmony with nature: When left alone, nature reaches homeostasis—it balances itself.
Only man has demonstrated he can disrupt that natural balance through means such as deforestation,
changing the course of rivers, pollution, over mining for resources, etc.
A sense of morality: Animals always take the path of least resistance. They do not have a
conscience or sense of right and wrong. On the other hand, mankind will go so far as to control his
thoughts based on what he considers right or wrong.

Character: This is the ability to know right from wrong, and turn from the wrong and do what is
right, even in the face of pressures and temptations. The desire to build character is only found in
man.

Free moral agency: Unlike animals, man can deviate from his course of thinking and living
however he sees fit. Animals react through instinct—programming.

Capacity for wisdom: Without the ability to place themselves in time, animals are unable to weigh
situations with previous experiences. While animals can develop behavioral patterns based on positive
or negative stimulation, they are completely unable to analyze actions before they are performed. This
ability, known as wisdom, is unique to human beings.

Desire for worship: No matter what part of the world or his culture, man exhibits a desire to seek,
follow and worship a higher power. Animals do not.

Love: While some animals form lifelong relationships for the purpose of reproduction, none exhibit a
parallel with the human characteristics of love, in which a couple shares experiences, goals, dreams,
hopes and aspirations.

The mind-body problem is a towering issue—one that dramatically separates us from the animal
world. There must be a reason the human mind is different from the animal brain.

Evolutionary Answer?

The mind is one subject most evolutionists will not engage. Simply put, the physical differences
between the human brain and that of animals are insufficient to explain the “horsepower” described
above. Two aspects of the human brain demonstrate this point.

Human beings do not have the heaviest brains in overall weight, or even weight in proportion to their
bodies.

Also, the nerve center of the human brain is only slightly more complex than that of animals.

No physiological explanation exists for man’s mind! Biologists have no irrefutable evolutionary
evidence. Psychologists are stupefied by the human brain. And evolutionists are left with only one
answer: There is no scientific answer to the mind-body problem!
Immortal Soul

If the differences between animals and human beings cannot be explained by physical means,
we must look for a spiritual explanation. Most professing Christians would quickly agree there must
be a spiritual aspect to the human condition. They commonly argue that this non-physical component
is an immortal soul. Those who support this approach try to use the Bible for proof.

Expand ImageSource: Thinkstock

Certainly, if man had an immortal soul, this would help explain the immeasurable capacity of his
mind. But what does the Bible state?

The word “soul” appears in Scripture over 400 times, and for a variety of reasons. The first instance
occurs during the description of man’s creation. Notice Genesis 2: “And the LORD God formed man of
the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul”
(vs. 7).

The wording here is important. Note that man became a “living soul.” The Hebrew word from which
“soul” was translated is nephesh, which means “a breathing creature.” This passage states that man
became a living, breathing creature.

But was the soul that man received different from that of animals in that it was immortal?

Again, allow the Bible to speak for itself: “The soul that sins, it shall DIE” (Ezek. 18:4, 20). If a soul
dies, then it cannot be immortal! How can so many believe that man has an immortal soul when just
two passages from God’s Word prove this to be absurd?

If the immortal soul does not come from Scripture, what is its origin? Even the briefest look at
historical records makes this plain: “The belief that the soul continues its existence after the
dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple
faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture…The belief in the immortality of
the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of
Plato, its principal exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries in which
Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended” (The Jewish Encyclopedia).

Early Catholic writer Tertullian (AD 155-220) detailed where the immortal soul doctrine had its roots:
“For some things are known even by nature: the immortality of the soul, for instance, is held by
many…I may use, therefore, the opinion of a Plato, when he declares, ‘Every soul is immortal’” (The
Ante-Nicene Fathers).

If the mind-body problem cannot be solved by professing Christianity’s immortal soul doctrine, then
what is the answer?

“Spirit in Man”

A biblical answer exists to the mind-body question, which has been missed by the masses. There is a
spiritual component to man that elevates him above the physical.

Notice a passage in the Old Testament: “The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, says
the LORD, which stretches forth the heavens, and lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the
spirit of man within him” (Zech. 12:1). This clearly states that God created a spirit inside each human
being.

Proverbs 20:27 sheds some light on the purpose of this spirit: “The spirit of man is the candle of
the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.”

God uses the spirit in man as a way to interface with humanity. This is further expounded in the book
of Job: “There is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty gives them understanding”
(32:8).

Putting these two passages together clarifies that God uses the “spirit in man” to impart
understanding. Through this spirit, God is able to teach physical man a degree of spiritual knowledge.

Yet he is still spiritually incomplete—he needs another spirit.

Physical and Spiritual

Man is a physical being with a spiritual component. For centuries, mankind has experienced awesome
progress and advancement, but—at the same time—continues to suffer ever-worsening and appalling
evils, troubles and ills. This is because its problems are spiritual in nature.

Great leaders have recognized the link between humanity’s problems and the need for spiritual
answers. General Douglas MacArthur, while attending the signing of Japan’s surrender on September
2, 1945, near the end of World War II, said, “Men since the beginning of time have sought
peace…Military Alliances, Balances of Power, Leagues of Nations, all in turn failed leaving the only
path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness of war now blots out this
alternative. We have had our last chance. If we do not devise some greater and more equitable system
Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual
recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless
advance in science, art, literature and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand
years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh” (The Reports of General MacArthur).

Over 60 years have passed since General MacArthur uttered these words, yet problems worsen. Man is
desperate for spiritual knowledge—a solution to his problems.

Yet he must turn to God to learn HOW to resolve his deep-rooted problems. Again, man is spiritually
incomplete: he needs another spirit: “For what man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man
which is in him? Even so the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God” ( I Cor. 2:11).

God’s Spirit, when combined with our spirit, enables us to know “the things of God”—and to build
holy, righteous character.

The spirit in man also records the events, experiences and lessons in the life of each person, and it
returns to God when we die: “Then shall the dust [man] return to the earth as it was: and the spirit
shall return unto God who gave it” (Ecc. 12:7).

God then stores this vital ingredient of man until he is resurrected.

The human spirit allows man to reason, analyze and create. We are able to greatly exceed the
capability of animals because of this special, unique, spiritual component. The eye-opening five-
part World to Come broadcast series Does God Exist?—Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 1) presented
by Real Truth Editor-in-Chief David C. Pack expounds on the animal kingdom and the purpose of its
creation, which, without God involved, would not be possible. Be sure to watch it!

In addition, to learn more about humanity’s incredible future, including further proof of the mind of
man and its capacity for understanding, read The Awesome Potential of Man.
Viktor Frankl on the Human Search for Meaning

“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms
— to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own
way.”

BY M ARI A P O P O V A

Celebrated Austrian psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl (March 26,
1905–September 2, 1997) remains best-known for his indispensable 1946
psychological memoir Man’s Search for Meaning(public library) — a mation on
what the gruesome experience of Auschwitz taught him about the primary purpose of
life: the quest for meaning, which sustained those who survived.
For Frankl, meaning came from three possible sources: purposeful work, love,
and courage in the face of difficulty.
In examining the “intensification of inner life” that helped prisoners stay alive, he
considers the transcendental power of love:

Love goes very far beyond the physical person of the beloved. It finds its deepest
meaning in his spiritual being, his inner self. Whether or not he is actually present,
whether or not he is still alive at all, ceases somehow to be of importance.

Frankl illustrates this with a stirring example of how his feelings for his wife — who
was eventually killed in the camps — gave him a sense of meaning:

We were at work in a trench. The dawn was grey around us; grey was the sky
above; grey the snow in the pale light of dawn; grey the rags in which my fellow
prisoners were clad, and grey their faces. I was again conversing silently with my
wife, or perhaps I was struggling to find the reason for my sufferings, my slow dying.
In a last violent protest against the hopelessness of imminent death, I sensed my
spirit piercing through the enveloping gloom. I felt it transcend that hopeless,
meaningless world, and from somewhere I heard a victorious “Yes” in answer to my
question of the existence of an ultimate purpose. At that moment a light was lit in a
distant farmhouse, which stood on the horizon as if painted there, in the midst of the
miserable grey of a dawning morning in Bavaria. “Et lux in tenebris lucet” — and the
light shineth in the darkness. For hours I stood hacking at the icy ground. The guard
passed by, insulting me, and once again I communed with my beloved. More and
more I felt that she was present, that she was with me; I had the feeling that I was
able to touch her, able to stretch out my hand and grasp hers. The feeling was very
strong: she was there. Then, at that very moment, a bird flew down silently and
perched just in front of me, on the heap of soil which I had dug up from the ditch, and
looked steadily at me.

Of humor, “another of the soul’s weapons in the fight for self-preservation,” Frankl
writes:

It is well known that humor, more than anything else in the human make-up, can
afford an aloofness and an ability to rise above any situation, even if only for a few
seconds. … The attempt to develop a sense of humor and to see things in a
humorous light is some kind of a trick learned while mastering the art of living. Yet it
is possible to practice the art of living even in a concentration camp, although
suffering is omnipresent.

Lithograph by Leo Haas, Holocaust artist who survived Theresienstadt and

Auschwitz (public domain)
After discussing the common psychological patterns that unfold in inmates, Frankl is
careful to challenge the assumption that human beings are invariably shaped by their
circumstances. He writes:

But what about human liberty? Is there no spiritual freedom in regard to behavior and
reaction to any given surroundings? … Most important, do the prisoners’ reactions to
the singular world of the concentration camp prove that man cannot escape the
influences of his surroundings? Does man have no choice of action in the face of
such circumstances?

We can answer these questions from experience as well as on principle. The

experiences of camp life show that man does have a choice of action. … Man can
preserve a vestige of spiritual freedom, of independence of mind, even in such
terrible conditions of psychic and physical stress.
Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms
— to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own
way.

Much like William James did in his treatise on habit, Frankl places this notion of
everyday choice at the epicentre of the human experience:
Every day, every hour, offered the opportunity to make a decision, a decision which
determined whether you would or would not submit to those powers which
threatened to rob you of your very self, your inner freedom; which determined
whether or not you would become the plaything of circumstance, renouncing
freedom and dignity to become molded into the form of the typical inmate.

Like Henry Miller and Philip K. Dick, Frankl recognizes suffering as an essential
piece not only of existence but of the meaningful life:
If there is a meaning in life at all, then there must be a meaning in suffering.
Suffering is an ineradicable part of life, even as fate and death. Without suffering and
death human life cannot be complete.
The way in which a man accepts his fate and all the suffering it entails, the way in
which he takes up his cross, gives him ample opportunity — even under the most
difficult circumstances — to add a deeper meaning to his life. It may remain brave,
dignified and unselfish. Or in the bitter fight for self-preservation he may forget his
human dignity and become no more than an animal. Here lies the chance for a man
either to make use of or to forgo the opportunities of attaining the moral values that a
difficult situation may afford him. And this decides whether he is worthy of his
sufferings or not. … Such men are not only in concentration camps. Everywhere
man is confronted with fate, with the chance of achieving something through his own
suffering.

In working as a psychiatrist to the inmates, Frankl found that the single most
important factor in cultivating the kind of “inner hold” that allowed men to survive was
teaching them to hold in the mind’s grip some future goal. He cites Nietzsche’s, who
wrote that “He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how,” and
admonishes against generalization:
Woe to him who saw no more sense in his life, no aim, no purpose, and therefore no
point in carrying on. He was soon lost. The typical reply with which such a man
rejected all encouraging arguments was, “I have nothing to expect from life any
more.” What sort of answer can one give to that?

What was really needed was a fundamental change in our attitude toward life. We
had to learn ourselves and, furthermore, we had to teach the despairing men, that
it did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from
us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of
ourselves as those who were being questioned by life — daily and hourly. Our
answer must consist, not in talk and mation, but in right action and in right conduct.
Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems
and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual.
These tasks, and therefore the meaning of life, differ from man to man, and from
moment to moment. Thus it is impossible to define the meaning of life in a general
way. Questions about the meaning of life can never be answered by sweeping
statements. “Life” does not mean something vague, but something very real and
concrete, just as life’s tasks are also very real and concrete. They form man’s
destiny, which is different and unique for each individual. No man and no destiny can
be compared with any other man or any other destiny. No situation repeats itself,
and each situation calls for a different response. Sometimes the situation in which a
man finds himself may require him to shape his own fate by action. At other times it
is more advantageous for him to make use of an opportunity for contemplation and
to realize assets in this way. Sometimes man may be required simply to accept fate,
to bear his cross. Every situation is distinguished by its uniqueness, and there is
always only one right answer to the problem posed by the situation at hand.

Lithograph by
Leo Haas, Holocaust artist who survived Theresienstadt and Auschwitz (public
domain)
In considering the human capacity for good and evil and the conditions that bring out
indecency in decent people, Frankl writes:
Human kindness can be found in all groups, even those which as a whole it would be
easy to condemn. The boundaries between groups overlapped and we must not try
to simplify matters by saying that these men were angels and those were devils.

From all this we may learn that there are two races of men in this world, but only
these two — the “race” of the decent man and the “race” of the indecent man. Both
are found everywhere; they penetrate into all groups of society. No group consists
entirely of decent or indecent people. In this sense, no group is of “pure race” — and
therefore one occasionally found a decent fellow among the camp guards.

Life in a concentration camp tore open the human soul and exposed its depths. Is it
surprising that in those depths we again found only human qualities which in their
very nature were a mixture of good and evil? The rift dividing good from evil, which
goes through all human beings, reaches into the lowest depths and becomes
apparent even on the bottom of the abyss which is laid open by the concentration
camp. The second half of the book presents Frankl’s singular style of existential
analysis, which he termed “logotherapy” — a method of healing the soul by
cultivating the capacity to find a meaningful life:

Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must
recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word, each man is questioned by life; and
he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond
by being responsible. Thus, logotherapy sees in responsibleness the very essence
of human existence.
This emphasis on responsibleness is reflected in the categorical imperative of
logotherapy, which is: “Live as if you were living already for the second time and as if
you had acted the first time as wrongly as you are about to act now!”

Frankl contributes to history’s richest definitions of love:

Love is the only way to grasp another human being in the innermost core of his
personality. No one can become fully aware of the very essence of another human
being unless he loves him. By his love he is enabled to see the essential traits and
features in the beloved person; and even more, he sees that which is potential in
him, which is not yet actualized but yet ought to be actualized. Furthermore, by his
love, the loving person enables the beloved person to actualize these potentialities.
By making him aware of what he can be and of what he should become, he makes
these potentialities come true.
 Frankl wrote the book over the course of nine consecutive days, with the original
intention of publishing it anonymously, but upon his friends’ insistent advice, he
added his name in the last minute. In the introduction to the 1992 ion, in reflecting
upon the millions of copies sold in the half-century since the original publication,
Frankl makes a poignant meta-comment about something George Saunders recently
echoed, noting:
In the first place I do not at all see in the bestseller status of my book an
achievement and accomplishment on my part but rather an expression of the misery
of our time: if hundreds of thousands of people reach out for a book whose very title
promises to deal with the question of a meaning to life, it must be a question that
burns under their fingernails. … At first, however, it had been written with the
absolute conviction that, as an anonymous opus, it could never earn its author
literary fame.

In the same introduction, he shares a piece of timeless advice on success he often

gives his students:

Don’t aim at success — the more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you
are going to miss it. For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue,
and it only does so as the unintended side-effect of one’s dedication to a cause
greater than oneself or as the by-product of one’s surrender to a person other than
oneself. Happiness must happen, and the same holds for success: you have to let it
happen by not caring about it. I want you to listen to what your conscience
commands you to do and go on to carry it out to the best of your knowledge. Then
you will live to see that in the long run—in the long run, I say!—success will follow
you precisely because you had forgotten to think of it.

View publication stats