[unmole]

> Your last paragraph remind me also of the Viktor Frankl's "Man Search For Meaning" where the change in outlook was a difference between persevering and perishing in the camps.

Which is complete and utter nonsense. Sure, it makes for nice advertising for Frankl's Logotherapy shtick but it's not an accurate picture of what happened in the camps.

[Daishiman]

The fundamental point of people giving up vs resisting is the core thesis of Frankl and has rung true to every facet of life. Even if we are to assume his story is embellished, I have seen it played out time and time again.

[quincunx]

Can you elaborate a bit on "resisting"?

Been a while since I read it, but iirc one of his examples is of fellow captives telling themselves they'll be free before the new year, then the new year comes, still not free, and those would be the first ones to go (your "giving up").

But the alternative I never took as "resisting" - but "purpose." Frankl's own purpose being the study of people under such extreme conditions, but his point (again, iirc) being that having that indefinite, daily, purpose is what keeps people alive and brings meaning.

Now, granted, it's been a while since I read it, but can you provide some color to this notion of "resisting" ? It'd be interesting if you took something completely different away from it (or if I remember it incorrectly and should be corrected.)

[unmole]

Frankl suggests that the people who perished in Nazi concentration camps could have survived if they had a better attitude. This is intellectually dishonest and morally repugnant. It is akin to suggesting that people who suffer from depression should just try not being sad, only much much worse.

I will hazard a guess and say that nothing you have seen played out time and time again compares to the horrors of the Holocaust.

[Daishiman]

Why are you absolutely misintepreting his argument? It is completely obvious that he's saying that keeping hopes up helps, and helps a lot a lot. He's not trying to defy the laws of physics by which malnourished people can survive what is impossible.

[nescioquid]

I suppose you were there with Frankl and can tell us all about it and how you managed to survive. Did you ask to have your ladle of soup scooped "from the bottom" or did you have a superior strategy for survival?

Your comment is a vacuous, bald assertion that Frankl is "nonesense" and his ideas were a "schtick". Next time you comment, consider shedding light on the matter rather than merely smearing and adumbrating.

[yesenadam]

I believe the GP is largely spot on. Evidence is not easy for me to link to now—when I looked into this a few years ago, I looked up a few of the books linked to in the substantial Controversy section of Frankl's wikipedia page. That section was erased by Frankl's grandson a couple of years ago–yes, hard to believe. Before that, it said something like - Frankl only spent a week at Auschwitz, not the many months the book gives you the impression of. Before then, Frankl also himself did medical experiments on Jews (yes really, pretty horrific ones) and tried to get the Nazis interested in them. I read in detail about these claims in chapters of the books that used to be linked to, and in a couple of sources those books mentioned in turn. They seemed true, as far as I could tell. Maybe you can find them from the page history.[0] Also it mentioned that when Frankl tried to give a talk in New York in the 1970s he was shouted down by Jews calling him a Nazi. After learning more about him, that doesn't surprise me. It seems scandalous that Frankl's grandson has been able whitewash his story like this on wikipedia. I'm not a regular wikipedia editor, so I didn't know what to do about that besides register a protest on the talk page.

I also read and loved Frankl's book decades ago, and discovering something of the real story was highly disturbing. Also it seems that in actuality, positive mental attitude didn't keep you alive in the camps, although it sounds nice that it would. Survival was much more random. I believe people whose relatives died in the camps were/are highly offended by his suggestion that if only they'd had a better attitude they would've survived. It seems like victim blaming. The page also linked to a discussion of that, from memory. Sorry I don't have anything more concrete than that. It would be nice to restore links to those books, essays, etc to at least the talk page of Frankl's wikipedia page! Although it seemed like just Frankl's grandson deleting anything negative. (I haven't looked at Frankl's page for a year or 2, maybe it's changed)

[0] Finding out when Frankl's grandson (who has commented on the talk page I think) did his first edits, and looking just before that, might be a good way to find the old Controversy section.

[tedeh]

Here's a random link to his Wikipedia page history when the controversy section was still there: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viktor_Frankl&old...

[nescioquid]

Thanks for the response, as I was unaware of this. Unlike the GP, you've provided reasons for the criticism which is what I'd rather see than bald assertions of "person bad".

[unmole]

> what I'd rather see than bald assertions of "person bad".

Can you point to such an assertion in the GP?

[nescioquid]

The assertion that Frankl is "nonesense" and his ideas were a "schtick". That was the sole content of the comment. If there's a reason to be critical, I want to know why, not be treated to name-calling.

[unmole]

It was in response to a comment that stated the gist of Frankl's argument i.e. the change in outlook was a difference between persevering and perishing in the camps. The context is right there in the quotation.

To me, the idea that people died in concentration camps because they had bad attitudes is as nonsensical as suggesting gravity is a social construct. You might feel my dismissal needs more explanation. I respectfully disagree and this is a hill I'm willing to die on.

[jsackmann]

This article outlines some of what you remember (though not, afaict, anything about getting Nazis interested in his medical 'experiments') https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/vik...

Per the article, he spent years in concentration camps, but only a few days at Auschwitz.

[unmole]

> I suppose you were there with Frankl and can tell us all about it and how you managed to survive.

I wasn't around for the US Civil war either but I can still tell you that the idea that it was about states' rights is nonsense.

> or did you have a superior strategy for survival?

Frankl already had a superior strategy. He made himself useful to the Nazis running the camps and was treated better than his fellow inmates.

> Your comment is a vacuous, bald assertion that Frankl is "nonesense" and his ideas were a "schtick"

Do you really want me to explain why the idea that people died in concentration camps because they had bad attitudes is nonsensical?