often, selfish, form of life, but even more, if one chooses to remain selfish, it just doesn’t work — or if it seems to at first, it doesn’t last for long. Such concern for our own pleasure or satisfaction, instead of fulfilling us, ends by driving us back on our own limitations, like a child who gets sick on too much ice cream or sweets, or an adult who pursues his or her own satisfactions to the point that they no longer entertain but become boring instead. The Freudian dynamic is flawed by underrating the deeper potentialities of human existence.
Does Adler’s approach do any better? To some extent, in Frankl’s estimation, it is more on the right track. It is not so much happiness or fulfillment that can be measured in pleasure that people really crave, but much more the satisfaction of living their own lives to the fullest, even when this may involve quite a lot of pain. This fulfillment of the human urge to exist, to be, and to have their existence make a difference is a much more serious business than any pursuit of pleasure. As the Adlerian school sees it, there can be no lasting satisfaction or pleasure at the expense of denying one’s “real self,” the self that one is capable of being.
The problem with the Alderian school of thought is however, that as necessary a goal as self-actualization may be, it is still concerned primarily with one’s own self. Even if the midst of what may seem to be heroic self-denial of the lesser pleasures in life — and sometimes of the greater ones as well — it is still, at the root, a selfish or egocentric approach. It is still primarily a quest for self-satisfaction or self-fulfillment, however disguised in a search for a more worthy and more lasting goal.
So in the end, Adler’s approach only differs from the Freudian view in one important way and that is in the emphasis that it places on what is more directly the means or instrument used (the executive self) for finding fulfillment
Page 15
instead of the satisfaction or other pleasurable pay-offs that generally accompany it. Put in terms of corporate success, Adler’s approach would have us concentrate on the power and prestige, instead of the size of the salary or other “perks” that go along with the position. Thus both the Freudian and the Adlerian approaches are not only tailor-made for the “me generation,” they may have been, to a large degree, responsible for it.
To illustrate how Frankl’s view, with its insistence on self-transcendence, diametrically opposes those of Freud and Adler when it comes to this basic issue, I will borrow from some illustrations in another book of Frankl’s, The Will to Meaning. In his diagrams, which I have combined and added to, we have the basic directions of his thought:
FIGURE 1
At the lower left-hand of the illustration, I have added the “self” as a help toward understanding where we ourselves fit into the picture. Notice the solid line arrows give the basic direction of Frankl’s thought, while the broken line arrows indicate the faulty paths. The pursuit of happiness, understood particularly in terms of Freud’s
Page 16
pleasure-principle, fails to lead to any lasting fulfillment. The arrow of Adler’s “Will-to-Power” starts off in the right direction but falls back on the self — particularly in the more recent interpretations of this term.
As I have indicated by the direction of the arrows in the diagram, the flow of energy must be consistently clockwise. If we make the mistake of trying to move around the diagram counter-clockwise we shall not only miss the central point of our whole discussion of Frankl and his thought, but we shall find ourselves also misunderstanding and, what is worse, misleading ourselves on what we imagine is the path of faith.
Meaning and Transcendence
In his introduction to one of his earlier books, Frankl wrote:
Man lives in three dimensions; the somatic, the mental, and the spiritual. The spiritual dimension cannot be ignored, for it is what makes us human.
(The Doctor and the Soul: From Psychotherapy to Logotherapy).
As we shall see, there is really nothing new in this statement. True meaning or purpose, if it is to be worthy of our capacity for full human existence, has to be found in a form that surpasses whatever level of existence that we now enjoy or suffer. Frankl used the word Logos (the ancient Greek term for the guiding reason or intelligence that directs the universe) for this meaning or purpose in life. It is this something that is greater than ourselves which alone can fully call forth our capacity to become fully what we are capable of.
If Freud’s approach to happiness or self-fulfillment is flawed, it is not just because it is defective psychologically speaking; it is even more lacking as a philosophy of life. It
Page 17
simply underestimates human capacity and needs. At its root the Freudian philosophy of life is primarily concerned with what the ancient philosophers called the somatic or bodily level of existence, reducing the meaning of human existence to the satisfaction of needs which, although they have their psychological aspects, are, at root, physical in nature.
Adler’s approach is, as we said, more on target, being concerned with the human need to be a self-determined person in one’s own right. Adler’s “will-to-power,” translated as “self-actualization” by his American disciple, Carl R. Rogers (see On Becoming a Person), points to the human need to become more rather than simply to have or enjoy more. But it too falls short. It focuses on what is more properly psychological or the “mental” dimension in human nature, but is this enough? For Frankl, obviously not.
Here Frankl, again adapting the language of the ancient philosophers, saw something more to human nature than simply the body (soma) and soul or mind (psyche or nous) . We also possess the pneuma or “spirit.” And it is this spiritual dimension that alone makes us fully human.
But here we must interject a crucial theological point. Basing himself on the ancient Hebrew concept that it is God’s spirit or breath (the Ruach Yahweh) that alone brings things to life, St. Paul tells us that it is our pneuma, the human “spirit”, that reaches out to God’s Pneuma, the Holy Spirit, and which alone can bring us to our full destiny as “children of God” (see Rom. 8:16). In other words, the three levels or dimensions of human existence are not by any means complete. On the spiritual level, in particular, we are not whole or complete persons. Our “spirit” by itself exists more as a capacity or potentiality than as an actuality or finished product.
Or if we were to rephrase St. Paul in modern scientific terms, we might say that while the evolution of life has brought us beyond the merely biological stage of existence
Page 18
to the psychological level, we remain unsatisfied and we, whether as individuals or as a species, not only are still in the process of trying to become merely more human, but even, to some extent, depending on how you look at it, superhuman. In any case, we are trying to evolve beyond what we presently are. Culture, religion, science, technology, and even the current craze for self-fulfillment all point in this direction.
The implications of this point of view are tremendous. Whether viewed in theological, philosophical, or even simply psychological terms, it means that the purpose or meaning of human existence must point to something beyond ourselves. This self-surpassing quality or effort is what generally we call self-transcendence. By it we mean the challenge to reach beyond ourselves, to desire more than we have, and in the process to become more than what we are.
Yet
