While reading Man's Search for Meaning, I came across an idea that truly sparked my interest. Frankl mentioned something of an inner life. He stated that these memories that one could never be stripped of help during times of distress.
When I first read this, I agreed completely. I loved this idea, but then I started to think more deeply about it. Although it may help people in their current situation, relying on the inner life is something nobody should do. The past is the past, but one's living condition relates to the now. If one leads their life to relying on past good-times, nothing can truly be done for the future.
The past is important, it builds the future and it's how people learn how to act in future situations. It also helps Frankl's act of logotherapy, because by thinking about what mark one has made, a meaning and purpose can be extracted out of that. This is why everyone can find a meaning: everyone has a past. Even if it might not be great, there will always be something (possibly stretched and exaggerated) that can be looked at as a meaning. This is where I come to doubt that anyone can find a meaning if they're not willing and yearning for one. Sure, there are those that have known their "calling" to the earth from birth, but there are also those that haven't had a positive, memorable experience that could give them such a credibility and meaning in life. There are also those that have experienced only positive experiences, leading them to find no meaning because they can't recognize something that they've helped to make better.
This idea leads to my thoughts on "suffering" (another important theme in Man's Search for Meaning). "Suffering", although it has a dictionary definition, is technically defined by each individual. One may think that they're "suffering" when the $400 boots that just came out are out of stock, while another may think they're "suffering" when they can't afford to put food on the table. I'm sure that anyone that compares these two situations can see who's "suffering more", but is are the situations the only dictators?
I think not. If one allows oneself to "suffer" because they can't get their favorite boots, and they allow that to bring them down, they've developed a truly weak threshold. This weak threshold will only hurt one in the future.
Frankl states that everyone will "suffer" at some point in their life and that it's their reaction that truly defines the individual. The reaction means everything. Because everything has to do with reaction and, on a deeper level, perception, the person that believes they're "suffering" because of the boots will ultimately suffer more. What, if such a high threshold of "suffering", will this person allow to make her happy? And to what extent can this person's happiness truly exist? Everything neutralizes, including spectrums. However far down one gets (on a fixed, general spectrum) is exactly how happy that same person can be.
Although one that cannot afford to put food on the table is suffering more physically, one that allows suffering over the boots will ultimately "suffer" more mentally.
