Victor E. Frankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning” is an important and ever-so-timely exploration about the most central of questions: why live?

Furthermore, one of the key tenets of its message is that while the specific content of the answer may fluctuate a lot from situation to situation, its affirmative nature must always be independent of one’s circumstances for human dignity to exist.

The rather short but highly engaging book by the Austrian psychologist, neurologist, philosopher and holocaust survivor consists of two parts; Frankl’s autobiographical account of his experiences in various concentration camps - including Auschwitz - which gives him a lot credibility for his delivery of the brief introduction to logotherapy, the second part of the book, where he details the foundations of the so called “Third Viennese School of Psychotherapy”.

The essence of this consists of existential analysis predicated on the assumption of “will to meaning”, which deeply resonates with me personally in the midst of my own “noögenic neuroses” stemming from “existential frustration” with which logotherapy proposes to deal with. Its central message is captured by the following quote by Nietzsche’s that is often repeated throughout the book: “He who has a why to live can bear almost any how”, which gets much more credibility when repeated by someone who has gone through some of the very worst “how"s.

The most major new contribution of logotherapy and the very takeaway of the book for me is that the meaning of life is not a singular, universally applicable, abstract answer but something very concrete instead that should be derived from your current life situation. It is not about what you want from life but what life wants from you as Frankl puts it. One example he gives is that even if you lost all your loved ones, your task might be to remember them, which gives you the “why” to experience that loss. Furthermore, that experience can strengthen you to become able to help others going through something similar or even deal with the cause of that loss. Since life always contains suffering, that suffering too - if not especially - should be both dignified and meaningful, which is why logotherapy ultimately deals with the “why” - something which other forms of psychotherapy rarely dare to address.

This also answers how to “create your own meaning”, which has always been too vague and ethereal for my taste. There are usually concrete things and people in your life that you somehow care about without regard to the nature of the universe at the bottom of everything so simply focus on those. You don’t even have to decide any overarching theme that somehow encapsulates your entire personal purpose and being, just deal with the specific obstacles and opportunities of your current situation one at a time and that’s enough for meaning. So in theory anyway. Maybe one day I will truly great it and live it out but right now my grandiose drive coupled with immense freedom still demands more answers for what are the best opportunities to take, which are the problems most worthy of solving and how may I optimally contribute.

This leads to the still timely and relevant discussion on responsibleness, the necessary aspect of life via which much meaning is attained and which thus prevents freedom from degenerating into mere arbitrariness. One of my favorite quips in the book is how the US West Coast needs a Statue of Responsibility to supplement the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast, which I find very fitting in multiple ways. The discussion on freedom may already have passed its point of productivity in multiple areas whereas that on responsibility is significantly lacking, which might well contribute to the general sense of meaningless and uncertainty among various demographics. In a society with practically unlimited possibilities simply picking a direction to go and committing to it is no trivial feat with such common and often paralyzing fear of missing out. Hence, perhaps the more important conversation is about the proper allocation and prioritization of responsibilities as that is the way to meaning.

In conclusion, “Man’s Search for Meaning” is a highly influential and especially relevant book for the modern times even almost 80 years after it was written. My only criticism for it is that I would have loved for it to have been a lot longer as much of the discussion remained somewhat on a surface level. Regardless, it is worth reading ten times over just for the few deeper insights it provides and thus I have to recommend it to everyone even slightly existentially, philosophically or even historically inclined.

Finally, I have to borrow Frankl’s eye-opening ending: “So, let us be alert in a twofold sense: Since Auschwitz we know what man is capable of. And since Hiroshima we know what is at stake.”