Will this book help or make worse an existential crisis?

Will this book help or make worse an existential crisis?

it's shit holocaust propaganda that only tells you common sense, iow "people who keep a positive outlook are more resilient in crisis". NO WAY?

One lessons it teaches is that cognitive needs can be met prior to meeting physiological needs. That debunks the widely taught hierarchy of needs pyramid by maslow. what's funny is that I had a psychology teacher who praised that pyramid and that book without seeming to ever make that connection.

I've heard good things about the book, didn't read it myself yet though

As for the crysis, well that depends how it manifests in you, it varies from person to person so not everyone has the same problem they need to solve in it
Can't hurt to read a book though, can it

Am i remembering it wrong but hasn't maslow's hierarchy not been taken seriously outside of a historical context for a while now?

but isn't it obvious that if you can't fulfill your physiological needs you will still be proportionaly better off than your peers in the same situation if you don't neglect your cognitive needs too?

you're right, I had a bad psych teacher. But I think that lesson I said in my post is still worth remembering.

Maslow's idea was that you can't progress up the pyramid without meeting the needs at each step. so according to maslow you wouldn't be able to fulfil your cognitive needs without fulfilling your physiological needs first.

maybe not fulfill, but it is certainly desireable to not also dismiss your other needs just because your basic need aren't getting met. argueably, that would then make frankl's observation "new", but certainly not something common sense hadn't known before.

>that would then make frankl's observation "new"
I don't remember if he ever explicitly made that observation. It's more like a central theme the reader picks up on as the book continues.

I think people in business still use it.

i don't think he formulated it out, either. but he observed and wrote it down. doesn't that count? would he have had to conclude it?

I'm just trying to say that I don't think he considered that lesson any newer than you consider it. But I think it's a worthwhile lesson to learn for people who don't already have it in mind so I decided to mention it.

Help

My mom loves it, if that means anything.
So you'll probably end up okay on the other side

The stupider you are, the more it will help.

I fell for the meme and ended up reading it this year. I don't regret my decision because I had to do it in order to know, but the book is pure, unadulterated, shit.

If you must, go to a book store and read only the second part of the book, you will be disappointed but that's where the juice, and I use that term loosely, is. The first part is basically masturbation.

>calling a holocaust survivor's memoirs "masturbation"
You'll be the first one to go on the day of the shekel.

I am honestly not sure why this book gets the praise it does, maybe I'm just super fucking dense and don't get it. The book is basically a few quotes worth of wisdom and the rest a lot of tired shit that you have heard thousands of times about the 6 gorillion.
>Those who have a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'.
this nietzsche quote is like 50% of the message
>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
pretty similar experience to this user, I'm not even really much of a /pol/ack but it just seemed like a lot of wasted pages

>unironically uses the phrase "six gorillion"
>"I-I swear guys, I'm not a /pol/ack!
Pathetic.

right but the people he describes in auschwitz have those physiological needs met. they were in a pitiful condition but they still had food/sleep/etc. If physiological needs are not met then there will be no psychological needs because the organism will die.

maslow considered physiological needs as unfulfilled if the body struggled to function due to a lack of enough food/shelter/etc. that applied to the people he discussed. he didn't mean that physiological needs are unfulfilled only if the person dies due to a lack of that stuff.

I've mixed opinions about it. Some ideas are good to "learn" about, or to see stated explicitly, but some portions are completely obvious. All in all it is quite short, I think it's worth a read.

when are you people going to learn that life itself is a crisis?

you can distract yourself from it or you can hit it head on, but it will never go away until you're dead. It will always come back, each book giving you just enough to defend against it for a short while.

In case you're interested, calling Maslow's theory a hierarchy is a gross over-simplification. It was supposed to be more of a holistic thing, not as a "Step 1, must do this, then you can start working on Step 2."

They were worked to the bone and were fed a thin watery soup. Frankl got by because he was a doctor and was able to give advice to the guards who gave him extra food and went a little easier on him in exchange, so in a sense his physiological needs were more readily met than his other peers.