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