Frankl vs Camus: Meaning vs the Absurd

Question

How do Frankl and Camus compare on the question of meaning? Both thinkers confronted the twentieth century's hardest question — is life meaningful in a world of suffering? — and their two answers define the poles of the modern confrontation with meaninglessness.

Quick Answer

Frankl and Camus both began from the same experience: the confrontation with suffering and meaninglessness in the mid-twentieth century. Camus, in The Myth of Sisyphus, began from the absurd — the confrontation between the human demand for meaning and the silence of the universe. His answer was revolt: to live without appeal, to accept the absurd and to affirm life anyway, like Sisyphus who finds meaning in the struggle itself. Frankl, from the concentration camps, reached a different conclusion: meaning is not an illusion to be revolted against but a reality to be discovered. Even in the worst circumstances, the person can find meaning — in the tasks that remain, in the loves that remain, in the stance taken toward the suffering that cannot be changed. Where Camus sees the meaninglessness and affirms the revolt, Frankl sees the meaning and affirms the discovery. The two are the poles: the heroic revolt against the absurd and the hopeful discovery of meaning.

Historical Wisdom

The two thinkers came from the same generation and the same confrontation. Camus wrote The Myth of Sisyphus in 1942, in occupied France, working through the experience of the absurd; Frankl wrote Man's Search for Meaning in 1946, in nine days after his liberation from the camps. Both refused the despair before suffering; both insisted that life can be affirmed in the worst circumstances; both rejected the false consolations — the religion of convenience, the ideology of progress, the numbness of distraction. But they diverged on the ground of the affirmation: for Camus, the ground is the revolt of the human spirit against a meaningless world; for Frankl, the ground is the meaning that the world offers to the open heart.

Philosophical Perspectives

The comparison has three dimensions. First, the diagnosis: Camus begins from the absurd — the confrontation between the human demand for meaning and the silence of the universe; Frankl begins from the existential vacuum — the emptiness that results from the frustration of the will to meaning. The diagnoses are close: both name the condition of the modern age, the confrontation with meaninglessness. But Camus treats the absurd as the permanent condition of the human being in the universe, while Frankl treats the vacuum as a curable condition — a frustration to be overcome by the rediscovery of meaning.

Second, the cure: Camus prescribes revolt — the lucid acceptance of the absurd combined with the continued affirmation of life; Frankl prescribes discovery — the rediscovery of the meaning through the three pathways. The cures differ in their account of the meaning: for Camus, the meaning is the one we create in the struggle; for Frankl, the meaning is the one we discover in the world.

Third, the anthropology: Camus sees the human being as the stranger in a silent universe, whose dignity is the lucidity and the revolt; Frankl sees the human being as the seeker in a meaningful universe, whose dignity is the freedom and the responsibility. The two anthropologies are the two ways of being human in the modern age: the rebel and the seeker.

Lessons From Thinkers

From Camus: "One must imagine Sisyphus happy" — the affirmation of the struggle in the face of the absurd. From Frankl: "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how" — the discovery of the meaning in the face of the suffering. And from the comparison: the two answers are not mutually exclusive — the revolt of Camus and the discovery of Frankl are the two poles of the affirmation of life, and the modern person can draw on both: the courage to affirm in the face of the absurd, and the openness to discover the meaning that is there.

Practical Application

The comparison has practical value. For the person in the existential crisis: the two answers are complementary — the Camusian courage to affirm life in the face of the absurd, and the Franklian practice of discovering the meaning through the three pathways. For the person facing suffering: the Camusian revolt — the refusal of the despair — and the Franklian discovery — the meaning in the suffering — belong together. The integrated practice: face the absurd without illusion, affirm the life without appeal, and remain open to the meaning that is given in the tasks, the loves, and the stances of the life.

Quotes

Camus states the absurdist affirmation: "One must imagine Sisyphus happy." Frankl states the meaning-centered affirmation: "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how." And the comparison is summarized: "Camus affirms the revolt against the absurd; Frankl affirms the discovery of meaning — the rebel and the seeker, facing the same silence and the same suffering."

Related Questions

• What Is the Absurd? — the Camusian ground.
• What Is Logotherapy? — the Franklian ground.
• How to Create Meaning in Absurdity — the synthesis of the two.
• What Is the Existential Vacuum? — the shared diagnosis.