Determinism and Free Will - nonsense

 https://www.cardozoacademy.org/thoughtstoponder/determinism-and-free-will-ttp-258/

Those who study these narratives very carefully will realize, however, that the midrash was not obliged to give this interpretation. It could have allowed for an explanation which would be much more in line with the idea of free will and would be easier on God. But it did not. It took the difficult road, to emphasize the paradox of free will versus determinism, and it dared to accuse God of a deliberate and false accusation against man.

B. F. Skinner - Behavior Control, Freedom, and Morality (1972)

Freewill vs Determinism

 https://www.simplypsychology.org/freewill-determinism.html

Hard determinism sees free will as an illusion and believes that every event and action has a cause.

Behaviorists are strong believers in hard determinism. Their most forthright and articulate spokesman has been B. F. Skinner. Concepts like “free will” and “motivation” are dismissed as illusions that disguise the real causes of human behavior.

In Skinner’s scheme of things the person who commits a crime has no real choice. (S)he is propelled in this direction by environmental circumstances and a personal history, which makes breaking the law natural and inevitable.

Rav Wolbe: Religion has replaced sex as taboo

This is my translation of an excerpt (pp 72-73) from Rav Wolbe's essay on Religion and Psychiatry that I recently posted 

========================================

Frankel quotes the Yale University psychiatrist, F. C. Redlich, “Psychodynamic psychiatry threatens the strict religious dogmas. It seems to do this by its implicit values rather than by explicit statement.” Frankel added the following comment after attending a conference of psychiatrists in New York. “It is almost impossible to find in New York psycho-analysts who don’t have serious doubts about the mental health of their clients - if after completing their psychoanalytic treatment they are still actively religious.” If this observation is in fact accurate, perhaps it is truly time to acknowledge that there is absolutely no necessary contradiction between the Jewish conceptualization of man and that of psychiatry. Perhaps the two views even complement each other. I am going to allow myself to be sarcastic for a moment and to say, After seeing the elevated picture of man as the beloved friend – how can one be satisfied with the picture of man as an intelligent monkey with the addition of a subconscious mind and a bit of sublimation?” There is to this matter an additional aspect. Psycho-analysis made a major contribution by revealing the mechanism of repression i.e., repression of the libido. With the passage of the years the analytic concepts such as libido and repression have in my opinion – become very popular. While permissiveness is not implicit in psycho-analysis, nevertheless the popularization of psycho-analysis has caused it. That is because the masses have found justification in it for permissiveness. Perhaps they have even found guidance to behavior which is very free concerning sexual issues. Consequently – repression of the libido has become uncommon.  Today there is no repression of sex – but there is repression of religious feelings. That is what Frankel has written. He quotes Gordon Allport, “Perhaps there has been an exchange -  during the course of the last 50 years - between the nature of religion and sexuality: Today psychologists write without any inhibition-  such as Freud or Kinsey – regarding the passions of man. However they blush and keep quiet the moment the conversation comes to religious yearnings.

Psychiatry in Crisis! Mental Health Director Rejects Psychiatric “Bible” and Replaces With… Nothing

Scientific American   What is mental illness? Schizophrenia? Autism? Bipolar disorder? Depression? Since the 1950s, the profession of psychiatry has attempted to provide definitive answers to these questions in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Often called The Bible of psychiatry, the DSM serves as the ultimate authority for diagnosis, treatment and insurance coverage of mental illness.

Now, in a move sure to rock psychiatry, psychology and other fields that address mental illness, the director of the National Institutes of Mental Health has announced that the federal agency–which provides grants for research on mental illness–will be “re-orienting its research away from DSM categories.” Thomas Insel’s statement comes just weeks before the scheduled publication of the DSM-V, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Insel writes:

“While DSM has been described as a ‘Bible’ for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been ‘reliability’–each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity. Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever. Indeed, symptom-based diagnosis, once common in other areas of medicine, has been largely replaced in the past half century as we have understood that symptoms alone rarely indicate the best choice of treatment. Patients with mental disorders deserve better.”[...]

Seridei Aish: Recommends psychology rather than force or prohibitions to deal with teenager who is obsessed with magic tricks

Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg (Seridei Aish 3:95): Because of the principles of education, it is best to avoid using forceful means on a son who has deviated from the normal path. You correctly mention that it is prohibited to hit a grown child. You are also correct in saying that the prohibition is not limited to hitting a grown child but rather it is prohibited to use any type of force because it has the potential to bring about results that are the opposite of what was desired. The modern educational experts have proven that force or strong pressure arouses in a teenage youth extreme stubbornness and a tendency to rebel. The best advice is to find an alternative activity for this youth which he would enjoy. In other words the strategy should be to transfer his current obsession for magical tricks - without his awareness - to other activities. Fortunately in the present case the youth is committed to Torah and mitzvos. Perhaps it is a good idea to send him to Israel to learn in yeshiva there. The change of friends and the spiritual atmosphere will cause him to move away from the American lifestyle and immersion in the nonsense activities of American youth. It is also a good idea that that the trip to Israel should be presented as a reward for his good behavior. You can also promise him that his magic trick devices  that he is enamored with - will be stored away and protected until he returns from Israel. However it is quite likely that when he returns from Israel, he will no longer be interested in the nonsense of magical tricks.

Torah & psychology: Conflicts in values and goals I

The recent events with the Weberman case in Brooklyn and apparently a similar situation in London, calls for a serious discussion of the integration of secular psychology with Judaism. The  problems for treatment of the opposite gender, conflict in values and goals. And what happens when the therapist takes on the role of the rabbis in teaching values and roles in marriage versus the rabbi taking on the role of therapist. Tomorrow I will be posting an important article sent to me by Dr. Klafter on this topic. Today I want to pose a question which someone asked me that clearly indicates the problems. 

There is an organization which provides therapy to frum clients using trained psychologists and social workers. The organization has a posek who has answered their questions for years. Recently a question arose dealing with a wife who was severely abused in all possible ways. She has been destroyed psychologically without any self-esteem or ability to function as an independent entity. Therapy and the law requires that she be treated as a separate entity and be given the skills and confidence to decide whether she wants to get divorced. The Rav insists that the Torah requires that the husband be involved in her therapy and especially the issues of divorce. 

What would you advise?

First update - the other side of the story.

After some investigation, I found out the rav's point of view. He had been informed by a number of people who had worked with the couple previously for shalom bayis that the woman's account of abuse are questionable and might possibly indicate delusions and psychosis. The rav said that the reality of the woman's story needs to be verified with others before giving her treatment as an abused person who probably should get divorced. The wife refuses for the therapist to speak to her husband and the therapist believes she is telling the truth. Legally and ethically a therapist can not go behind a clients back to solicit information when the client objects. Thus the rav is not asserting that the husband has to be involved because he is a husband but because of the need to clarify the truth of her claims. Thus there is a clear conflict between the values of secular therapy and secular law and the Torah position 

 Second update: Thursday Nov 29
Another case. A troubled marriage of a couple who are at the highest levels of Torah society. If they get divorced it will destroy their children's chance of happiness in shidduchim. Therapist insists that the marriage is unhealthy and supports wife call for a divorce. Their rebbe tells the therapist to provide wife with sedatives so she can survive the marriage until the kids are married off. This is a question of values - not reality or professional judgment. Does the therapist have to listen to the rav or does his Ph.D. exempt him from Torah obligations as seen by the rav


Third update - another  case
I remember, as a bachor in yeshiva, speaking to the psychologist of one of my fellow students who became psychotic. The therapist told me, "the basic problem is you people don't touch girls until you are married. My client would be way better off psychologically if he got a girl friend." When I objected that this was against our religious laws, he snickered and said, "It is my professional view that this is necessary for my client's well being." Would you require that a prostitute be hired until he got a girl friend because a licensed expert in the field of pscyhology said it was necessary? 

Fourth update - December 1 2012 What does it mean when a rav issues a psak in medical issues -  

See Rav Sternbuch paskens that alternative medicine can't be used instead of conventional medicine in pikuach nefesh cases 

Rav Dessler: Modern Psychology's mistaken view of man

Michtav M’Eliyahu (3:360-361 written 1949): Education of children regarding corporal punishment. Question: You have written that the lastest scientific research has a fundamental problem with the use of corporal punishment. They say that it is natural that children imitate what their parents do. Consequently if they are given corporal punishment then they will learn the improper lesson that they should hit those who act against their wishes... Answer: The secular researchers are mistaken because of two fallacies in their reasoning which cause them to misunderstand the true nature of the matter. 1) The first mistake is that they think  that man is born without any characteristics at all [tabula rasa] and therefore a person’s nature is totally determined by what he learns from his environment. In other words they mistakenly believe that a man acquires his personality entirely from his surroundings. This is not true. The Torah says “At the door sin crouches”. That means that even before a child is born that there is an instinctive attraction to evil. Our Sages note that when Rivkah was pregant with Yaakov and Esav  - when when she passed the temples of idolatry that Esav pushed to be born. See what the Maharal writes on this. That means that there is an aspect of instinct without conscious awareness or thought at all which are part of a person’s nature that he is born with which he has to fight against. It is obvious of course that the social environment can strengthen characteristics and that he can in fact learn from others. However the primary characteristics do not have to be learned from others because they are innate. 2) The second mistake is that they think that it is necessary to develop independence in children. This is an incredible error. In fact not only do they no need to learn independence but they need to learn submission and humility. They will in fact learn by themselves pride and murder. But to teach them “there is no one like me” (Yeshaya 47:10) is the approach of Edom< Examine well the letter of the Gra where he writes, “There are those who try to plant seed on a stone. But the heart of stone does not allow anything to enter. Therefore it is necessary to hit the stone and shatter it. Therefore I wrote to you that you should hit our children if they don’t listen to you... " We see from this comment of the Gra a totally different aspect of hitting. He says that hitting makes the child’s heart broken and subdued [so that he is capable of listening and understanding properly what is said to him - not just to punish him]. Study well Derech Etz Chaim of the Ramchal... It is difficult to quote all the relevant parts because there is so much material. Nevertheless he has profound comments and a totally different way of looking at it. He is saying that hitting one’s children is comparable to removing the impure blockage from the heart and the purification of the grave. [...] click here for 2nd half

http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2010/02/corporal-punishment-psychology-from-non.html

Open Letter to Rav Nota Greenblatt: Why your comparison of Psychology to Medicine to justify not investigating the facts behind the heter - is a tragic mistake!

Dear Rav Nota Greenblatt,

You have acknowledged that you provided the heter for Tamar Epstein to remarry without first receiving a Get from her first husband. You have also said that you have no knowledge of the facts but based yourself on therapists that Rav Kaminetsky said were experts and reliable. You stated that based on the facts that you were told – Tamar’s marriage to Aharon Friedman was a mistake and was null and void according to your understanding of the views of Rav Moshe Feinstein. The therapists claimed that Aharon was suffering from  severe mental health issues. In particular they stated that he is suffering from two major incurable personality disorders – either of which is so debilitating that no normal woman would want to marry him. It is claimed that Tamar stayed in the marriage with the hope that these conditions were curable. Finally it is claimed by the report that Tamar left the marriage when she was bluntly told that there was no cure for these disorders. There is apparently no one who disputes these statements.

However as Rav Aharon Feldman, Rav Shlomo Miller , Rav Landesman, the Baltimore Beis Din and others major rabbis have stated – the reports are in fact not trustworthy for several reasons. 1) only one of the therapists actually met with Aharon Friedman and he only said that Aharon was not going to change - not that he was severely mentally ill 2) the therapist who wrote the report received his information from Tamar who paid for his services and there was no input by Aharon or opportunity for Aharon to defend himself from the negative accusations 3) it is a well known fact that psychological reports are highly subjective 4) It is acknowledged by experts in psychology that the categories of the DSM diagnostic system include normal behavior as well as pathologies – and thus receiving a label of paranoid or OCD does not by itself mean that the conditions are outside of normal behavior. 5) Only one of the two therapists is frum and he did not speak with Aharon himself. Thus there is only one frum person claiming that Aharon has severe mental issues and he is testifying only from second hand information that he received from Aharon’s wife – hardly a reliable basis for establishing the truth. 6) Perhaps the biggest refutation of the reports claim that Aharon has severe incurable mental illness is that Tamar made no such claims against Aharon to either the Baltimore Beis Din or to the secular court. It is inconceivable that Tamar who is intelligent, sensitive and knowledgeable about modern psychology would not notice the claimed paranoid or obsessive compulsive behavior even after many months of marriage – until a psychologist informed her! Furthermore Tamar made no reference to the mental illness in her diary where she specifically discussed Aharon's good and bad points. Tamar’s most serious  claim was that Aharon was not sociable enough for her.

Given the above strong basis that the facts you were given a false  – it is a major puzzle why you don’t retract or even investigate whether the facts you used are true. You are quoted as justifying your inaction by saying that this is no different than a case in which a person comes and says a doctor told him that it is a danger for him to fast on Yom Kippur. You say – “Just as I am not qualified to investigate the medical condition of this person but I rely on expert testimony – so here I am not an expert in Psychology and relied on expert testimony that Aharon has 2 incurable mental health problem that prevent him from being a normal husband.” In addition you have said that even if 6 psychologists disagreed with the diagnosis – you would not retract the diagnosis because it has been established by two experts. You claim you are simply applying the halacha to the data given by experts – who would not lie because of the assumption that they would not do something to ruin their reputation.

Unfortunately your explanation is a severe misunderstanding of the nature of Psychology and the value of an expert's diagnosis - especially one made based on an opponent's statement. A better model for understanding what has happened here is the following: 

Tamar has been diagnosed with a potentially fatal heart disease. The doctor tells her that her heart will fail unless she stops indulging herself with a diet consisting mainly of pizza, coke, french fries, burgers and candy bars. Despite the warnings, she makes no effort to change her life style because her parents and friends say – as they always have - she is entitled to eat whatever she wants – and no one can tell her what to do.  

Consequently her heart is on the verge of failing and she is told the only way to save her life is to get a heart transplant. The problem is there are few  transplants available and because of her poor health she is on the bottom of the recipient list.

She goes to her rebbe Rav Shmuel with her problem and he tells her that he knows a heart surgeon who has exclusive access to hearts from men executed for crimes in China. He acknowledges that the morality and legality of the use of such hearts is questioned by many but says – “This is pikuach nefesh! You may surely rely on Rav Nota to save your life. While he doesn’t know anything about cardiology he is the world’s best surgeon and transplant man.” 

Rav Shmuel urges her to hire cardiologists to describe her heart condition as terminal and that there is absolutely no other solution than a heart transplant. She finds an expert who is willing to write a report totally based on what she tells him - because she told this expert that her previous doctor said she has very little time left and there is no more time for additional testing. 

She makes sure to leave out any information that indicates that life style changes would improve her condition and she distorts all test results to make her condition look as bad as possible. The cardiologist motivated not only by the fat fee he receives but the belief that he is saving her life - writes a detailed report that paints the darkest picture of her condition. He says there is no alternative to an immediate heart transplant and makes up a couple factors to make it even more powerfully urgent.

The next week Rav Nota transplants a heart from a recently executed human rights dissident. He relies on the reports of two doctors in China that the heart is healthy. With great satisfaction he observes Tamar miraculous recovery from heart failure. She is a new woman and she is very grateful to Rav Nota and to Rav Shmuel for suggesting his services. She returns to her life and her lifestyle with great happiness to be given a second chance.

But rumors start circulating on the Internet and even the mainstream media. There are apparently problems. Reports smuggled out of China indicate that the heart “donor” had a horrible disease. A disease that produces horrible disfigurement and muscle debilitation not only in the heart recipient but also in all her future children  - as well as ruining her husband's health. Various concerned doctors contact Rav Nota to inform him that there is a good chance that the heart is diseased and that it needs to be removed as soon as possible. Rav. Nota is well acquainted with the disease in question, and knows that its incidence in China is much higher than average. In spite of these dangers, he eschews all questions about whether this heart has been adequately confirmed to be free of the disease, and did the operation on the basis of the say so of people he doesn't know - but were described as experts.

Rav Nota replies to his callers, “I am not a cardiologist and I relied on the expert American doctors who wrote the report that she was sick and I relied on the expert Chinese doctors that certified that the heart was healthy. I don’t want Tamar to be upset by these reports. I am going to deny that there is any problem and tell her she shouldn’t worry about these rumors. Since I am relying on experts –  there is nothing to worry about! While these rumors might very well be true – but I will not consider the possibility unless the certifying doctors themselves say they were mistaken. My conscience is clear since I am simply following the rules and I have been guided by the experts  - as well as the beracha from Rav Shmuel himself. Stop bothering me and please don’t say anything to Tamar!”

Psychology’s brilliant, beautiful, scientific messiness.

Scientific American   Today, sitting down to my Twitter feed, I saw a new link to Dr. Alex Berezow’s old piece on why psychology cannot call itself a science. The piece itself is over a year old, but seeing it linked again today brought up old, angry feelings that I never had the chance to publicly address when the editorial was first published. Others, like Dave Nussbaum, have already done a good job of dismantling the critiques in this article, but the fact that people are still linking to this piece (and that other pieces, even elsewhere on the SciAm Network, are still echoing these same criticisms) means that one thing apparently cannot be said enough:

Psychology is a science.

Shut up about how it’s not, already.

I clearly cannot just say that without explaining why psychology is a science, although sometimes I wish I could just join the biologists, chemists, and physicists who are never faced with having to answer such questions. So I will start by quoting the main thrust of Dr. Berezow’s argument, and then explaining why the 20-year-olds who take my Intro Social Psych class each semester could have told Berezow why he’s wrong by the end of our first week of class.

From Berezow’s piece:

Psychology isn’t science.
Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

[To claim that psychology] is “science” is inaccurate. Actually, it’s worse than that. It’s an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. [...]

Kashering by renaming. What is Jewish Psychotherapy?

 Update: I carefully read this post for the first time after receiving a strong protest by a frum therapist. I agree with his objection so I decided I needed to add a preface. The problem of accepting ideas simply because they are from Psychology and thus assumed to be tested and true - is in fact a real problem which is why I published this There are many ideas which are not tested, not true and are in conflict with Torah values. BUT there are also many valuable ideas and techniques. It isn't a choice between totally accepting Psychology or totally rejecting. There is a need for thoughtful vetting of ideas and techniques by people knowledgable in both Torah and Psychology. There is also a need to focus on evidence based Psychology. There is a lot in Psychology - just as there is in medicine - which seems to make sense but doesn't actually work or can be harmful. 

We also need to recognized that there is also a corresponding problem of frum people mechanically applying Torah ideas - without a sensitivity and concern as to whether these ideas are appropriate for the situation or people and whether they help or harm spiritual growth.

============================================
Guest post

May University Academic Psychology be imported en bloc into Judaism?

Does Hashkaffah have to be consistent with itself, or may incompatible ideologies be homogenized?

How are treif ideas introduced into the Haredi community?

If you take ideas from anywhere and just rename them, 'Psychology', they automatically become acceptable.

'Psychiatric diagnosis' 

Denigrating, labeling and degrading another Jew, an action previously called ‘lashon hara’, ‘motsi shem ra’, ‘onoas devarim’, ‘mitkabed bklon chaveiro’ and ‘yalbin pnei chaveiro berabim’, is now acceptable if it is renamed 'psychiatric diagnosis'. This is what they publicly did to the husband of the agunah. He has grounds for lodging a complaint.

Even if this ‘psychiatric diagnosis’ is valid, which I doubt, it may only be applied 1) to a patient and 2) confidentially. In this case, it is public slander.

I doubt the validity of the DSM5, the categories therein, and the application of these stigmatizing labels.

The names of the non-existent illnesses in the DSM5 are merely derogatory epithets.

Just rename these ideas, 'Psychology' or ‘Psychiatry’, they automatically become acceptable.

Practices which previously were forbidden by Torah, for example, onoas devarim, obscene speech or shaming, all of a sudden become permitted by renaming them ‘psychotherapy’.

‘Psychotherapy’ is really ‘Just Talking’, and does not have any special status which permits violating Hallachah.

Psychologists and psychiatrists are admired for the mere fact of being 'psychologists' or ‘psychiatrists’ and will be invited to speak at a shul. Speakers will be invited to tell us "the secrets of marriage", "how to handle stress", "’how to’ … many other things", parenting, relationships, education and "the meaning of life" and so, deviously they introduce Christian existentialism, mechanical behaviourism, carnal Freudianism, deterministic neuroscience and Eastern meditation into our culture.

Freud has been elevated from the anti - religious person he really was (he wrote, "Religion is the universal obsessive neurosis of mankind") into a 'ground breaking medical pioneer'.

Psychoanalysis has been elevated from the pornography it really is into a 'respectable medical treatment'. Any harmful practice to another person becomes acceptable just by calling it ‘doing chesed’ or ‘therapy’.

Besides the current topical agunah/eishes ish/mekach taut case, there is another questionable heter from psychology which needs to be examined.

When women are allowed to have abortions or contraception, "in order to protect the "'mental health of the mother'" (rodef?), we have to question the vague, capricious, subjective term, "mental health of the mother".

Is the term, "the mental health of the mother" really an authentic illness and serious enough to warrant an abortion?

Some religious women may go through a doubtful "post natal depression" in order to get a heter for contraception...

I think the general practice appears to be meikel because we fear the risk of suicide.

Kids may try obtaining abusable, stimulant drugs through the questionable illnesses of ADD\ADHD and learning "disorders".

Shyness in a woman is regarded as being Tzniyus and is a very precious Jewish value. However, in the American value system, shyness is regarded as an "illness", "Social Anxiety", to be treated with tranquillizers.

In fact there must be many examples of the misuse of psychological conditions and behaviours, renamed as "illnesses", to make permitted the otherwise forbidden.

On the other side of the coin, there must be many examples of renaming bad practices as "therapy" to make permitted the otherwise forbidden.

What about electric shocking people against their will? Usually this would be assault, striking a person, but renaming this as "therapy" makes it permitted.

The Aseret HaDibrot forbids kidnapping. "Lo Tignov", Although this refers to one stealing a person for resale and being chayav mita, lesser degrees of confining people against their will are also forbidden, and involuntary psychiatric hospitalization may be a loophole through which this is done. Of particular danger are young girls, with anorexia nervosa, who are removed from their frum home environments and placed in very suspect circumstances where bad things and bad influences happen.

Viktor Frankl's Logotherapy. The only psychotherapy acceptable to Judaism?

In certain circles over the past 40 years, Viktor Frankl's has been promoted as, the only psychotherapy acceptable to Judaism!

Probably the reason Frankl's therapy is so popular in religious, especially kiruv, (and missionary) circles is his use of expressions like 'Religion', 'Values', 'Free Will' and 'Responsibility' as solutions. These are presented as opposed to deterministic Freudianism and mechanical behaviourism, and therefore appear to be an improvement. However these attempts to elevate psychology by "adding Spiritual Values" doesn't work.

Here we will show that Viktor Frankl's psychotherapy is the opposite of what it is advertised as. It is actually deviously introducing non-Jewish values and undermining Torah!

Both Logotherapy and Existentialism, which have been popularized, are actually alien to Judaism and we have been misled.

Viktor Frankl, prescribes 'Meaning' as a reason for becoming religious, and as the cure for mental illness.

Problems of living or whatever, are addressed by Frankl's followers with, "You need, Rx prescription, "Meaning in Life".

When someone is told, "You need to get 'Meaning In Life'" does that mean that 'Meaning In Life' is a commodity which you can "get"?

Actually, it's impossible to "get "'Meaning' in Life.""

It's impossible to get "'Meaning' in Life", because 'Meaning' is an abstract noun and does not denote any concrete thing.

What do Existentialists refer to when they talk about ‘Meaning’?

Let's search for the origins.

In the writings of the existentialist psychiatrist, Viktor Frankl, he recommends "Meaning in Life" as a cure out of despair or alienation or mental illness, and yet Frankl does not say what that "Meaning" is! He certainly does not specify "Torah and Mitzvot"! "Meaning" can be anything, and is subjectively unique to the individual.

In the case of Sartre the French, "atheist existentialist", "Meaning" could stand for, or refer to, exercising his freedom and creativity in literature, or fighting in the French Resistance, out of having suffered the "meaninglessness of life". Once again Sartre also holds that, "Meaning" can be anything, and is subjectively unique to the individual.

For Jewish existentialist Martin Buber "Meaning" appears to be found in the "Encounter" between "I and Thou".

For German existentialist, Martin Heidegger, speaking in 1933, "The Führer alone is the present and future German reality and its law."

Let's go to the first existentialist in order for us to grasp the origin of the concept.

In the case of Søren Kierkegaard, the founder of Existentialism, as a Christian, Jesuit priest, "Meaning" seems to refer to, turning to the Lord out of the sickness of Original Sin. This seems to be the prototype of "Meaning" from Existentialism's creator.

From here by induction we may generalize out what Existentialists refer to by "Meaning".

Existentialist "Meaning" refers to "turn to X out of Y".

"X" = existential "Meaning."

Where "X" means any subjective meaning you want the variable to be.

However "X" has a quasi religious orientation, like "turn to the Lord", although atheist existentialists have given a non-theistic meaning to "X" like 'creativity' or 'patriotism' or 'French freedom'. Sartre described Existentialism as "theology without a god".

The variable, "Y" could be any negative state you'd like it to be e.g. 'nothingness', 'despair', 'mental illness', 'original sin', 'alienation', 'meaninglessness' etc.

"Turn" is of a therapeutic or quasi 'religious conversion' nature.

Existentialists tell us, "turn to X out of Y!"

An underlying principle behind the use of Viktor Frankl is the double agenda of therapy as religious conversion.' i.e. "Meaning In Life" as a cure, being the reason for becoming religious. This is not seeing 'Religion' as Truth, or the Essence of Creation, but rather pragmatically, 'Religion' as "therapy" or crutch.

Just to add a sad digression; If he had lived in his time, how would Karl Marx have understood Viktor Frankl's therapy?

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

— Karl Marx.

It's because we have perspectives like Viktor Frankl's that we get responses like Karl Marx's.

Yidden,

We've been fooled!

By the way! Was Viktor Frankl really the spiritual, existential psychiatrist that propaganda makes him out to be? No! Who was Viktor Frankl?

Viktor Frankl was an extreme, institutional, organic psychiatrist who prescribed drugs, practiced shock treatment and carried out lobotomies! Surely many of these practices are excessive and violent and may be hallachicly questionable, but are allowed to slip through under the guise of "medical treatment"!

A further concern to Torah observant Jews is Jungian Psychology.

Is Jungian Psychology a gateway to cults?

Jung's concept of the collective unconscious led him to incorporate Eastern and Western religions. Are patients undergoing such therapy likely to be introduced to Eastern and other Religions?

Jung is embraced, because he also incorporated 'Religion' into his psychology. Once again 'Religion' and 'Therapy' is the program.

May we generalize this to an abuse of psychotherapy, the influence or conversion of the patient to the therapist's religion, or the opposite, the "dereligionization" of the patient to atheism? It must be noted that many patients are involuntary patients or coerced into therapy and do not have the choice of therapist with appropriate value systems and treatments.

Yidden, We've been fooled!

Torah and Psychology: Fundamental Issues by Dr. Baruch Shulem

This is a response to the recent post about Torah and Psychology.  It is very concise but covers most of the issues raised. Read it slowly and carefully.

I. Partial list of potential relationships between Torah and psychology/psychiatry.

1. Torah and/or  Psychology i.e. a relationship between equals – compare and contrast these separate entities

2. Torah versus Psychology  i.e. a relationship based on adversity or competition (between equals)

3. Torah analyzes Psychology i.e. Torah as the superior entity determines the value of all things in our world – including psychology.

4.  Psychology of Torah i.e. Psychology analyzes Torah from a superior position- found often in academic frameworks

5. Using psychology to ‘prove Torah as relevant or ‘true’ i.e. psychology being the gold standard and paradoxically superior.

6. Psychology as religion the standard to define goals, means and standards of ‘good living’ and ‘health’.

II. Different types of therapist

 I have encountered all of these relationships in my many years of working and teaching mental health professionals. I went through some of them myself before finding a home. I have categorized my colleagues and students into three very different groups:

1.     Secular therapists - #6 His or her training determines what language and techniques can and should be used. Religious issues are ‘just content’.

2.     A therapist who is religious - #1 His or her primary identification is with ‘psyc theory and interventions’. Psyc will determine health and goals. Religion is a person value not to be allowed to contaminate therapy.

3.     A religious therapist -#3 -  I use Torah language and goals supplementing my Torah work with people using secular instruments for measuring outcome and on occasion some medication.

III. Two Basic Tenents of all modern Psychotherapy.

All of modern psychotherapy is predicated on two basic tenets: the use of talking to develop a ‘clients’ ability to productively decide and carry out his goals in life. All of the divergent theories and systems of psychotherapy have seemingly contradictory vocabularies:   Gestalt – emotional expression

                   Cognitive – thoughts and ideas patterns of decision making

                   Psychodynamic – early childhood memories and emotions

                   Jungian – dreams and symbolism

                   Family therapy – structure, boundaries, relationships

                   Solution oriented – identifying strengths planning future activities

This all too short summary does not do justice to the depth and vastness of these theories and descriptions of the helping processes.  It does though show that there is no one acceptable theory is recognized or ‘proven’ to be effective or efficient. All are based on human dreams, ideas, theories, or attractive nonsense. 

All of these, and many more other therapies, have two things in common: a central tool is ‘talking or speech’. The second common element is the goal to influence who I am talking with – to help him ‘get better, healthier, happier, more in control of his or her life.’

            Talking and helping the person to ultimately be more in control of some part of his or her life.

            Thousands of pages, books, and training seminars.  Each approach claims to be the ‘one’ way to help.

IV. My personal Torah based approach

            The Torah approach I use is based on 16 words:

Genesis II, 7

Then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.^[1]

We were given two gifts: the power of speech and freedom to choose. I work only with these two gifts.

            The non-Jews were on to something when the developed “psychology”. Like many things from Torah they didn’t understand the depth – they got only the outer covering, they were moving in the right direction, but stopped too soon . 

We have the whole ‘thing’ – Adam body and soul. 

I believe the ongoing discussion of about ‘psychology’: “Kosher or not” is at best misplaced.

These two gifts are enough to carry out a fully effective and efficient helping process plus they come from a trusted source.

Baruch Shulem

---

 [1] ספר בראשית פרק ב     (ז) וַיִּיצֶר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו  נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה

Psychology and Its Limitations by a psychoanalyst - Dr. Greenwald

 https://agudah.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/JO1967-V4-N05.pdf

Psychology, due to its success in plowing through the previously uncharted field of the unconscious, structured its psychic apparatus by placing the instincts, the id, and the unconscious drives at its core. The simple, yet far-reaching distortion, was to see the psyche as total man. An unfortunate result of this distortion is the deterministic outlook of psychology which led to the denial of human free will, since the psyche was envisioned as functioning in accordance with certain set psychological 'rules.'

THE TOOLS TO COPE with these changes, to utilize these changes for the fulfillment of man's purpose on earth, and the source of strength to balance the great strain, are the Torah and Mitzvos of G-d, as explained by our Sages. If we strip psychology of its scientific aura and its sometimes cumbersome and complex terminology; and look upon it as a way to handle these changes, an art of living, then psychology is unlike other sciences in respect to the role of our Sages. It is generally accepted that they did not occupy themselves with the sciences, though they express some remarkable insights in this area. Science was viewed as a necessary useful tool for the understanding of many halochos, such as astronomical calculations for fixing the Jewish calendar. Since psychology is the study related to man's mind, his behavior, his way of life, then this is the 'science' that our Sages are specifically and essentially expert in. This is not to be understood superficially as we are prone to do, overjoyed in finding some grain of psychological wisdom in a Midrash, or in zealously .gleaning some psychoanalytically-oriented interpretation out of some Aggada, or~what is more dangerous-when we corroborate newly, developed attitudes and approaches to child-rearing or education with the wisdom of our Sages. One cannot develop theories of multi-dimensional implications such as regards education or living habits from one or two isolated Rabbinic statements, since nearly every such saying has one or many others in some other, or even contradictory, context. But more basically, there is a psychology of the Rabbis; .there is no Rabbinic astronomy or physics. The psychology of the Sages is expressed as a way of life, a very complete and unique system to fulfill all the needs of a Jew, from birth to death.

AT THIS POINT, I am painfully aware of two shortcomings of what has thus far been said. I should project in more practical terms this psychology of our Sages and then discuss what practical contribution modern psychological thought can make within the framework of this Rabbinic psychology. There is no doubt in my mind that there is such a contribution, though it must necessarily be selective in order to conform to our basic Torah outlook, particularly in the sensitive area of psychotherapy.

There Is No Uprising’ For Trump After FBI Search