Finding Purpose: Do you have a life goal?

I just finished reading Viktor Frankl’s work on finding meaning through suffering. The guy was a total legend—one of those heavyweight psychiatrists right up there with Sigmund Freud and the rest of the greats, even if he doesn't get quite as much mainstream hype here in the States. What makes his perspective so heavy is that he actually survived a concentration camp. His whole big idea is that the people who truly thrive are the ones who have a "purpose"—some kind of goal to chase. He noticed that the survivors coming out of those camps were the ones who held onto hope, whether it was for their wives, their kids, their jobs, or even just a pet waiting for them back home. On the flip side, once people lost that sense of purpose and gave up hope, they got sick fast and didn't make it. It's pretty intense, but honestly, it makes so much sense!

So, after scrolling through the threads here and over on Psychocouch, I’ve pretty much nailed it: most people struggling with stuff just don't have any real goals. Honestly, if they just pushed themselves to actually set a target, it would change everything for them in the long run. And I'm not talking about small stuff like getting off the couch to grab milk at Target—I mean a real, long-term mission!

I noticed the exact same thing happening with my parents once they finally retired. They just spiraled into this heavy depression because they suddenly had zero "purpose" left to chase. So, what about you guys? Do you actually have personal goals—something real you’re striving for or trying to crush—or are you just letting the days drift by? Like, are you just riding the wave and thinking, "if it happens, it happens, and if not, oh well"? I'd love to hear how you all stay driven!

So, activist kicked off this thread, and honestly, I only just stumbled upon it today. I’m having a hard time seeing how the arguments used to shut it down actually hold water. To me, it feels like this topic has massive potential to turn into a really constructive, educational conversation, but the reasons given for closing it out seem way too subjective. Now, look, I could totally be wrong here—that’s why I’m putting this out there. But if things aren't as bleak as they're being made out to be, I’d love to see this thread get some life again!

Here’s why they shut down the thread—and I’m just gonna lay it all out there:

Look, Activia, I think I get where you're coming from... at least, I assume I’ve caught your drift. But honestly, making those broad, kinda insulting generalizations about the people posting here? Saying that users on this Forum don't have goals—or that their goals aren't "worthy" by your specific standards—is just not okay. Let’s be real: everyone here, including the folks over at the Psychology Forum, has their own set of goals and plans laid out. That much is crystal clear, and there's really no need to debate it. Whether someone actually wants to share those ambitions with the rest of the Forum, or whether other members decide those goals are important or not, is entirely up to the individual. It's their business, period!

I honestly don't see how the opening post is offensive enough to be the foundation of this whole thread. Just because the OP shared her subjective take doesn't mean the topic itself is problematic. Basically, the moderator just voiced her opinion that everyone has goals, which kind of downplays how much power those goals actually hold. What she missed is that beneath every single one of our goals—no matter how different they look on the surface—there’s the exact same engine driving us to act. Personally, I think people don't think about their goals nearly enough. Most of what people claim to "have" aren't actually goals at all; they're just mechanical reactions to outside influences. And if we're that easily swayed, then "we" don't really exist. If there is no "us," then there are no true goals—just default reactions. A real goal is a clear reflection of a being's will and the drive to make it happen. From where I'm standing, most people aren't actually striving for anything; they're just drifting, aimless, and totally lacking in agency. They aren't acting on their own authentic will to realize something meaningful. To me, a goal is the flip side of motivation for everything we do. It's the core engine of anyone's existence, and it's hands down the most important thing in a person's life. That's why this discussion is totally worth our time. Everything we are is defined by what drives us, and everything worth doing is what fills us with purpose!

Thanks for hanging out!

I wouldn't go that far.

Maybe "finding meaning" works when you're stuck in some extreme survival situation—like being stranded in the wilderness or trapped in a POW camp. You know, when you're staring down the end of everything. I’m pretty sure the whole point was just helping N. Mandel survive those 27 years in prison. But honestly? It’s a stretch to say that applies to actual mental illness.

We can sit around and debate the "necessity of purpose" until sunrise if we want, but that doesn't mean a damn thing to someone actually suffering—and I mean *suffering*—from clinical depression, schizophrenia, OCD, bipolar disorder, phobias, or crippling anxiety.

You're talking about needing an external motivator, but with pathology, the fight is happening inside the brain. Psychological treatments like CBT and standard psychotherapy are a completely different animal altogether.

So, yeah. This topic might be fine for philosophy, but it doesn't really hold water in psychology.

I have to say, I am absolutely floored that this fascinating thread was shut down. I truly believe this topic has massive potential. The author wasn't out there offending anyone, so in my eyes, closing the discussion feels like nothing more than pure subjectivity and an arbitrary move by the moderators.

And honestly, I couldn't disagree more with Ashley Mitchell81 regarding her claim that this belongs in the Philosophy Department. The way the post was framed—focusing on self-help, setting goals, and finding purpose—points squarely toward psychology.

To throw out another argument against Monnie's take: even if we were to concede that the subject matter fell under philosophy, the logical step would be a simple Psychology relocation to the right section. Instead, they just wiped it out without providing a single valid, reasoned, or objective justification.

Ashley Mitchell81 said:I mean, this thread might actually be a good fit for the Philosophy Department, but... Not even for the Psychology Department..

Why not go for the Psychology Department?

By way of random selection:
Check the floor. The syllabus and work plan, specifically item 5 regarding theoretical approaches in counseling psychology.
Viktor Frankl and the whole concept of logotherapy.

Strikalica says:

Of course, everyone has their own set of goals and plans laid out, including all the folks over at the Philosophy Department forums. It’s crystal clear, and honestly, there's really no point in wasting breath debating it..

You can only hold a view like that if you haven't actually done the reading.
Meaning, if we're looking at it through the lens of Viktor Frankl. We're uncovering the truth.It’s all about the process. We find our goals through the work; you can't just snap your fingers and expect everything to fall into place.
So, just because someone thinks they've actually found their life's purpose doesn't mean it's real; honestly, it could just be them wrapping themselves up in pure conformity or some other nonsense.

Since we're talking about psychotherapy, it’s perfectly legitimate to raise the question of whether or not having a goal is actually necessary.
It’s not about being disrespectful to anyone, nor is it some ego trip where I'm trying to measure my own worth against what someone else is aiming for.
That's just a massive, heavy question worth sitting with for a while.
The moderator just shut this thread down on their own whim because they clearly don't get what we're talking about.

hollowtrucker77 said:There’s really no point in repeating what Monica said, though she did make a great case for why this whole topic of "meaning" feels pointless.
Or rather, it's pointless for people who are already dealing with specific issues in the field of Psychology.

You're just playing word games here, and you're wrong.

First off, the main thing is that the author didn't offend anyone. Why is that being cited as one of the reasons for locking the thread? Honestly, that says more about whoever locked it than anything else.

Second, this topic is perfectly relevant to the Psychology Department... and yes, even for those who might already have "certain issues."

Severe mental disorders can't be cured through this method, but that doesn't make it any less important as a psychotherapeutic foundation, since finding life's meaning is built entirely on individual responsibility and the freedom to make choices (according to Viktor Frankl).

We can look at existentialism from a philosophical angle, sure, but this topic absolutely belongs in Psychology because we're talking about one of the existential therapies, logotherapy.

Anyway, I’d suggest Strikalica, and everyone else too, before shutting down threads... maybe actually study the subject matter. Specifically, you could even try reading—or just skimming for starters—the actual work the author is referencing.
Viktor Frankl: Man's Search for Meaning

Look, nobody has to agree with an author's premises, but you can express your disagreement within the thread itself.

If there were still a thread left.

Sandra Parker3,

I’m not looking to start some massive, heavy-handed debate here, but let's be real: logotherapy just hasn't proven itself to be an effective enough approach when it comes to treating psychiatric patients. It's just not cutting it. One size doesn't fit all. The method itself is kind of a mess, honestly, even if it’s charming and easy enough to wrap your head around. Right now, everyone seems to be obsessed with this patient-centered philosophy.

Logotherapy really hits its stride when you’re dealing with what people call an "existential vacuum," especially in gerontology or when someone is facing a terminal illness.

Personally, I’ve always been a fan of that Socratic approach—it’s exactly what Frankl leaned into. But let’s be real: logotherapy isn't exactly mainstream therapy. Not that I'm trying to win any arguments here, but there it is.

Let’s be honest, Frankl was a controversial figure, plain and simple. Even though he was a doctor, people have seriously questioned his character—and if you disagree with that, you’re being totally unreasonable. Just look at what some of his critics have had to say:

Some people love to claim that logotherapy is basically just a tool for authoritarian control. Take Rollo May, for instance. He argued that Frankl’s approach offers these overly simplistic fixes for the messy reality of being alive—which, honestly, feels like it ignores how complicated humans actually are. May’s main gripe was that if a patient couldn't stumble upon their own sense of purpose, Frankl would just hand them one on a silver platter. To May, that totally strips away personal responsibility and essentially "diminishes the patient as a person." Frankl didn't contest May's accusations until much later, in the 1970s, when he finally sat down for a written dialogue triggered by Rabbi Reuven Bulka's article. Even then, May doubled down, insisting the method was authoritarian. He pointed to Bulka's case study involving a schizophrenic patient to suggest that logotherapy shared the same rigid, controlling characteristics you'd see in fundamentalist religion. Frankl fired back in 1978, arguing that as a medical doctor, he’s simply making the most informed recommendations possible to help his patients recover. In his eyes, providing expert guidance isn't the same thing as being a dictator.

Too Religious—Frankl was shaped by a pretty strict religious background, sticking to kosher even through the early 20th century until things just got too difficult to manage. After the death of his wife, Frankl used religion to cope with her death, affirming his beliefs in God or a higher meaning. Because of that, you get people arguing that religion takes up way too much space in logotherapy. Once May started throwing accusations around in the 1960s, Frankl backed off from openly pushing religion alongside his methods. But if you look at the debate between Frankl and May, it's clear he never really dealt with those religious undertones head-on. Even though he tried to deny that faith defined his whole theoretical approach, he admitted that, in the end, logotherapy leads people toward meaning through faith. Other critics weren't buying that distinction; they thought the line between religion and logotherapy was a lot blurrier than he wanted to admit. As Edith Weisskopf-Joelson asserted: By trying to swap out "God" for some kind of secular alternative, Logotherapy starts looking less like a legitimate scientific method and more like a belief system. It’s basically just a faith disguised as a therapy school.

Exaggeration of Experience—In his most famous work, *Man’s Search for Meaning*, Frankl details his survival through various concentration camps, putting a heavy spotlight on his time at Auschwitz. Some critics have pulled at the threads of his story, claiming he padded his history to make it look like he endured much longer stints in the camps than he actually did. If you look at the facts, back in 1942, while working as a doctor at a major hospital in New York, he and his family were first sent to a "model ghetto." He lived there for two years, and let's be real: that place was a nightmare. It had all the hallmarks of the actual camps—overcrowding, starvation, the works. He didn't hit Auschwitz until 1944, and he was only there for about three days and two nights. All told, he spent about six months in the camp system. Now, people love to argue that he blew things out of proportion just to sell Logotherapy, but they're missing the point. During that entire period, he lost his father, his mother, his brother, and his wife. You don't need to exaggerate that kind of loss.

Questions of Character - Back in early 1934, Frankl joined the Fatherland Front, which was basically a faction of American fascism. Under that regime, they wiped out all opposing political parties and threw anyone in the opposition into detention camps. Then, from 1936 to 1938, Frankl was tied to the Nazi-aligned American wing of the Goering Institute, even getting his work published in their journal. Since logotherapy is a branch of existential psychology, it leans heavily into the idea that people matter simply because being human is a unique experience. Between 1940 and 1942, while working at the Nazi-run Rothschild hospital as a “specialist,” Frankl experimented on fellow Jewish patients who had died by suicide. A lot of people argue this kind of research was an ethical nightmare since he was operating right under Nazi supervision. Because of this, Frankl’s own history makes people question how much his background actually shaped logotherapy.

Too Dependent on Frankl’s Personal Experiences - While he was stuck in those Nazi concentration camps, Frankl’s existential beliefs helped him scrape together some sense of meaning during a period of total dehumanization. He actually argued that prisoners in the camps managed to discover a certain "freedom" through their suffering. But honestly? There isn't any proof that this was a realistic perspective for everyone in the camp. Critics suggest that maybe Frankl just found his own version of "freedom" through pain, and that his whole outlook was really just his personal way of coping with the horrific trauma he went through.

Regarding the supposed inefficiency of the treatment method, I think that really should have been handled as part of an ongoing discussion, rather than 😕
being shut down. In a thread like that, I could have easily offered a purely philosophical perspective—not a clinical one, since that isn't my field—but on a public forum like this, that shouldn't be an issue at all, especially if the moderator placed the topic within the Philosophy Department
.
A potential Psychology relocation could have served as a way to keep the conversation going
. Claiming that certain things are settled facts and aren't open to debate is a total no-no. Everything is subject to discussion; it's through questioning that we actually deepen, expand, and improve our understanding
.
Closing a thread prematurely feels totally misplaced to me. Honestly, in my opinion, it either stems from a lack of desire to moderate properly or from trying to do a favor for some "competing camp"
.

On a fundamental level, this whole topic has really piqued my interest
.
By the way, if there's any doubt about whether a topic belongs to Psychology or Philosophy, it really only means one thing: it belongs to Spirituality 🙂

Ashley Mitchell81 said:So, this topic might fit in the Philosophy Department, but definitely not in Psychology.

Look, this sub isn't an actual university psychology department; it's a place for anyone—especially laypeople—to hang out and chat. If you don't see how philosophy and psychology are totally linked, then I honestly think you're missing the big picture. Good luck trying to keep those two separate!

Anyway, Jamie Chase6, Sandra Parker3, and Ashley Mitchell81, thanks for jumping in!

Edit: and thanks to you too, Lisa Morales4!

wearyhawk83 said:This sub isn't actually the university's Philosophy Department; it's just a place where laypeople come to talk.

A layperson with psychological issues, apparently.

If you don't see how philosophy and psychology are tied together, then I honestly fear there's nothing you understand.

So—no comment!

Lisa Morales4 said:And claiming certain things are settled facts and beyond debate? Total no-no. Everything is up for discussion because questioning things is how we deepen, expand, and improve our understanding.

It depends on which subforum you're in. For the record, I’m not a moderator, as everyone here knows, and nobody is stopping anyone from starting this or a similar thread over in the Philosophy section. I don't see any point in dragging this out here, especially since Strikalica isn't even chiming in.

hollowtrucker77 said:Repeating Monica is totally pointless, but she did a killer job explaining why a thread about "meaning" itself feels redundant
or rather, it's useless for people who are already struggling with psychological issues.

Anyone who can grasp the echo of a single "why" asked of life will eventually have the answers to a thousand questions starting with "how." Some smart person said that once, even if they didn't use those exact words.

The whole point of living is having purpose. Not some mystical, airy-fairy thing, but a sense of meaning that makes every single thing we do worth doing. When you've got a solid motive, you can move mountains. Honestly, sometimes we're even willing to throw in the towel just because of sheer stupidity. So what could we actually achieve if we applied ourselves to something brilliant? Ignoring the question of meaning is basically self-sabotage. It’s ignoring our very core.

Meaning is a philosophical issue, but I’m telling you with everything I am: there isn't a single part of life where it isn't present! And here we are. In a psychology forum. Trying to sell philosophy as something separate from the human psyche, when they are one and the same. Let me be blunt: if people actually understood how deeply philosophy and psychology are intertwined, there wouldn't even be a need for psychology as a way to "make life easier."
"Make life easier." What a ridiculous phrase. It's just proof of how much we've fallen because we lack purpose. Life is joy! Nobody tells you that because nobody actually lives that way! Life is the ultimate beauty. It is the pinnacle of existence. And that pinnacle is infused with exactly what we call meaning!
There is nothing sadder than watching people get lost in the struggle instead of celebrating existence. They get lost because most people view life as this grueling chore that requires "help"—a crutch that barely works and only provides short-term relief. We walk around like cripples. Helpless, weak, and impoverished. Specifically, impoverished of meaning.
It's a disgrace. Life is becoming a disgrace.

I don't expect you guys to get me, because honestly, I know I won't get that understanding. If I did, there wouldn't even be a reason for this thread. But what I would love is for us to start developing an ear for what actually matters. To realize that certain values might transcend our narrow views. Not because they aren't part of us, but because every single brick we're built from is part of that greater whole we so ugly reject!

That's all I wanted to say. No need to keep this going. I don't have anything to fix, and I didn't come here to change anyone's mind anyway. Let's make that clear. It's your call, and I'll respect whatever you decide. As far as I'm concerned, you can close this thread.

Thanks for listening, and catch you later!