Frankl and the Recursive Paradox of Suffering

Can two things be true at the same time? Can you hold two opposing ideas at the same time? Today I want to talk about how learning be be comfortable with opposites can widen your thinking and help you see reality a little more clearly.

"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." — Niels Bohr

There's a moment most of us know but rarely name. You're sitting with something — a relationship, a decision, a feeling — and two things are true at the same time. You love them, and you're furious with them. You're proud of the life you built, and you wonder if you built the wrong one. You're doing your best, and your best isn't good enough yet.

And there's a pull. A real, almost physical pull, to flatten it. To pick one. To call your partner the villain, or to swallow your anger and pretend you're fine. To lock in a judgment and walk away from the discomfort.

That pull is the enemy of clear thinking. And today we're going to talk about how to resist it.

Today's episode is about paradox — about holding two opposing things in your mind at the same time without collapsing them into a single comfortable lie. It's one of the hardest skills a person can build, and one of the most important. Let's get into it.

The Premature Collapse

Here's the problem. The human mind hates unresolved tension. It feels like an itch. It feels like something is wrong and needs to be fixed. And so when life hands us a situation where two opposing things are both true, we don't sit with it. We collapse it. We pick a side, fast, before the situation has earned a verdict.

I want to give that move a name today, because naming it is half the battle. I'm calling it premature collapse. The moment you flatten a complicated truth into a simple story so you can stop feeling the discomfort of holding both. It's the lazy move. It feels like clarity, but it's actually relief masquerading as clarity.

Let me give you the tell. The tell is when AND turns into BUT.

”I love them, but I'm angry.” That sentence cancels one of the two feelings. The ”but” tells your brain, and the person you're talking to, that the anger is the real thing and the love is a footnote.

Now try this: ”I love them, and I'm angry.” Same words. Different universe. Now both are true. Now neither cancels the other. Now you're telling yourself the truth instead of editing it down to something easier to carry.

That tiny grammatical move, replacing ”but” with ”and”, is one of the most powerful psychological shifts I know. We'll come back to it.

I recently celebrated my birthday. For me, birthdays aren’t a huge deal. But this one was a little different. I’m now the same age that my father was when he died. And it got me thinking about our relationship, even though he’s been dead for almost 30 years.

For those of you who have listened to my podcast for a while, you know that my relationship with my dad was not great. He was periodically violent and angry which made for a traumatic upbringing that took me a long time to resolve.

But the hardest part was the paradox of my father. He was smart, funny, and pretty supportive. He worked hard to make sure that we had everything we needed. He taught me how to ride a bike. He came to my plays and concerts. He loved science and music. He was curious about the world. There were so many things that I loved about him, and yet, he was caused a lot of fear, stress, and anxiety in our home.

After he died I was still angry with him. It took a lot of time and energy to heal those wounds. Part of me felt like I should hate him, but as I became a father, and went through my own struggles, I began to soften. I realized that I could hold that tension—I could still love him, and not approve of what he did. I could forgive him, which to be honest was more for myself since he was gone, and not discount the damage that was done.

Holding that tension was not easy, but it opened up my view of seeing that he was was also hurt and damaged. That he had never healed from the trauma from his childhood. It made me more empathic and more vigilant about not passing that type of trauma onto my own kids.

I could have stayed with the anger, but it wouldn’t have been helpful or productive. It would have made me bitter.

So why do we do it? Why do rush to choose a side?

A few reasons.

It's metabolically cheaper. Holding two opposing ideas costs the brain real energy, and picking a side is an energy savings.

It feels like decisiveness, which our culture rewards.

It signals tribal belonging. Once you pick a side, your people know you.

And it relieves the ache. ”He hurt me AND I love him” is harder to sit with than ”he's a villain” or ”I forgive him.” Either resolution is easier than the truth.

But the cost is enormous. You distort reality. You build an identity on a half-truth. And every future situation that resembles this one gets filtered through the wrong story.

So what do we do instead?

Act 2 — Paradoxes Aren't Problems to Solve

The first reframe is this: a paradox is not a problem to be solved. It's a tension to be held.

Most of us were trained to think the opposite. Western logic, going back to Aristotles assumes that something is either true or false. Either/or. Pick one. Other traditions such as Taoism and Zen Buddhism, handle paradox more naturally, but most of us didn't grow up with this idea. We grew up in a culture that treats unresolved tension as a failure of thinking.

It isn't. Sometimes the tension is the truth.

F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote:

”The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” — F. Scott Fitzgerald

Notice what he says. Not just hold them. Hold them and still function. That's the skill. Not paralysis. Not retreat into mush. To actively live inside the tension.

The Stoics built this into their entire operating system. Look at the dichotomy of control. Care fully about outcomes, pursue them, and work for them, and remain unattached to whether they happen. That's a paradox. Most people resolve it the wrong way and call it Stoicism. They go cold and stop caring and that's not what the Stoics taught. The Stoics taught full effort, full investment, and fully releasing expectations. Both at once. That’s the brave version.

Or this one: you are cosmically insignificant, a speck on a speck floating through indifferent space. And your virtue, in this moment, matters infinitely. Both. At once. Try to keep just one and you get nihilism on one side or grandiosity on the other.

Marcus Aurelius is the working example of a man who lived inside paradox without trying to escape it. He was the most powerful person on Earth. As emperor of Rome he was the absolute authority of the known world, and he reminded himself daily that he was already as good as dead.

He wrote:

”You could leave life right now. Let that determine what you do and say and think.” — Marcus Aurelius

That isn't nihilism, rather that's the engine of his ethics. The brevity of life is what made living virtuously urgent.

He held these paradoxes everywhere. He was a philosopher AND a soldier running a brutal frontier war that lasted most of his reign. He believed in the rational order of the cosmos AND he wrote constantly about how venal and exhausting the people around him were. He'd open the day with gratitude — ”think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive, to breathe, to think, to love” — and on the next page, basically: people are going to be insufferable today, accept it and keep moving.

Meditations doesn't exist if Marcus picks a side. If he leans full optimist, the book gets saccharine. If he leans full cynic, it gets cold and small. The greatness of that book and the reason we still read it eighteen hundred years later, is that he refuses to resolve the tension. He holds both, in private, every night, for years.

That's not a flaw in his thinking. That is his thinking.

Or look at Viktor Frankl, who survived the camps and gave us Man's Search for Meaning. The paradox at the heart of his work is recursive — it contains itself. Suffering produces meaning, AND meaning redeems suffering. Try to keep just one half and the whole structure collapses. Suffering without meaning is despair. Meaning without the willingness to suffer for it is shallow. You need both. The suffering clarifies what matters. The meaning makes the suffering worth it. Each one feeds the other.

If Frankl had collapsed that paradox, the book wouldn't exist either. He'd have written a book about how suffering destroys us, or a book about how positive thinking saves us. Neither one would be true.

Heraclitus saw this twenty-five hundred years ago:

”The way up and the way down are one and the same.”  — Heraclitus

Carl Jung taught that holding the tension of opposites is the actual work of becoming a whole person, and that collapsing the tension is where neurosis lives.

Different traditions, different centuries, and yet, the same insight. The wise person isn't the one who has all the answers. It's the one who can stay in the question without panicking.

And here's where this connects to everything else we talk about on this show. The suppression of emotions that I push back against every week, like pretending you're fine when you're not, or acting tough instead of feeling things is premature collapse. It’s just applied to feelings instead of ideas.

When there’s a big change in your life you can feel two things at once. You can grieve about a loss in your life, AND be excited for something new. You can feel sad about the ending of a relationship AND hopeful about what comes next. You can feel excited about new job AND still feel like an imposter.

Holding paradox IS emotional courage. Same muscle. Whether you're holding two feelings, two truths about a person, or two truths about your own life, the practice is the same. Don't collapse. Stay with it.

How to Hold the Tension

How do we actually get better at this? I'm going to give you three tools, and I'm going to spend the most time on the first one because I think it's the most powerful and the most teachable.

1. Steel-man the side you reject.

This is the practice of building the strongest possible version of the view you disagree with. Not the cartoon version. Not the version that's easy to knock down. The version its smartest defenders would actually make.

This is the opposite of straw-manning, which is what most of us do most of the time. Straw-manning is taking the weakest version of the other side, lighting it on fire, and feeling like you won. It feels like thinking but it isn't.

Steel-manning is the real workout.

John Stuart Mill said it better than I ever could. He wrote this in 1859 in his book On Liberty, and it's somehow more relevant now than it was then. Listen to this carefully:

”He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side — if he does not so much as know what they are — he has no ground for preferring either opinion.” — John Stuart Mill

Read that again. If you can't argue the other side, you don't actually know your own side. You just inherited it. Your conviction isn't conviction. It’s habit wearing conviction's clothes.

And Mill goes further. He says it's not enough to hear the opposing view from people on your own team, presented the way they present it, with their refutations baked in. You have to hear it from people who actually believe it. People who defend it in earnest. People doing their very best for it. You have to know it, in his words, ”in its most plausible and persuasive form.”

That's the work. And most of us aren't doing it. Most of us are arguing against versions of the other side that no thoughtful person actually holds, and calling that thinking.

So here's the exercise. This week, pick one belief you hold strongly. It doesn't have to be political. It can be about your relationship such as: my partner is the one who needs to change. It can be about your career: I should leave this job. It can be about yourself: I'm not the kind of person who can do that.

Pick one. Spend ten minutes writing the strongest possible case against your position. No rebuttal. No ”but here's why I'm still right.” Just build the opposing case, in good faith, the way someone who actually believes it would build it.

Two things will happen. Either you'll find your position got sharper, because now you understand what it's actually responding to and you can defend it on real ground. Or you'll find your position got more humble, because the other side has more weight than you wanted to admit. Both are wins. Both are how you become harder to fool, including by yourself.

And let me point out something important: This isn't fence-sitting or moral relativism. This isn't the lazy ”both sides have a point” cop-out. You can steel-man a view and still reject it. Mill did. Marcus did. The point isn't to abandon your conclusions. The point is to earn them. To know that your position is yours because you tested it against its strongest opposition and it held — not because you've never seriously examined it.

That's the difference between a conviction and an inheritance. Most of us have inheritances. Steel-manning is how you turn them into convictions.

2. AND, not BUT.

I told you we'd come back to this. The grammatical fix is small, but the psychological outcome is enormous.

Listen for the word ”but” in your own speech this week. ”I love my work, but I'm exhausted.” Replace it with ”and.” ”I love my work, and I'm exhausted.” Now both are true. Now you can think clearly about what to do, because you’re seeing the situation more clearly.

Some other places you might hear it include:

”I’m proud of my kids, but I'm worried about them.”

”I want to be there for my partner, but I need time alone.”

”I’m doing my best, but I can do better.”

”I forgive them, but I don't trust them yet.”

Try it for a day. You'll be amazed how often you catch yourself canceling out half of what's true.

3. Map the polarity.

Here's a journal prompt: Pick a situation in your life that's been bothering you. At the top of the page, write: ”Two things that are both true about this.” Then write them. Don't reconcile them. Don't pick a winner. Just hold them on the page where you can see them.

Then add a layer.

There's a thinker named Barry Johnson who wrote about something called polarities. His idea is that a lot of the tensions in our lives aren't problems to be solved — they're polarities to be managed. Work and rest. Independence and connection. Stability and change. Discipline and spontaneity. Freedom and commitment.

Try to ”solve” any of those by picking one pole and you destroy something essential. Rest with no work is rot. Work with no rest is burnout. Connection with no independence is enmeshment. Independence with no connection is loneliness. The skill isn't picking. It's moving fluidly between the two as the moment requires.

So extend the journal prompt. Identify a polarity in your life. Write down what each pole gives you when you honor it, and what each pole costs you when you pull too hard to one side. You'll see the shape of your own imbalance pretty quickly. The goal isn't a resolution. The goal is a map.

Conclusion

Here's where I want to leave you.

The brave move isn't picking a side. The brave move is refusing to collapse the truth before the truth has shown itself. To stay in the AND. To resist the pull to a clean verdict when the situation hasn't earned one yet.

Marcus Aurelius didn't resolve being a powerful man who would die and be forgotten. He held the tension. Every night, by candlelight, in a tent on the edge of the empire. That's where the Meditations came from. Not from the resolution, but from the holding of that tension .

Frankl didn't resolve the paradox of suffering and meaning. He let them feed each other, and that's what gave us a book that still reaches people eighty years later.

The Stoics didn't resolve the dichotomy of control by being like stone. They lived inside it. Full effort, full release, both at once.

This is the work. And it's the same work as everything else we talk about on this show. The same emotional courage that lets you feel grief without performing toughness is the courage that lets you hold two opposing ideas without flattening one. The same refusal to suppress what's real is the refusal to collapse what's complicated. It's all one muscle.

So here's the ask for this week. One thing. Catch yourself in one premature collapse. One moment where you flatten an AND into a BUT, or where you rush to a verdict before the evidence is in. Don't fix it. Don't be hard on yourself. Just notice. Noticing is the entire practice at the start.

And if you're up for the harder version — pick one belief you're sure of, and spend ten minutes steel-manning the other side. See what happens to you when you do.

The world doesn't need more people who are sure. It needs more people who can stay in the question long enough to find what's actually true. That's the Stoic move. That's the courageous move. That's the move that makes you harder to fool, gentler with the people in your life, and more honest with yourself.

Be brave and stay in the AND.

The Build an Unbreakable Mind program for building mental discipline is now open for enrollment!

My book Stoicism 101 is available! Order here!

Find out more at https://stoic.coffee

Watch episodes on YouTube!

Find me on linkedIn, instagram, or threads.

Thanks again for listening!

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.