Refuting Nathaniel Branden's 6 Pillars of Self-Esteem

[KorbenDallas]

Lightyearsaway,

Did you actually read the book The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem?

 

[Brant Gaede]

51 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Lightyearsaway,

Did you actually read the book The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem?

Ah, ha! A polite question, considering the context.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

8 hours ago, Lightyearsaway said:

You may be interested in a study showing that when smoking is part of your self-esteem, the warnings in packets make people smoke more https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222693048_When_the_Death_Makes_You_Smoke_A_Terror_Management_Perspective_on_the_Effectiveness_of_Cigarette_On-Pack_Warnings

I would say that, more than praise, self-esteem for most people entails social acceptance. I used the trivial example of a sweater earlier. Likewise, I may wear a shirt and get lots of compliments on it. However, most shirts that people wear do not receive praise. They just receive acceptance, which we generally find more important, as one could easily think of a shirt that doesn't receive acceptance and more seriously affects self-esteem. 

I was mildly addicted to smoking, especially compared to what I've seen in others. In the army. "Take five!" meant if you had 'em smoke 'em and I did along with many others. Several cigarettes even came in the C-ration packaging. Self image is not the same as self esteem. My self image was as a paratrooper who smoked because that was what I was. Getting through jump school contributed to my self esteem, so too my Special Forces training. Etc. Smoking didn't. The social component of self esteem is merely what is reflected back on you from others. You (I hope)--me--is already there with it. This sort of thing segues into psychological visibility, friendship and romantic love, the whole nine yards.

There are a lot of celebrities who feed on their celebrity status, something I'm happy not to have to deal with. I don't want to be bothered with being recognized; it's too distracting from cognition.

--Brant

[Lightyearsaway]

11 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Lightyearsaway,

Did you actually read the book The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem?

 

You mean The 6 Crutches of Self-Esteem?

The only true pillar of self-esteem was erected by hunter-gatherer ritualists, for reasons already mentioned.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Lightyearsaway said:

You mean The 6 Crutches of Self-Esteem?

The only true pillar of self-esteem was erected by hunter-gatherer ritualists, for reasons already mentioned.

L,

I saw on your YouTube channel you are a Chomsky dude. For your information, OL is not a socialist site and we have a policy here of discussing ideas, not preaching. 

If you don't understand this difference and keep up crap like the post above, I will intervene. Also, please read the posting guidelines about Branden-bashing.

Before you mouth off about fairness, nitpicking, snark, or this or that, what I am saying right now is not debatable. OL is not your personal playpen and OL members are not toys for your amusement.

Stay within the posting guidelines and you will be just fine around here. Consistently infringe them and I will restrict your posting privileges.

First warning.

Michael

[Lightyearsaway]

3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

L,

I saw on your YouTube channel you are a Chomsky dude. For your information, OL is not a socialist site and we have a policy here of discussing ideas, not preaching. 

If you don't understand this difference and keep up crap like the post above, I will intervene. Also, please read the posting guidelines about Branden-bashing.

Before you mouth off about fairness, this or that, this is not debatable. OL is not your personal playpen and OL members are not toys for your amusement.

Stay within the posting guidelines and you will be just fine around here. Consistently infringe them and I will restrict your posting privileges.

First warning.

Michael

Posting guidelines are acceptable so long as they allow me, and others, to freely discuss the merits of various ideas. If I find they don't serve that purpose, not only will I not mourn the restriction of posting "privileges" but I will welcome it, as the internet is too vast to not do so. 

As for Chomsky, my positions are quite different from his e.g. I favor voluntary human extinction via non-breeding, as the value of the countless species we bring to extinction is greater than the value of the one species we call Homo Sapiens. The second most ethical option I support, which Chomsky also does not share, would be once the population has greatly been reduced, for humanity to go back to living like the Kalahari Bushmen, with very little footprint . Of course, none of these options will realistically happen and we will likely drive ourselves to extinction involuntarily, taking millions of species with us.

I do, however, find Chomsky's political analysis of our current society to be generally of great value. His book Manufacturing Consent, for example, is an excellent analysis of the media. I used to favor his anarcho-syndicalism until I realized that even if widely implemented, it would only, at best, limit ecocide to the level that was being implemented a few decades ago. Humans, after all, were already causing the Holocene extinction in pre-industrial society, even before the massive population/production explosion that took place with the industrial revolution. But yeah, I used to be a big fan of Chomsky. I even did a documentary in College featuring him extensively - Golden Rule: The Investment theory of Politics.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 minute ago, Lightyearsaway said:

As for Chomsky, my positions are quite different from his e.g. I favor voluntary human extinction via non-breeding, as the value of the countless species we bring to extinction is greater than the value of the one species we call Homo Sapiens. The second most ethical option I support, which Chomsky also does not share, would be once the population has greatly been reduced, for humanity to go back to living like the Kalahari Bushmen, with very little footprint .

You are definitely not on the right site.

The core of Objectivism (which is a shared interest around here) is love of human life and productive achievement.

As you seem relatively intelligent, you must know that.

So what do you want here? A playpen to fantasize about being an enlightened martyr among the stupid?

Michael

[Lightyearsaway]

1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You are definitely not on the right site.

The core of Objectivism (which is a shared interest around here) is love of human life and productive achievement.

As you seem relatively intelligent, you must know that.

So what do you want here? A playpen to fantasize about being an enlightened martyr among the stupid?

Michael

Was just interested in seeing what kinds of objections I would find to my critique of Branden. I went to the forum that I thought would have some of the most thorough knowledge of Branden's work.

[SteveWolfer]

Lightyearsahead wrote, "I favor voluntary human extinction via non-breeding... [and] for humanity to go back to living like the Kalahari Bushmen, with very little footprint."

I wish you success in these endeavors and would encourage you to not wait for the rest of humanity.

[Lightyearsaway]

24 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Lightyearsahead wrote, "I favor voluntary human extinction via non-breeding... [and] for humanity to go back to living like the Kalahari Bushmen, with very little footprint."

I wish you success in these endeavors and would encourage you to not wait for the rest of humanity.

Oh, I didn't. I already got a vasectomy, which saves several football fields worth of wildlife per avoided child. One of the most moral acts any human can perform. May we live long and die out. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I didn't know people who live like Kalahari Bushmen posted on the Internet.

You learn something new every day.

Oh well, if one is going to be a Kalahari Bushman, at least be a comfortable hi-tech Kalahari Bushman...

Michael

[Lightyearsaway]

7 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I didn't know people who live like Kalahari Bushmen posted on the Internet.

You learn something new every day.

Oh well, if one is going to be a Kalahari Bushman, at least be a comfortable hi-tech Kalahari Bushman...

Michael

Haha, that was the 2nd most ethical option (and only "once the population has greatly been reduced"). But since I already fulfilled the 1st most ethical option (non-breeding), I need not pursue the 2nd.

Gotcha ;)

[anthony]

53 minutes ago, Lightyearsaway said:

Oh, I didn't. I already got a vasectomy, which saves several football fields worth of wildlife per avoided child. One of the most moral acts any human can perform. May we live long and die out. 

Fascinating, all this. It seems the Earth will at last have value when there's no valuer left to be able to value. It's the final topping of intrinsicism upon your radical skepticism - which bears out the thoughts of (who was it again?) who said that the two are never far apart.

[KorbenDallas]

32 minutes ago, Lightyearsaway said:

Oh, I didn't. I already got a vasectomy, which saves several football fields worth of wildlife per avoided child. One of the most moral acts any human can perform. May we live long and die out. 

Moron.

[PDS]

36 minutes ago, Lightyearsaway said:

Haha, that was the 2nd most ethical option (and only "once the population has greatly been reduced"). But since I already fulfilled the 1st most ethical option (non-breeding), I need not pursue the 2nd.

Gotcha ;)

Why not pursue both?  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

39 minutes ago, Lightyearsaway said:

But since I already fulfilled the 1st most ethical option (non-breeding), I need not pursue the 2nd.

L,

But you left out the most important factor in exempting yourself from not doing what you want others to do.

There is your own awesome self. I mean, after anyone--and I mean anyone, including the stupid people--learns about how awesome you are, how could anyone want you to deny yourself the stuff you want to take from others (including them)?

That's just not reasonable.

Michael

[Lightyearsaway]

1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

L,

But you left out the most important factor in exempting yourself from not doing what you want others to do.

There is your own awesome self. I mean, after anyone--and that even includes the stupid people--learns about how awesome you are, how could anyone want you to deny yourself the stuff you want to take from others?

That's just not reasonable.

Michael

There is no exemption at all. Read what I wrote again. Slowly and with good will.

3 minutes ago, PDS said:

Why not pursue both?  

Because 1) if everyone does what I did, within a 100 years, the human species will go extinct. I never said I aspired to more than that, and I already did my part (by having a vasectomy) 2) a hunter-gatherer society requires low population densities. Hence I don't advocate (as a 2nd best option to total human extinction) that 7.4 billion humans go back to living like the bushmen. A great population reduction would need to take place 1st, as already stated.

32 minutes ago, anthony said:

Fascinating, all this. It seems the world will at last have value when there's no valuer left to be able to value. It's the final topping of intrinsicism upon your radical skepticism - which bears out the thoughts of (who was it again?) who said that the two are never far apart.

Other creatures enjoy the world. Kinda hard to miss.

 

[KorbenDallas]

2 minutes ago, Lightyearsaway said:

Read what I wrote again. Slowly and with good will.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

13 minutes ago, Lightyearsaway said:

There is no exemption at all. Read what I wrote again. Slowly and with good will.

I did.

I believe the popular expression is called "changing the goalposts" after you get caught in hypocrisy.

It's what super-awesome people do to stay super-awesome.

I mean, why should they be consistent? They just need to be in power.

(Because they're super-awesome, of course. Any fool knows that.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

btw - I sympathize with this dude.

I, for one, would never want to live like a Kalahari Bushman. That's just plain awful.

He apparently doesn't either.

And I don't blame him. Not when there's all this good stuff to enjoy from capitalism.

And, from the looks of things, he's certainly enjoying his "fair share."

Michael

[Lightyearsaway]

22 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I did.

I believe the popular expression is called "changing the goalposts" after you get caught in hypocrisy.

It's what super-awesome people do to stay super-awesome.

I mean, why should they be consistent? They just need to be in power.

(Because they're super-awesome, of course. Any fool knows that.)

Michael

 

19 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

btw - I sympathize with this dude.

I, for one, would never want to live like a Kalahari Bushman. That's just plain awful.

He apparently doesn't either.

And I don't blame him. Not when there's all this good stuff to enjoy from capitalism.

And, from the looks of things, he's certainly enjoying his "fair share."

Michael

 

It would indeed be hypocritical if I had advocated that people go back to living like the Bushmen before a massive population reduction took place.

Or if I hadn't proposed having vasectomies to go completely extinct as a better option.

That's why you must assume these things I didn't say - to be able to call me hypocrite. 

Let's not resort to such tactics.

As for the Bushmen, my point was their admirably low footprint. The information we have does not support the notion that they lived an "awful life". Even today, with much of their former lifestyle undermined, those still maintaining a hunter-gatherer lifestyle show some incredible qualities. And the illusion of cosmic heroism described by Ernest Becker, which they posses and we lack, may be the most important requirement for maximizing life enjoyment. 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just now, Lightyearsaway said:

Let's not resort to such tactics.

Oh, but let us, shall we?

I mean we're both awesome.

Michael

[Lightyearsaway]

These people really live their cosmic heroism.

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Lightyearsaway said:

Other creatures enjoy the world. Kinda hard to miss.

 

Sharp questions asked by interviewer. I think your "enjoy" is a fudge word for "value" with an anthropomorphic bias. In men's eyes, animals frolic and play as we do, (and a few mate for life) but instinctively as part of their pack-herd socialization and hunt/defence practice. It's very likely a sort of enjoyment for them, releasing endorphins etc., as for us. Value otoh, is a much higher level - every value has to be learned and chosen by each individual. It doesn't come 'naturally' to our species. (While there is often imitation made of other people's values, which is a fake value). As corellation with his 'valuing', man is the only one that is able to 'dis-value' his life, or all life (animals and insects cannot, or would have perished), and like this guy, wish for its end ...

...which circles back to your opening about self-esteem. What is it, why it's essential and how it's created (and how you have not refuted Branden, but have unwittingly I suppose, accentuated and validated his works. Good on ya, man ).

 

[Lightyearsaway]

23 minutes ago, anthony said:

Sharp questions asked by interviewer. I think your "enjoy" is a fudge word for "value" with an anthropomorphic bias. In men's eyes, animals frolic and play as we do, (and a few mate for life) but instinctively as part of their pack-herd socialization and hunt/defence practice. It's very likely a sort of enjoyment for them, releasing endorphins etc., as for us. Value otoh, is a much higher level - every value has to be learned and chosen by each individual. It doesn't come 'naturally' to our species. (While there is often imitation made of other people's values, which is a fake value). As corellation with his 'valuing', man is the only one that is able to 'dis-value' his life, or all life (animals and insects cannot, or would have perished), and like this guy, wish for its end ...

...which circles back to your opening about self-esteem. What is it, why it's essential and how it's created (and how you have not refuted Branden, but have unwittingly, I suppose, accentuated and validated his works. Good on ya, man ).

 

Unless you explain how, you'll just be stating so by fiat or wishful assumptions; under the vaguely articulated pretense of some unstated inconsistency.  It is a common bad habit I see in many forums by those too focused on winning instead of honesty dealing with arguments involving various complexities.

The more dimensions, complexities or subtleties an argument or position has, the easier it is for someone to willfully misrepresent it - especially with what Reinhold Niebuhr called ''emotionally potent oversimplifications".