“One third of all the sorrow I must endure is unavoidable. It is the sorrow inherent in the human condition, the price we must pay for being sentient and self-conscious organisms, aspirants to liberation, but subject to the laws of nature and under orders to keep on marching, through irreversible time, through a world wholly indifferent to our well-being, toward decrepitude and the certainty of death.”

Aldous Huxley, Island

When we suffer, it is common to believe that the cause of our distress lies within the story of our life. Childhood wounds, destructive habits, unresolved conflicts, regrets, or painful memories are factors we often point to as responsible for our sorrow. But a lot of suffering results not from past events, but from an inability to reconcile ourselves with, and courageously face up to, the fundamental problems inherent in the human condition.

In this video, we investigate two of these problems – the problem of death and the problem of meaning. We explore how our awareness of death and our need for meaning are deeply connected, and how our response to these problems determines whether our life is marked by growth and fulfillment, or burdened by suffering and neurosis.

In his book Existential Psychotherapy, Irvin Yalom writes:

“The fear of death plays a major role in our internal experience; it haunts as does nothing else; it rumbles continuously under the surface; it is a dark, unsettling presence at the rim of consciousness…death itches all the time, and our attitudes toward death influence the way we live and grow and the way we falter and fall ill.”

Irvin Yalom, Existential Psychotherapy

Our deepest drive is to continue living, yet we know that one day we will die. This awareness creates a fear of death that permeates our being. Some believe the best way to deal with this fear is to shut it out of awareness and immerse ourselves in the business of living. This overlooks the profound influence death exerts on us. For much of what we do and pursue is shaped, often unconsciously, by the fear of death.

“…the idea of death, the fear of it, haunts the human animal like nothing else; it is a mainspring of human activity.”

Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

In his 1974 Pulitzer-Prize winning book The Denial of Death, Ernest Becker argued that the primary way the fear of death shapes our life is by motivating us to strive for heroism. “…heroism is first and foremost a reflex of the terror of death.”, he wrote.

Becker’s concept of heroism refers to the pursuit of “symbolic immortality.” This involves striving after ends we believe will persist following the death of our physical body. Some pursue heroism through the creation of works of art, others through invention, achievement, the creation of family, or the building of a legacy; while others devote themselves to social, political, or religious causes.

The desire to live a heroic life is a basic human need. “The urge to heroism is natural, and to admit it honest,” wrote Becker. For heroism is the primary defense we have to protect us from the fear of death.

Through the pursuit of heroism, we sublimate the fear of death; we take the energy inherent in this fear and use it to create and strive towards meaningful ends. The more convincing and effective our striving for heroism – the more meaningful our life feels – the less the fear of death haunts us. But the reverse is also true. When we feel that our life is unheroic, the fear of death weighs us down. Becker even argued that many forms of mental illness are, at root, failures to sublimate the fear of death through a convincing form of heroism. Or as he wrote:

…mental illness is really a general theory of the failures of death transcendence…..When the average person can no longer convincingly perform his heroics or cannot hide his failure to be his own hero, then he bogs down in the failure of depression and its terrible guilt…Man cannot endure his own littleness unless he can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level.”

Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

A heroic life is a deeply meaningful life. But how do we structure our life to live heroically and find the meaning we need to sublimate the fear of death? Here we encounter another problem inherent in the human condition. For while we need to live a meaningful life, human existence appears to have no objective meaning or purpose, at least none that we can discern with certainty. Or as Yalom writes:

“The problem of meaning, then, in its most rudimentary form is, How does a being who needs meaning find meaning in a universe that [appears to have] no meaning?”

Irvin Yalom, Existential Psychotherapy

In his book On the Genealogy of Morality, the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche called the problem of meaning “the curse that lay over mankind so far”. The Russian author Leo Tolstoy is an individual who felt the heavy weight of this curse. At the age of fifty, at the height of his literary fame, surrounded by wealth, land, servants, and family, Tolstoy was seized by a crisis of meaning so severe that he called it a “life arrest.” As he wrote:

“I asked: ‘What is the meaning of my life?…Or to put it still differently: Is there any meaning in my life that will not be destroyed by my inevitably approaching death?…I clearly saw that there was nothing ahead except ruin. And there was no stopping, no turning back, no closing my eyes so I would not see that there was nothing ahead except the deception of life and of happiness and the reality of suffering and death, of complete annihilation…I grew sick of life.”

Leo Tolstoy, A Confession

Since there is no obvious meaning to human existence, to solve the problem of meaning we must create or discover our own. To help us in this task, we can examine the various forms of meaning human beings have used to ward off existential despair.

The most obvious meaning that has sustained people throughout history is a religious or cosmic meaning. This is the idea that the universe is purposive – it is moving towards some definite end – and that our life, in some heroic way, is contributing to that purpose. In the Western World, this cosmic meaning has been encoded in the Judeo-Christian religious tradition which maintains that the universe and human life are part of God’s divinely ordered plan. But a cosmic meaning to life can be found outside the bounds of institutional religion. In his final interview before his death from cancer at the age of 47, Ernest Becker wrote:

“I don’t think one can really be a hero in any really elevating sense without some transcendental referent like being a hero for God. I think this is the most exalted type of heroism. Being the hero for the creative powers of the universe. Feeling that one has lived to some purpose that transcends one.”

Ernest Becker, Interview with Sam Keen

Carl Jung suggested that the purpose of human existence is to participate in the completion of God’s creation via the expansion of consciousness. The more conscious we become, the more God, through us, becomes conscious of his creation. God needs us to realize his divine purpose.

“Man is indispensable for the completion of creation.”

Carl Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections

Or as the great 20th century German author Thomas Mann echoed:

“With the generation of life from the inorganic, it was man who was ultimately intended. With him a great experiment is initiated, the failure of which would be the failure of creation itself…Whether that be so or not, it would be well for man to behave as if it were so.”

Thomas Mann, Life Grows in the Soil of Time

In our secular age, belief in a religious or cosmic meaning to life is untenable for many. The existentialist philosophers of the 20th century gave voice to this skepticism, arguing that the universe has no inherent meaning and that human existence has no objective purpose. Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, wrote:

“All existing things are born for no reason…It is meaningless that we are born; it is meaningless that we die.”

Jean-Paul Sartre, Nausea

Although Sartre believed that life has no objective meaning, he recognized that we have a deep need for meaning, and thus it is our task to create our own. Or as Yalom noted:

“What is important for Sartre is that human beings recognize that one must invent one’s own meaning (rather than discover God’s or nature’s meaning) and then commit oneself fully to fulfilling that meaning.”

Irvin Yalom, Existential Psychotherapy

There are several secular paths through which we can create our own meaning. One is altruism, which involves serving others or working to reduce suffering in the world. Another is dedication to a worthy cause. This involves choosing a value or ideal and committing ourselves to its realization, whether it be the struggle for political freedom, or the effort to bring more beauty, truth, or goodness to the world. The historian Will Durant advocated this path to meaning as he understood that when we devote ourselves to something larger than our personal self, we gain the sense that we are living heroically, and this helps prevent the fear of death from weighing us down. As he wrote in his book On the Meaning of Life:

“Join a whole, work for it with all your body and mind. The meaning of life lies in the chance it gives us to produce, or to contribute to something greater than ourselves. It need not be a family (although that is the direct and broadest road which nature in her blind wisdom has provided for even the simplest soul); it can be any group that can call out all the latent nobility of the individual, and give him a cause to work for that shall not be shattered by his death.”

Will Durant, On the Meaning of Life

Another source of meaning that has sustained many individuals is creativity. In the act of creation we give outward form to our inner life. We take what is subjective within us – our ideas, experience, suffering, insight, and perception of the world – and we embody it in a creation that, perhaps, will influence other people and outlast us. Through the creative act we attempt to objectify and immortalize the self, which is one of the reasons it is felt as deeply meaningful.

“By the creative act we are able to reach beyond our own death.”

Rollo May, The Courage to Create

Or as Becker wrote:

“In some sense, some kind of objective creativity is the only answer man has to the problem of life…The artist takes in the world, makes a total problem out of it, and then gives out a fashioned, human answer to that problem. This, as Goethe saw in Faust, is the highest that man can achieve.”

Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

Being a hero for God, or devoting ourselves to altruism, a worthy cause, family, or creative work, can feel deeply meaningful because these paths carry us beyond the narrow boundaries of our ego. They give us the sense that we are serving, creating, or participating in something that will outlast our physical body. And this seems to be one of the requirements of a meaningful life: in finding or creating our own meaning, we must choose something that directs our thoughts and energies beyond mere survival and the gratification of egoistic desires.

“All heroism is relative to some kind of “beyond”; the question is, which kind?…What is one’s true talent, his secret gift, is authentic vocation? In what way is one truly unique, and how can he express this uniqueness, give it form, dedicate it to something beyond himself?”

Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

Or as Yalom continues:

“A long tradition in Western thought counsels us not to settle for a nonself-transcendent purpose in life. Martin Buber notes that, though human beings should ask the question “What for? What am I to find my particular way for? What am I to unify my being for?” The answer is: “Not for my own sake.” One begins with oneself in order to forget oneself and to immerse oneself into the world; one comprehends oneself in order not to be preoccupied with oneself.”

Irvin Yalom, Existential Psychotherapy

Whether we satisfy our need for meaning through religious or secular means, Becker believed it is important not whether our chosen path is “true” in an absolute and objective sense. The decisive question is whether it is life-enhancing. Does it help us transcend the narrow boundaries of the self, enrich our experience, strengthen our character, and grant us the symbolic immortality that diminishes the fear of death? If so, then our pursuit of meaning serves its purpose and promotes well-being, even if its ultimate validity remains uncertain.

In this respect, the pursuit of meaning requires we adopt an attitude similar to Soren Kierkegaard’s knight of faith. The knight of faith cannot prove, with objective certainty, that God exists or that his life serves a higher purpose. Yet he lives as if God exists and his life has ultimate significance. Or as Kierkegaard explains:

“Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion of the individual’s inwardness and the objective uncertainty. If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.”

Soren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript

In a similar manner, the task is to discover a self-transcendent meaning to which we can commit ourselves wholeheartedly. At the same time, we must accept that doubt can never be fully overcome: all may be vanity, and death may render everything we do meaningless in the end. But to live with faith despite this doubt — to live as if what we do matters in some higher sense, even though we don’t know whether it really does – is one of the greatest and most difficult tasks of being human. It is also necessary to avoid the neurotic suffering that plagues people who feel their life is meaningless. Or as Becker writes:

“Men avoid clinical neurosis when they can trustingly live their heroism in some kind of self-transcending and meaningful drama…To lose the security of heroism is to die — that is what [stripping a primitive tribe of their meaning-system] means and does. It kills them or reduces them to the animal level of chronic fighting and fornication. Life then becomes possible only in a continual alcoholic stupor.”

Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

Subscribe now

“Whosoever comes to Me, through whatsoever form, I reach him; all men are struggling through paths which in the end lead to me.”

Bhagavad Gita

In the first video of this two-part series, we examined one of most fundamental questions of life: “Why is there something, rather than nothing?” This question, as we saw, points to the profound mystery that grounds all being – or what in the West has traditionally been referred to as God. In this video we explore how an awareness of this mystery, and a disposition of awe and wonder toward it, can help elicit one of life’s greatest forms of experience.

“Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves… Live the questions now. Perhaps you will gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.”

Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet

Most people seek wisdom and understanding through words and propositions. They read books, listen to lectures or podcasts, and hope that in so doing they will become more knowledgeable. Questions that are unanswerable with language, such as the question ‘why is there something, rather than nothing’, are often dismissed as having little practical value. What this view overlooks, however, is that not all understanding is a product of language, reason, or even thought. Or as Iain McGilchrist writes in The Matter With Things:

“Nothing is less true than that we understand something only when we express it in language. On the contrary, language at times places a barrier between us and understanding, substitutes a crabbed expression for a living reality, and pretends to ‘explain’ it – away.”

Iain McGilchrist, The Matter With Things

An offhand dismissal of questions that cannot be answered with words also overlooks the fact that the most powerful agent of change, and the primary path to learning about the world, is experience. We cultivate skills through experience, we grow wise through our experiences, and it is life’s most moving experiences, of both sorrow and joy, that leave the greatest mark on our existence. If we are asked to put our experience into words, this often proves difficult, particularly when it comes to life’s most profound experiences. Or as the 20^th century British philosopher and author Bryan Magee writes:

“How does one say the Mona Lisa, or Leonardo’s Last Supper? The assumption that everything of significance that can be experienced, or known, or communicated, is capable of being uttered in words would be too preposterous to merit a moment’s entertainment were it not for the fact that it has underlain so much philosophy in the twentieth century…direct experience which is never adequately communicable in words is the only knowledge we ever fully have.”

Bryan Magee, Confessions of a Philosopher

When we adopt a disposition of awe and wonder to the great unknown toward which the question ‘why is there something, rather than nothing’ points, we open the possibility of a transcendent experience. And this experience can teach us far more about life than the words of any philosopher, scientist, or psychologist ever could.

“To be human is to feel a deep gravitational pull towards something ineffable that, if we can just for once get beyond words and reasons, is a matter of experience, and to which we reach out, silently, though not without misgivings; something outside our conceptual grasp, but nonetheless present to us through intimations that come to us from a whole range of unfathomable experiences we call ‘spiritual’. This has been true of humanity the world over and throughout time, and is true now as much as ever; no advance in science can have anything to say about it one way or the other.”

Iain McGilchrist, The Matter With Things

The type of experience to which McGilchrist is referring has been referred to as a religious, mystical, or peak experience and in the remainder of this video we will use the latter term. But while the name of this experience varies, there is a remarkable similarity in the content of the experience no matter if the person having it is a Buddhist monk, a Christian mystic, or someone who doesn’t subscribe to any particular religion. The 20^th century psychologist Abraham Maslow, who undertook an extensive study of these experiences, explained them in the following way:

“The peak experience is felt as a self-validating, self-justifying moment which carries its own intrinsic value with it. It is felt to be a highly valuable – even uniquely valuable – experience, so great an experience that even to attempt to justify it takes away from its dignity and worth. As a matter of fact, so many people find this so great and high an experience that it justifies not only itself but even living itself. Peak-experiences can make life worthwhile by their occasional occurrence. They give meaning to life itself. They prove it to be worthwhile. To say this in a negative way, I would guess that peak-experiences help prevent suicide.”

Abraham Maslow, Religions, Values, and Peak Experiences

Read more

“Know how to appear the fool. The wisest sometimes play this card, and there are times when the greatest knowledge consists in appearing to lack knowledge. You mustn’t be ignorant, just feign ignorance.”

Baltasar Gracian, How to Use Your Enemies

While many people openly flaunt possessions such as wealth, status, beauty, and power, when it comes to the greatest human good, wisdom, those who possess the most of it are careful to conceal it. In his book Beyond Good and Evil, the great 19th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:

“Every profound spirit needs a mask: moreover, around every profound spirit a mask is continually growing, thanks to the constantly false, that is, shallow interpretation of every word, every step, every sign of life he gives…now and then even foolishness is a mask.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

In this video, we examine some of the benefits of concealing wisdom beneath the appearance of foolishness. The philosophers who advocated for this strategy did not mean that we should behave stupidly, but rather that we should appear less intelligent, insightful, or wise than we are. Or as Montesquieu, the 18th century French judge and philosopher, wrote:

“I have always observed that to succeed in the world one should appear like a fool but be wise.”

Montesquieu, Pensees

The first reason for concealing our wisdom is that many people are uncomfortable around those who can see through the illusions, deceptions, and distractions that capture others. In the work of fiction, Flowers for Algernon, a novel scientific experiment transforms an intellectually handicapped man into a genius, and this leads him to the following observation:

“I’m beginning to think that with intelligence…you don’t just see more—you see through things. And that makes people uncomfortable.”

Daniel Keyes, Flowers from Algernon

One of the reasons superior wisdom makes people uncomfortable is because it exposes the superficiality and limits of their understanding. “To show your intelligence and discernment is only an indirect way of reproaching other people for being dull and incapable…Intellectual superiority offends by its very existence, without any desire to do so.”, wrote the 19^th century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. And because most people believe themselves intellectually competent, and derive much of their self-worth from this belief, being confronted with the naïveté of their own thinking wounds their vanity and awakens feelings of inferiority. As a result, wise people often evoke the resentment and hostility of those with more mediocre minds. And as Schopenhauer continues:

“…there is nothing of which a man is prouder than of intellectual ability, for it is this that gives him his commanding place in the animal world”.…It is an exceedingly rash thing to let any one see that you are decidedly superior to him in intelligence and wisdom, and to let other people see it too; because he will then thirst for vengeance.”

Arthur Schopenhauer, Counsels and Maxims

As the wise understand how their wisdom can threaten the self-esteem others, they often downplay or conceal their superior insight behind simplicity, modesty, humor, or silence. They also understand that people rarely change their opinions when confronted by superior ideas; more often, they become defensive and hostile. Thus, little is gained by openly displaying our wisdom and inadvertently exposing the limitations of other people’s understanding.

“With fools, being wise counts for little.”

Baltasar Gracian, How to Use Your Enemies

For this reason, Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the profoundest thinkers in history, advised the superior mind to disguise itself beneath an appearance of mediocrity. Or as he wrote in an aphorism titled “Mediocrity as a Mask”:

“Mediocrity is the happiest mask which the superior mind can wear, because it does not lead the great majority — that is, the mediocre — to think that there is any disguise. Yet the superior mind assumes the mask just for their sake — so as not to irritate them, nay, often from a feeling of pity and kindness.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, all too Human

In addition to avoiding resentment and hostility, and unintentionally wounding the vanity of smaller minds, there are practical reasons for concealing the profound depths of our understanding. When attempting to influence people or gain their favor, it can be counterproductive to appear too insightful or profound. For be it in business, politics, academia, a career, or social life, most people are more inclined to cooperate with and favor those who they perceive to be intellectually inferior. Or as Arthur Schopenhauer wrote:

“For just as warmth is agreeable to the body, so it does the mind good to feel its superiority; and a man will seek company likely to give him this feeling, as instinctively as he will approach the fireplace or walk in the sun if he wants to get warm. But this means that he will be disliked on account of his superiority; and if a man is to be liked, he must really be inferior in point of intellect.”

Arthur Schopenhauer, Counsels and Maxims

When interacting with those who occupy positions of authority and power – individuals who can open doors for us and advance our ambitions – it can be prudent to veil, at least to some degree, our superior insight. For openly outshining people whose favor we seek can stimulate their insecurity and be counterproductive to our goals. This does not mean we should pretend to be stupid, for we must display competence if we wish to attract the attention and respect of those above us. But we should be careful not to appear wiser, more perceptive, or more insightful than they are.

“Avoid outdoing your superior. All triumphs are despised, and triumphing over your superior is either stupid or fatal. Superiority has always been detested, especially by our superiors.”

Baltasar Gracian, How to Use Your Enemies

In his book Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don’t, Jeffrey Pfeffer, a Professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford University, points to studies which show that job performance plays far less of a role in career advancement than is often assumed. Promotions are determined more by one’s likability and one’s relationship with superiors. And part of being likeable involves flattering the ego of those in positions of authority by making them feel as if we depend on, and value, their superior guidance, wisdom, and insight. As Jeffrey Pfeffer writes:

“So great job performance by itself is insufficient and may not even be necessary for getting and holding positions of power. You need to be noticed, influence the dimensions used to measure your accomplishments, and mostly make sure you are effective at managing those in power — which requires the ability to enhance the ego of those above you.”

Jeffrey Pfeffer, Power: Why Some People Have it and Others Don’t

Or as Robert Greene echoes in The 48 Laws of Power:

“Always make those above you feel comfortably superior. In your desire to please and impress them, do not go too far in displaying your talents or you might accomplish the opposite and inspire fear and insecurity. Make your masters appear more brilliant than they are and you will attain the heights of power.”

Robert Greene, The 48 Laws of Power

Some may argue that truly wise individuals should not care about the opinions of others. For the height of wisdom is to cultivate independence from society and an indifference to what others think. This argument is valid in the case of the individual who has cultivated enough self-sufficiency that he depends on no one for advancement, favors, or support. Yet the fact is that most of us remain dependent, to some degree, upon the cooperation and goodwill of other people.

Yet even for the completely self-sufficient wise man, there remains another reason to occasionally play the fool: it serves as an exercise in humility, reminding him that, like all human beings, he too is ultimately a fool. For in the presence of the great mysteries of life, even great heights of human knowledge and wisdom are trivial. When it comes to the big questions of life and death, we are all equally ignorant.

This admission of ignorance is a central component of wisdom. In fact, one of history’s wisest men, Socrates, did not even consider himself to be wise. In Plato’s Apology, Socrates’ friend, Chaerephon, visits the Oracle at Delphi, where the priestess Pythia declares that no man is wiser than Socrates. But when Chaerephon reports this pronouncement to Socrates, he is confused, or as he states:

“What is the interpretation of this riddle? For I know that I have no wisdom, small or great.”

Plato, Apology

Unsettled by the oracle’s words, Socrates sets out in search of men he assumes to be wiser than himself – politicians, poets, and craftsmen renowned for their intelligence and expertise. Yet he discovers that while these men believe themselves wise, their wisdom does not hold up under questioning. Beneath their supposed knowledge lies confusion, contradiction, ignorance, and unexamined assumptions. As Socrates explains:

“I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom… and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself.

Plato, Apology

It eventually dawns on Socrates that the Oracle pronounced him the wisest man in Athens not because he possessed a lot of knowledge, but because, unlike others, he recognized the limits of his understanding. While other people mistake their opinions for truth, Socrates alone was conscious of his great ignorance. Or as Plato wrote:

“This man, O men of Athens, is wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing.”

Plato, Apology

By exposing the ignorance of people who had the reputation of being wise, Socrates made many enemies. Eventually, he was charged with corrupting the youth and impiety, and sentenced to death. This is a powerful reminder that it can be rash and even at times dangerous to publicly expose our superior wisdom and insight. Reflecting on the events that led to his sentencing, Socrates explained:

“I went and tried to explain to the one who had the reputation of wisdom, that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me…This investigation has led to my having many enemies of the worst and most dangerous kind.”

Plato, Apology

Or as Arthur Schopenhauer observed:

“A man may be as humble as possible in his demeanor, and yet hardly ever get people to overlook his crime in standing intellectually above them.”

Arthur Schopenhauer, Counsels and Maxims

As there is little to gain, and much to lose, by openly displaying superior wisdom, it is wise to strategically wear the mask of foolishness to avoid the envy and hostility of others, ingratiate ourselves with those whose favor may help us achieve our goals, and most importantly, to remind ourselves that genuine wisdom begins with wonder and the recognition of how little we truly know.

“The wisest of all, in my opinion, is he who can, if only once a month, call himself a fool – a faculty unheard of nowadays.”

Fyodor Dostoevsky, Bobok

Or as William Shakespeare observed:

“The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”

William Shakespeare, As You Like It

Share

“…the ultimate achievement of reason is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which surpass it. It is indeed feeble if it can’t get as far as understanding that.”

Blaise Pascal, Pensées

Many people believe that metaphysical questions – or questions about the ultimate nature of reality – serve no practical purpose. They may be interesting to think about, but other than to satisfy an intellectual itch, the questions of metaphysics will not change our life. In this 2-part video series we make the case that for at least one such question, this could not be further from the truth. In the first video of the series, relying on a chapter titled The Sense of the Sacred in Iain McGilchrist’s magnum opus The Matter With Things, we explore what this question is and the depth of its meaning.

“For me, and for many philosophers historically, the deepest question in all philosophy – both the most important, and the hardest to answer – is why there should be something rather than nothing.”

Iain McGilchrist, The Matter With Things

To grasp the transformational power of this question, we first need to dispel several misconceptions about what this question is asking. Firstly, this question is not asking for the first cause in a temporal chain – the first mover, so to speak, that set the cosmos in motion. As for all we know, there may have been no first mover, the universe may be eternal, with no beginning in time. And as McGilchrist writes:

“It is not a question of a temporal cause in a sequence, one lying on the same plane as the sequence itself, but of an ontological cause, underlying and sustaining any such sequence. In other words, not ‘what was it that set some process in motion at a point in time?’, but, rather, ‘how does it come about that there is a process, or motion, or a point in time, at all – now or ever?’ The answer to this question is of an altogether different order, and must lie on a plane different from, and deeper than, everything else.”

Iain McGilchrist, The Matter With Things

Another misconception is that this question can be answered through the discovery of a set of laws that govern the workings of the universe. Perhaps, for example, advances in quantum physics will reveal laws that can account for the origin of it all. The discovery of a set of laws, however, cannot tell us why there is something rather than nothing. Laws can only explain the regularities we observe in nature; they cannot tell us why the elements and processes of nature exist in the first place. In acknowledgement of this fact, the 20^th century Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote:

“At the basis of the whole modern view of the world lies the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena.”

Ludwig Wittgenstein

And as McGilchrist explains:

“Laws cannot cause anything to happen. They are merely a description of an observed regularity in phenomena. What causes the observed regularity remains unspecified and is unaltered by being labelled a law. What’s more, laws have to operate on something.”

Iain McGilchrist, The Matter With Things

In fact, the question ‘why is there something rather than nothing’ cannot be answered with a natural explanation of any sort. For if we point to a physical entity or process as an answer, then we are assuming the existence of the very thing which the question is asking about, or as McGilchrist puts it:

“The question cannot be answered in terms of a physical entity or process, because that already presupposes what we are questioning – why there are physical entities and processes.”

Iain McGilchrist, The Matter With Things

Read more

Given that man is the physically stronger sex, it may seem preposterous to claim that many men fear women more than women fear men. Yet across cultures and throughout history, women have often been portrayed as the greatest threat to man. In Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, the American linguist and philosopher George Lakoff shows how in many languages there is a deep metaphorical connection between the words “woman” and “danger.”

In this video, drawing from the anthropologist David Gilmore’s book Misogyny: The Male Malady, we examine the anthropological and cultural evidence showing that man’s fear of woman is a cross-cultural phenomenon and we explore how the early developmental process of boys contributes to this fear.

Misogyny is commonly defined as contempt, hatred, or prejudice towards women. But a more complete definition of this phenomenon should include fear as well. For much of the hate of the misogynist is a mask for his fear of the female sex. In Antony and Cleopatra, William Shakespeare famously wrote: “In time we hate that which we often fear.” And as David Gilmore writes:

“…by “misogyny” I mean an unreasonable fear or hatred of women that takes on some palpable form in any given society.…Some men are not misogynists. These men have successfully resolved their inner conflicts over women…But most men have not been so successful…misogyny is not a Western invention, nor is it confined to modern capitalist societies, as many feminists and Marxists have argued for many years…misogyny shows no correlation with any particular form of society; it occurs everywhere… misogyny is indeed close to being universal, as our data will amply demonstrate.”

David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady

It is not an exaggeration to state that man’s preoccupation with woman’s body is the greatest obsession in history. Yet this obsession is shadowed by an equally powerful fear. For man not only desires the female body, he also experiences it as something foreign, mysterious, and potentially dangerous. Among hunter-gatherer cultures, this fear of the female body takes the form of a full-blown phobia.

The aboriginal tribes of the highlands of Melanesia, or New Guinea, remained undiscovered and untouched by outside influence until the mid-to-late 20th century. When anthropologists first encountered these tribes, they observed that the aboriginal men harbored a deep and intense fear of the female body. In summarizing these anthropological studies, David Gilmore writes:

“…literally all publications start off by noting a curious degree of sex antagonism as a salient feature, if not the standout feature, of most highland societies. There is probably no place on earth where men have such a pervasive fear and loathing of women…Nowhere else in the world does fear of the female body reach such a terrible, staggering pitch.”

David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady

According to the aboriginal men of New Guinea, prolonged contact with a woman’s body can cause serious illness that causes the skin to wither and the organs to waste away. The anthropologist John Langness observed the male elders of one tribe warn the adolescent boys that if they spend too much time in close physical proximity with women, “their skins will be ‘no good,’ their work will ‘go wrong’ and they will die young”.

The aboriginal fear of the female body reaches its most intense expression in anxieties surrounding her reproductive functions and sexual organ. Menstrual blood is regarded as one of the most dangerous substances a man can encounter; contact with a mere drip of it is thought to be able to kill a young and strong man. While the female genitalia are not only considered potentially poisonous but also the conduit through which malevolent forces enter the world. The very biology that gave birth to man, paradoxically, is seen as antithetical to man’s well-being and existence.

“So through her sexual organs a woman, even if unintentionally, is believed to act as a constant magnet to the evil powers that populate the world’s subterranean realm…” explains Gilmore. “Women attract these evil powers without even being aware of it, and thus seriously endanger both nature and society…Mother, wife, sister . . . no matter; woman’s body is the harbinger of all human evil.”

David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady

Like all men, aboriginal men desire sex, but they also believe that too much of it weakens them and can even kill them. The anthropologist Raymond Kelly noted that among the Etoro tribe, the men ritually abstain from sexual contact with women for around two-thirds of the year. For the New Guinea aboriginal man, sex drains him of his vital essence, while at the same time enhancing the strength and vitality of women.

“Throughout the entire highland region, men conclude that women pursue sex precisely in order to capture semen, to enhance well-being, to deplete the male victim, and to strengthen themselves in the process.”

David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady

These fears of the female body are not only found in the male-dominated aboriginal tribes of New Guinea. Among the matrilineal Crow, where women control significant property and hold relatively high status, as well as the Semai of the Malay Peninsula, a non-violent people described by David Gilmore as “the least sexist group of people on the face of the earth,” the same fear of the feminine body exists. As Gilmore notes: “These beliefs are not confined to what are referred to as male-dominated cultures, nor to patrilineal societies where women’s position is low” (David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady).

Nor are such beliefs confined to aboriginal societies, as parallel fears of the feminine can be found throughout Western history. But whereas many aboriginal tribes located the danger of woman in her physicality, Western man has more often portrayed her as a moral and spiritual threat.

As far back as the 7th century BC, the ancient Greek poet Semonides wrote: “Yes, women are the greatest evil Zeus has made, and men are bound to them hand and foot, with impossible knots by god.” Subsequent Greek and Roman poets echoed this idea by claiming that women are the original source of “kaki”, or evil, in this world, and that they were created by the gods to torment men.

“Roman poets like Ovid, Hesiod, and Juvenal wrote long treatises heaping scorn and abuse upon women and everything pertaining to them and urging men to avoid sex and marriage completely (Coole 1988).”

David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady

Western mythology is also rife with fears of the female. In a myth that echoes the aboriginal belief that the female genitalia are a gateway for malevolent forces, it is Pandora who opens a box that releases evil into the world. Ancient Greek mythology is filled with female figures – sirens, nymphs, lamias, and Furies – who lure, ensnare, and ultimately destroy men. Many of these mythological females live in water and attract men with their beauty only to drag them underwater. This motif persists throughout Western history. In Icelandic myths, for example, women are portrayed as “rivers of poison,” into which men, like flies drawn to honey, taste sweetness for a brief moment, and then drown.

“The philosopher Dorothy Dinnerstein (1976) finds the image of the siren or mermaid, the female sea creature who rises from the dark sea depths to drag men down, to be virtually universal in folklore. In his book on monsters and demons, David Williams (1996:187) calls this siren figure the most widely represented monster throughout history, putting a female face on the horrific and the grotesque for all times.”

David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady

The siren is a mythological representation of the femme fatale – the seductive yet deadly woman – which is a common symbol across the centuries. In the 18th century, the English poet John Gay wrote: “The fly that sips treacle is lost in the sweets, So he that tastes woman, ruin meets.” In the operas of Richard Wagner, the goddess Venus ensnares men in realms of sensual pleasure, thus diverting them from their higher, heroic pursuits. In capturing the widespread belief that every woman embodies something of the femme fatale, Gilmore writes:

“Women are evil because of their sexual allure, which, by disguising all this teeming malevolence with a pretty exterior, puts men in physical and moral danger of immorality. This physical attractiveness is, in fact, the strategy for their treachery and duplicity, for it is their appeal to men’s senses that cheats, betrays, deceives. And so women are among the most dangerous things on earth.”

David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady

Western philosophy and literature are likewise filled with men expressing the view that women are inherently dangerous. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer argued that because women are constitutionally weaker than men, they have become master deceivers in order to survive and achieve their reproductive ends. “They are driven to rely not on force but on cunning; hence their instinctive subtlety and their tendency to tell lies” (Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women). Friedrich Nietzsche echoed this idea by arguing that women are constitutionally incapable of telling the truth: “What is truth to a woman? From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant and hostile to women than truth—her great art is her lie” (Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil). While the writer DH Lawrence did not hold back in expressing what he thought to be the “colossal evil of the united spirit of Woman that is sending out waves of destructive malevolence which eat out the inner life of a man, like a cancer” (DH Lawrence, Studies in Classic American Literature)

The foundational texts and teachings of all the world’s major religions likewise provide evidence for man’s fear of the feminine.

“In most of the world’s messianic religions…sin is brought into the world by women. It is always First Woman, never First Man, who, because of innate character flaws, capitulates to the devil’s blandishments.”

David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady

In the Book of Genesis, it is Eve who succumbs to the serpent’s deceptions, eats the forbidden fruit, and convinces Adam to disobey God which results in their expulsion from paradise and the fallen state of humanity. As the 4th century theologian Saint Ambrose of Milan wrote: “The woman was first deceived, and it was she who deceived the man…Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and was in sin.” In the biblical apocryphal texts, one finds warnings about “the ruinous power, which women can exercise over men,” as well as the claim that “All wickedness is but little compared to the wickedness of a woman.” While the medieval bishop Marbod of Rennes went as far to link woman with the devil. As he wrote:

“Countless are the traps which the scheming enemy [the devil] has set throughout the world’s paths and plains: but among them the greatest—and the one scarcely anybody can evade—is woman. Woman, the unhappy source, evil root, and corrupt offshoot, who brings to birth every sort of outrage throughout the world. . . . Woman subverts the world; woman the sweet evil, compound of honeycomb and poison.”

Marbod of Rennes

In the religion of Islam, the same fears can be found. Upon his ascension to heaven, the prophet Muhammad is reported to have said that “hell was populated above all by women”. While on his deathbed he is said to have stated: “After my disappearance, there will be no other greater source of chaos and disorder for my nation than women.” In her study of Islam, the Moroccan sociologist Fatima Mernissi goes so far as to argue that “The entire Muslim social structure can be seen as an attack on, and a defense against, the disruptive power of female sexuality.”

Even in Buddhism, a spiritual tradition associated with peace and kindliness to all living creatures, women are depicted as morally degraded enchantresses who, through deceptions and lies, lure men away from the righteous spiritual path. As one Buddhist traditional verse puts it:

“’Tis nature’s law that rivers wind; Trees grow of wood and kind; And, given opportunity, All women work iniquity. A sex composed of wickedness and guile, Unknowable, uncertain as the path Of fishes in the water—womankind Hold truth for falsehood, falsehood for the truth!”

Andabhuta Jātaka

Because man’s fear of woman appears in similar forms across cultures and religions throughout history, it cannot be adequately explained by social structures, institutions, or belief systems. Its roots must lie in the psyche of man.

“…it is because misogyny is so widespread and so pervasive among men everywhere that it must be psychogenic in origin, a result of identical experiences in the male developmental cycle, rather than caused by the environment.”

David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady

The developmental roots of man’s fear of women can be traced back to the earliest stage of life, when the mother stands as the omnipresent figure in the child’s world. As the source of nourishment, comfort, and that indispensable motherly love, she is the central figure of early experience. Embedded in this maternal environment, both boys and girls unconsciously mirror the mother’s gender identity and develop what the psychiatrist Robert Stoller called a “proto-feminine identity”.

“…a boy’s earliest experience of gender is really not neuter but female, a mirroring of the gender of his mother.”

Eugene Monick, Castration and Male Rage

Or as Stoller writes:

“If, as is suggested, there is a stage at the beginning of life in both males and females when one feels as if a part of mother, this will establish a feminine quality in one’s identity. While helpful for the girl who is to become feminine, it can threaten the boy’s capacity for masculinity.”

Robert Stoller, Symbiosis Anxiety and the Development of Masculinity

Because an infant boy initially forms a feminine-oriented identity, in order to later develop a masculine identity he must psychologically distance himself from the mother and reject the proto-feminine identity that was unconsciously formed in the earliest stages of life. As the Indian proverb puts it: “men are born of women, nurtured and loved by women, protected and dominated by women, yet they must become men”. Or as David Gilmore continues:

“…all boys feel this irreducible core feminine identity as a threat to their masculine self, an inner softness or weakness, a deficiency lurking within. It must be repudiated so that the boy can later develop a manly identification consonant with cultural expectations; that is, the boy at some point must “dis-identify with the mother” to become a true male as defined by convention (Greenson 1978). The process of disidentifying with mother…includes an often violent rejection of everything feminine, so that masculinity becomes defined as the opposite of, and a distancing from, femininity.”

David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady

But this process of disidentifying with the mother and repudiating the feminine within, is no easy task; in fact, it is the one of the most difficult a boy must face. For the mother is the source of comfort, security, and unconditional love. The earliest years of life, before self-consciousness fully emerges, are marked by a state of ease and contentment in which the child is cared for without effort or responsibility.

“Mother is warmth, mother is food, mother is the euphoric state of satisfaction and security.”

Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving

A boy does not relinquish his bond with the mother willingly. Historically, harsh rites of passage, designed to forcibly separate the boy from the maternal world and initiate him into manhood, were practiced by almost all cultures. Underlying these rites of passage was the recognition that within the male psyche there exists a regressive longing to remain in, or return to, that paradisal and infantile state of dependence on the feminine.

“Regressive wishes seem to be felt as a return to a primordial premasculine state, to infancy—that is, to a condition associated with femininity.”

David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady

Especially as a boy matures into adolescence and then adulthood, these regressive wishes become increasingly unacceptable – for to give into them means the extinction of masculinity. Within most men, therefore, there exists an innate conflict: on the one hand they are drawn toward what the anthropologist Thomas Gregor called “the path back to fusion with the mother and the pleasures of infancy,” while at the same time they fear, resist, and despise these regressive impulses that arise from within.

“…the boy, more than the girl, has a powerfully ambivalent response to this universal regressive wish. On the one hand he feels it as a pleasurable symbiosis with the mother—a recapturing of the carefree, prelapsarian world of infancy—but on the other hand he senses it as dangerous backsliding that is as terrifying as it is pleasurable, for it means extinction of masculinity.”

David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady

In an attempt to deal with the anxiety this inner conflict evokes, many men project it onto women so that what is, in reality, an internal struggle comes to be experienced as an external threat. The result is a paranoid fear or phobia of women, that in many men takes the form of hatred or contempt. And in some cases – such as the Salem witch hunts – this fear of woman expands into full-blown psychoses. Or as Gilmore writes:

“…phobias are projections, attributions to others of one’s own repressed wishes…phobias are either projections of the repressed wishes or they are displacements by which inner conflicts find objectification in scapegoats. Phobia formation is what psychoanalysts call “the defense mechanism of externalization”…misogyny has all the earmarks of a typical phobia, with fears focusing on woman, who is demonized as the implacable, omnipotent foe.”

David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady

The fact that many men project their desire for, and fear of, their own regressive impulses onto women helps explain why their feelings towards women are marked by such intense ambivalence. For on the one hand men fear women, but they also admire, desire, and idolize them. This ambivalence has been expressed throughout history in religion, literature, and myth. Hesiod described woman as a “beautiful evil,” while Catullus, writing of his mistress, confessed: “I love and I hate.” Mythological figures such as the sphinx, half alluring woman, half monstrous beast, embody this union of attraction and dread.

“…it seems abundantly clear that many, if not most, of men’s feelings about women are a hodgepodge of strongly contrasting impulses, starkly contradictory affects and fantasies…It seems that wherever we find misogyny, we also find its diametric opposite in equal measure: and this is the key to misogyny.”

David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady

If this explanation is valid, then it follows that the more a man fears or hates women, the more he simultaneously longs for and needs them. In other words, men who appear most overtly misogynistic may, in fact, be the ones most deeply driven by a powerful yet unacknowledged yearning for the very women they denounce.

“Ambivalence occurs when one experiences diametrically opposed emotions at the same time: the affected person is drawn in opposite directions, torn by incompatible emotions. He feels anxiety because he cannot reconcile the clashing feelings…this tension-ridden state, not simple hatred or a wish to dominate, accounts for men’s denigration of women…It is not surprising that the men who most deplore and distrust women are the same ones who most admire, want, and need them.”

David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady

Although the regressive impulses that underlie man’s fear of women originate in his early dependence on the mother, David Gilmore notes that the father–son relationship plays a crucial role in shaping a boy’s later attitudes toward women. He draws on a comparative synthesis study by the anthropologist James Taggart, who discovered that fathers who are more involved in a boy’s life “help their sons separate from the mother with less anger toward women”. This is a promising finding, but given that absent fathers are now the norm, with about half of all boys growing up without a present father in the household, many are deprived of the masculine guidance needed to develop a healthy relationship to women.

Like many deep-rooted social problems, the responsibility ultimately rests with individual men to recognize that conflicting feelings toward women are, in reality, conflicts within themselves. This requires bringing regressive impulses into consciousness, and rather than indulging in them acknowledging, accepting, integrating, and mastering them. It requires the awareness that when one hates or fears woman, one is really hating and fearing parts of oneself.

“…men who hate women hate themselves even more. What they really hate (and fear) is the “femaleness” within.”

David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady

Only if more men undergo this evolution of consciousness can the deep division that exists at the heart of our species – a millennia old war between men and women – give way to a more harmonious relationship between the sexes and an elevated form of human life. “A species divided itself cannot stand”, writes Robert Meagher. Or as Gilmore concludes:

“Only self-knowledge can free men from fear of women, and self-knowledge in this case means the acceptance of the divided self within…And only through such an acceptance can men appreciate the loveliness, gentleness, and beauty of women…Men and women thus united, misogyny will wither away of its own accord. And on that ambiguous note, we end.”

David Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady

Share

“We should not forget that every neurosis entails a corresponding amount of demoralization. If a man is neurotic, he has lost confidence in himself. A neurosis is a humiliating defeat and is felt as such by people who are not entirely unconscious of their own psychology.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 17

In the modern day, many people are plagued by a fear of life. Instead of facing up to life’s challenges, they shrink from them and allow anxiety to limit their experience and cowardice to limit their potential. Carl Jung believed that those who evade life’s challenges and who suffer from anxiety, depression, guilt, and shame as a result, are neurotic, and he saw the neurotic illness as extremely prevalent in the West. Jung also recognized that many neurotics justify their errant ways by blaming events of their past and this is often encouraged by therapists who believe that talking about the past, and in particular one’s childhood, can promote healing. In this video we explore why Jung believed that turning backwards and examining the past is a wrong turn, and how overcoming a neurotic illness is best accomplished by focusing on the present and looking to the future.

“. . .there is scarcely a neurotic who does not love to dwell upon the evils of the past and to wallow in self-commiserating memories. Very often his neurosis consists precisely in his hanging back and constantly excusing himself on account of the past.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 16

If asked to account for the origins of their distress, most neurotics will point to their childhood, and for good reason. Being raised in a dysfunctional household, having poor role models, parents who do not provide adequate support, or who are neurotic themselves, greatly increases the chance of developing a neurosis. Jung went as far as to suggest that if a child is neurotic, blame can usually be placed solely on the parents, or as he wrote:

“. . .neuroses in children are more symptoms of the mental condition of the parents than a genuine illness of the child. Only a very little of the child’s psychic life is its own; for the most part it is still dependent on that of the parents. . . Parents should always be conscious of the fact that they themselves are the principal cause of neurosis in their children.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 17

But while parents are often to blame for the neurosis of a child, as a neurotic child develops into a neurotic adult, responsibility shifts away from the parents and toward the individual suffering from the neurosis, or as Jung writes:

“. . .the real therapy only begins when the patient sees that it is no longer father and mother who are standing in his way, but himself. . .”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 7

A middle-aged man, for example, is not neurotic solely because he had neurotic parents. He is neurotic because he has failed to take responsibility for his life, and failed to cultivate the courage to deal with the problems in the present that are keeping him neurotic. Or as Jung explains:

“The causes of a neurosis lie in the present as much as in the past, and only a cause actually existing in the present can keep a neurosis active.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 11

To effectuate a cure from a neurosis many therapists encourage their patients to explore their childhood and to pontificate on why they have become neurotic. This is called a reductive therapeutic approach as it attempts to narrow down from the great complex of past events the one’s that triggered the neurotic illness. Understanding the sources of our distress, it is maintained, can help us realize that we are not to blame for our suffering, and this can promote the self-acceptance that facilitates healing. Jung, however, believed that while self-acceptance is important, attempting to understand the specific causes of our suffering is often counterproductive and not necessary for the acceptance that leads to change, or as he wrote:

“It is very suspicious…that patients often have a pronounced tendency to account for their ailments by some long-past experience, ingeniously drawing the analyst’s attention away from the present to some false track in the past.”

Carl Jung, The Theory of Psychoanalysis

A desire to dwell on the past is counterproductive for several reasons. Firstly, excessive self-analysis, whether it takes the form of dwelling on the past, ruminating on the future, or over scrutinizing the self, can make one miserable. The great 18^th century philosopher Immanuel Kant went as far as to suggest that too much self-analysis can dispose one to mental illness, or as he wrote:

“. . .to wish to play the spy upon oneself. . .is to reverse the natural order of the cognitive powers. . . The desire for self-investigation is either already a disease of the mind (hypochondria) or will lead to such a disease and ultimately to the madhouse.”

Immanuel Kant, Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science

Self-analysis that takes the form of dwelling on the past is particularly pathological and rarely produces positive results. Jung suggests that the neurotic who constantly tries to figure out what went wrong with his life is like a man who fixates on trying to determine how he caught a bacterial illness. In each case, the cause is not what is most important, what is important is taking the steps to get well in the present, or as Jung writes:

“A man is not tubercular because he was infected twenty years ago with bacilli, but because active foci of infection are present now. The questions when and how the infection occurred are totally irrelevant. Even the most accurate knowledge of the previous history cannot cure the tuberculosis. And the same holds true of the neuroses.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 11

Another major flaw of the reductive therapeutic approach is that often we go astray in our attempt to account for what caused our suffering. When we look back on our life, we do so through a series of interpretive filters which makes an objective account of our history a practical impossibility. How we feel about our life now, influences what events we remember, and how we remember them. If we are depressed, for example, we will likely see our childhood as full of miseries and disappointments, as our depressive state will lead us to focus only on the negatives of the past and to overlook all that was good about it. If, on the other hand, we are content with our life, we may look back on the exact same past with fond memories and even see the bad events as important learning experiences that were necessary to sculpt us into the person we are now. But it is not only that our current life conditions skew how we perceive the past, they can also lead us to create false memories in order to justify our current failings, or as Caroll Tavris and Elliot Aronson write in Mistakes Were Made (but Not By Me):

“False memories allow people to forgive themselves and justify their mistakes, but sometimes at a high price: an inability to take responsibility for their lives. An appreciation of the distortions of memory, a realization that even deeply felt memories might be wrong, might encourage people to hold their memories more lightly, drop the certainty that their memories are always accurate, and let go of the appealing impulse to use the past to justify problems of the present. We’re told to be careful what we wish for because it might come true. But we must also be careful which memories we select to justify our lives, because we will have to live by them.”

Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (but Not By Me)

Some people will argue that one benefit of digging into the past is that we may unearth repressed traumas that we have failed to process. However, research suggests that people rarely forget, or successfully repress, traumatic experiences. The problem with trauma is typically an inability to stop thinking about the event and to prevent the memories from intruding when one wishes to forget, or as the clinical psychologist Richard McNally wrote in his book Remembering Trauma:

“The notion that the mind protects itself by repressing or dissociating memories of trauma, rendering them inaccessible to awareness, is a piece of psychiatric folklore devoid of convincing empirical support.”

Richard McNally, Remembering Trauma

Due to the problems with the reductive therapeutic approach, Jung adopted what he called a constructive approach to heal from a neurosis. The constructive approach does away with the need to delve into the past, and instead focuses on the problems of the present that are preventing us from actualizing a better future, or as Jung writes:

“The constructive standpoint asks how, out of this present psyche, a bridge can be built into its own future.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 3

A constructive approach is teleological, as it looks forward toward an end or goal, in the realization that the ends we aim at can be more influential in shaping our mindset, and the state of our character, than the events of our past. Jung believed that to heal from a neurosis our overarching goal should be the development of our personality toward the state psychological wholeness. Psychological wholeness is attained when we actualize all our latent potentials and in the brevity of human life this state is only ever approached, never fully realized. Those who are moving toward this ideal are participating in what Jung called the process of individuation, a process that contributes to health in body and mind. The problem that most neurotics face, is that they are stuck in confines of a stagnant comfort zone and have long since stopped moving along the path of individuation, and so as Jung writes:

“. . .the treatment of neurosis is . . . a renewal of the personality, working in every direction and penetrating every sphere of life.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 8

While psychological wholeness is the overarching goal that we should aim for, to move toward this ideal necessitates the selection of a series of more practical goals, be it in the realm of our career, religious pursuits, interpersonal relations, or the cultivation of life skills. The goals we select should be bold enough to force us out of our comfort zone and to break us free from the errant ways of our past. For as Jung noted in a passage in volume 7 of his collected works, often “a liberation from the past” and a beckoning toward “a future rich in possibilities” is sufficient to break a neurosis.

“For young people a liberation from the past may be enough: a beckoning future lies ahead, rich in possibilities. It is sufficient to break a few bonds; the life urge will do the rest.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 7

Another practical tip Jung offers that can help one overcome a neurosis is to focus on our habits. Habits are foundational to the quality of our life and neurotics tend to be plagued by a pernicious set of bad habits that contribute to a chronic avoidance of life’s challenges and an inability to accomplish life-changing goals.

“It is obviously not enough for [a neurotic] to know how his illness arose and whence it came, for we seldom get rid of an evil merely by understanding its causes. Nor should it be forgotten that the crooked paths of a neurosis lead to as many obstinate habits, and that for all our insight these do not disappear until replaced by other habits. Habits are won only by exercise. . .The patient must be drawn out of himself into other paths. . .”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 16

We can adopt the constructive approach to healing from a neurosis without understanding what caused us to become neurotic in the first place. We don’t need to try and untangle the complicated web of our past to aim for new goals or to begin addressing our problems in the here and now. Dwelling on the past may provide us with excuses for our neurotic ways and it may satisfy our need to justify our cowardice, but these excuses and justifications will not cure us, for as Jung wrote:

“. . .it is only in the today, not in our yesterdays, that the neurosis can be “cured.” Because the neurotic conflict has to be fought today, and historical deviation is a detour, if not actually a wrong turning.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 10

Share

When considering how to improve modern day society many people gravitate toward political solutions. Others suggest that we need a sort of revolution of consciousness in which people move to a more enlightened state of being. But there is another path that could lead to social progress that is more practical than either politics or enlightenment, and this involves a fundamental shift in the Western worldview away from the materialist dogma that now sits at its core.

In this video, we explore the nature of philosophical materialism and how this paradigm dictates the way we perceive reality and our place within it. We then look at the flaws of this paradigm and how relinquishing it will expand the horizon of human potential, transform our perspective on death, reshape the practice of medicine, alter our views on morality, and make life more meaningful.

A worldview is the lens through which we interpret reality and our place within it. It is composed of a set of ideas and beliefs that dictate how we navigate the challenges of existence and how we relate to ourselves, other people and the world around us. Our worldview sets the bounds on what we believe is possible and it provides answers to fundamental questions such as “What does it mean to be human?”, “What is the ultimate nature of reality”, “Where did we come from?” and “What happens when we die?” And as the philosopher Bernard Kastrup writes:

“One’s worldview is probably the most important aspect of one’s life. After all, our worldviews largely determine, given the circumstances of our lives, whether we are happy or depressed; whether our lives are rich in meaning or desperately vacuous; and whether there is reason for hope.”

Bernardo Kastrup, Why Materialism is Baloney

One of the primary elements of the Western worldview is philosophical materialism. This metaphysical theory holds that reality, at its most fundamental level, is composed of inert and lifeless particles of matter. It is from the mechanical interactions of these particles that every phenomenon in the universe – including life and consciousness itself – arises. Or as Chris Carter writes in Science and Psychic Phenomenon:

“Materialism [is] the idea that everything in the universe can ultimately be explained in terms of the fundamental particles and the four forces of physics.”

Chris Carter, Science and Psychic Phenomenon:

The vast majority of us implicitly accept the basic tenets of materialism and the conclusions that follow from them. For example, most people believe that life and consciousness are by-products of exclusively biological processes and that when the physical body stops functioning life ends and our subjective experience stops.

“Many of us absorb materialist beliefs from the culture without even being aware of it. . .Materialism suffuses the core of our being by a kind of involuntary osmosis. Like a virus, it spreads unnoticed until it’s too late and the infection has already taken a firm hold.”

Bernardo Kastrup, Why Materialism is Baloney

While most of us look at the world through the lens of the materialist paradigm, materialism is a deeply flawed theory. In fact, while materialism reached its peak of influence among scientists and philosophers in the mid-20^th century it has since experienced a precipitous decline. Or as Robert Koons and George Bealer write:

“It is of course commonly thought that over the course of the last 60 or so years materialism achieved hegemony in academic philosophy. . . It is therefore surprising that an examination of the major philosophers active in this period reveals that a majority, or something approaching a majority, either reject materialism or had serious and specific doubts about its ultimate viability.”

Robert Koons and George Bealer, The Waning of Materialism

What are the flaws that make materialism an untenable account of reality? Why have more scientists and philosophers rejected the theory in favor of alternatives? Simply put, materialism cannot account for two of the most important elements of reality – namely consciousness and life itself.

The attempt to account for the emergence of consciousness has proved to be such a challenge within the materialist paradigm that it is known as the hard problem of consciousness. Materialists contend that consciousness is an emergent property, or an epiphenomenon, of brain activity. Or as Kastrup explains, according to materialists: “There is supposedly nothing to consciousness but the movements and interactions of material particles inside a brain, so that consciousness is material brain processes at work.” This assertion, however, is merely a hypothesis and a weak one at that, something Carl Jung recognized nearly a century ago:

“Despite the materialistic tendency to understand the psyche as a mere reflection or imprint of physical and chemical processes, there is not a single proof of this hypothesis.”

Carl Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

The materialist’s hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain violates our understanding of the idea of emergence in complex systems. For a property to be considered an emergent possibility of a complex system, it must be deducible from the properties of the lower-level components of the system. However, there is nothing about neurons, or any other physical components of the brain that allow us to deduce the conscious experience that supposedly emerges from their interactions. Or as Kastrup explains:

“…unless one is prepared to accept magic, the emergent properties of a complex system must be deducible from the properties of the lower-level components of the system. For instance, we can deduce – and even predict – the shape of sand ripples from the properties of grains of sand and wind. We can put it all in a computer program and watch simulated sand ripples form in the computer screen that look exactly like the real thing. But when it comes to consciousness, nothing allows us to deduce the properties of subjective experience – the redness of red, the bitterness of regret, the warmth of fire – from the mass, momentum, spin, charge, or any other property of subatomic particles bouncing around in the brain. This is the hard problem of consciousness.”

Bernardo Kastrup, Why Materialism is Baloney

Another problem with materialism is that it cannot account for the origins of life. How can certain configurations of inert, lifeless matter give rise to living and conscious beings? What leads to the shift from dead matter, to living, breathing and thinking matter? Again, materialism fails to offer a coherent answer, or as Kastrup writes:

“Nobody knows today how life could emerge from dead matter. There are dozens of theories and even more loose avenues of speculation, but no one has ever managed to re-create life from dead matter – a process called ‘abiogenesis’ – in a laboratory. Therefore, there is just no proof that life could ever have arisen from nonlife through purely mechanistic means. Yet mechanistic abiogenesis is indispensable for materialism. Without it, materialism would fall apart, for it would fail to explain that which conceived materialism in the first place: human life.”

Bernardo Kastrup, Brief Peeks Beyond

Due to the failures of materialism many philosophers and scientists are gravitating towards metaphysical theories that hold consciousness as a primary component of reality. Some philosophers argue that consciousness, or some form of experience, is inherent in all physical entities, a position known as panpsychism or panexperientialism. Others suggest that all of reality is a mental phenomenon, and that what we interpret as matter is a manifestation of mind. This position is known as idealism.

“We are in the midst of a sea change. Receding from view is materialism, whereby physical phenomena are assumed to be primary and consciousness is regarded as secondary. Approaching our sights is a complete reversal of perspective. According to this alternative view, consciousness is primary and the physical is secondary. In other words, materialism is receding and giving way to ideas about reality in which consciousness plays a key role.”

I. Baruss and J. Mossbridge, Transcendent Mind: Rethinking the Science of Consciousness

While materialism is declining in influence among those who study the ultimate nature of reality, it remains a core component of the Western worldview. The metaphysical theories which grant consciousness a primary role have not yet infiltrated the cultural zeitgeist. When they do, however, the changes will be radical and re-orient human life in many important ways.

Firstly, this paradigmatic shift will change our view of death. The materialist doctrine has us believe that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain and so when the brain stops working, our experience ends, and we cease to exist. However, if we believe that consciousness, or mind, is primary, the possibility of some form of life after death, or at least a continuation of our subjective experience, is no longer out of the realm of possibility. Reports of near-death experiences, which have been studied for decades, offer anecdotal evidence of some form of conscious experience continuing after physical death. Or as Kastrup writes:

“If all reality is in consciousness, then your consciousness is not generated by your body. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that your consciousness will end when your body dies. Your body is simply the outside image of a particular configuration of consciousness that you experience when you are alive. When you die, that configuration – or state – of consciousness will change, perhaps dramatically. . .Now, would we live life differently – perhaps in a less anxious, more present and grounded manner – if we knew that death isn’t the end of consciousness? If the fear of death were no longer viable as an instrument of social control or economic gain, what would be the practical consequences for our culture, economy and society at large?”

Bernardo Kastrup, Brief Peeks Beyond

A second change that would accompany the abandonment of materialism relates to the innate capacities of man. Currently, due to materialism’s influence, it is assumed that man’s powers are limited by the laws of Newtonian physics. Action at a distance, which is called psychokinesis, perception without the use of sense organs, or what is called clairvoyance, or the direct communication between minds unaided by the sense organs, which is called telepathy, are viewed as impossible under the materialist paradigm. But if materialism is rejected we are not bound by the physical laws that tell us these phenomena are impossible. Instead, if consciousness is viewed as primary, these so-called paranormal phenomena can no longer be dismissed out of hand, and as Kastrup writes: “If the a priori basis against parapsychology were to disappear, so that critical resources and people could be committed to it in scales much greater than ever before, what could science discover in this field?” (Bernardo Kastrup, Brief Peeks Beyond)

A third way the world would change if the materialist dogma was abandoned involves the field of medicine, which is currently dominated by the materialist paradigm. Most doctors view the body as a machine and believe that curing a disease requires interventions that fix its broken parts – be it through surgery or drugs. Many doctors are so tied to the materialist paradigm they even consider mental illnesses, such as depression or anxiety, to arise primarily from problems with the chemical composition of the brain.

“Today’s healthcare systems treat us as biological robots because the materialist metaphysics defines us as such. Consequently, doctors often behave as mechanics, instead of healers.”

Bernardo Kastrup, Brief Peeks Beyond

If consciousness is considered fundamental to the nature of reality, rather than a mere epiphenomenon of the brain, our approach to healing would dramatically change. It would no longer be logical to focus exclusively on fixing the physical symptoms of an ailment. Instead, the psyche, or consciousness, would be recognized as a primary force in both the cause and cure of disease and healing would involve changes at the level of the psyche. This idea is already supported by phenomenon such as the nocebo and placebo effects but would be taken even more seriously if panpsychism, panexperientialism, or idealism entered the cultural zeitgeist. An abandonment of materialism, in other words, would likely give rise to a more integrative approach to medicine, or as Kastrup explains:

“Integrative medicine encompasses a variety of approaches to healthcare focusing on mind-body interaction. Unlike mainstream materialist medicine, which treats a patient’s body as a biological mechanism, integrative medicine seeks to heal the whole being, including – and often starting from – one’s psychic, emotional functions. It is a more holistic approach to healing that, because of the metaphysical bias carried by our culture’s mainstream materialist worldview, has largely been neglected over the past several decades.”

Bernardo Kastrup, Brief Peeks Beyond

But perhaps the most profound consequence of transcending materialism would be a resurgence in meaning and a new moral weight placed upon the shoulders of man. Under the materialist doctrine, we are merely transient configurations of matter, and our subjective experience completely vanishes with the end of our physical life – a belief that easily leads to nihilism.

If consciousness is fundamental, the meaning of our life changes. If our subjective experience can somehow continue beyond our physical death, then how we live in the here and now may be far more important than we realize. This possibility adds a cosmic significance to our existence and can motivate us to live in a more virtuous manner in the recognition that our actions, thoughts, and behaviors may have consequences that echo for eternity. This idea is embodied in many of the great religious traditions – for example in the idea of Karma in the Eastern religions or in the Abrahamic concept of divine judgement and the immortality of the soul.

We will conclude with some words from the Nobel prize winning German physicist Max Planck. Planck was one of the originators of quantum mechanics and one of the founders of modern physics. After decades of studying the ultimate nature of reality and probing deeply into the properties of matter, he came to the conclusion that spirit, not matter lies at the foundation of reality.

“As a physicist, and therefore as a man who has spent his whole life in the service of the most down-to-earth science, namely the exploration of matter, no one is going to take me for a starry-eyed dreamer. After all my exploration of the atom, then, let me tell you this: there is no matter as such. All matter arises and exists only by virtue of a force which sets the atomic particles oscillating, and holds them together in that tiniest of solar systems … we must suppose, behind this force, a conscious, intelligent spirit. This spirit is the ultimate origin of matter.”

Max Planck, The Nature of Matter

Share

In his book the Concept of Anxiety, the 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard wrote:

“…the courageous person does not shrink back when anxiety announces itself, and still less does he attempt to hold it off with noise and confusion; but he greets it festively, and like Socrates who raised the poisoned cup, he shuts himself up with it and says as a patient would say to the surgeon when the painful operation is about the begin: Now I am ready.”

Soren Kierkegaard, The Concept of Anxiety

An anxiety disorder functions like a trickster. It convinces us that we are in danger when we are safe. And any effort to force it away only makes it stronger. Whether we try to numb ourselves with alcohol and drugs or attempt to tame our anxiety with healthier tactics like exercise or positive thinking, the more we try to eliminate it, the more firmly it takes root.

“…anxiety symptoms cannot be vanquished with effort.”

Martin Seif and Sally Winston, What Every Therapist Needs to Know about Anxiety Disorders

It is because anxiety can be so deceptive that anxiety disorders are difficult to overcome. Yet there is reason for hope, as anxiety disorders are among the most treatable psychological conditions. But to effectively treat them requires a shift in how we understand and respond to anxiety. Instead of falling for its deceptions, we must learn to see through them and call anxiety’s bluffs. In this video, we explore techniques that make this possible.

“…anxiety can come on so suddenly that almost everyone’s initial response to it is the same. We resist it. It’s human nature to want to avoid an uncomfortable experience like anxiety. We’d rather run away from it or try to block it out. Unfortunately, no one has ever told us that’s the wrong response to have. It’s the wrong response because when we fight anxiety, that effort traps us with the same force we put into trying to fight it. When we run from it, it chases us with the same speed of our escape.”

Barry McDonagh, Dare: The New Way to End Anxiety and Stop Panic Attacks

The first step in overcoming an anxiety disorder is to break the association between feeling anxious and being in danger. For rather than serving as a reliable warning of threat, the anxiety experienced in an anxiety disorder is most often a false alarm.

“Anxiety makes patients believe that feeling anxious is the same as being in danger. The goal is to erase the association between feeling anxious and being unsafe. They are not the same.”

Martin Seif and Sally Winston, What Every Therapist Needs to Know about Anxiety Disorders

One way to erase this association is to label anxious thoughts and sensations for what they are: not signs of objective danger, but simply anxiety. When a wave of anxiety arises, we can remind ourselves: “This is anxiety trying to trick me into feeling unsafe. Just because these thoughts feel frightening does not mean they are true. My anxious feelings are making the threat seem real, but this is simply anxiety sounding a false alarm.” Or as Martin Seif and Sally Winston write in their book What Every Therapist Needs to Know About Anxiety:

“Labeling anxiety is the first step towards disabling anxiety…So the first job is to put the label of anxiety on all fearful distress that is not caused by an objective danger. Feeling frightened is not the same as being unsafe. Labeling anxiety is the first step towards breaking this connection.”

Martin Seif and Sally Winston, What Every Therapist Needs to Know about Anxiety Disorders

But an obvious question lingers: what if anxiety is alerting us to real danger? A physical symptom we are anxious about may signal a serious health problem. The fear that something terrible might happen to someone we care about could be an accurate prediction of a future tragedy. Or the worry that we will make an embarrassing social blunder may come true. “…every dread which alarms may the next instant become a fact.”, Soren Kierkegaard observed. Part of what makes anxiety so convincing, and anxiety disorders so difficult to overcome, is that uncertainty is woven into the fabric of existence. We can never be completely certain that the bad things we are anxious about won’t happen. This is a reality we must learn to face and accept.

“The psychic task which a person can and must set for himself, is not to feel secure, but to be able to tolerate insecurity, without panic and undue fear.”

Erich Fromm, The Sane Society

Or as Lee Smolin writes:

“On a personal level, to think in time is to accept the uncertainty of life as the necessary price of being alive. To rebel against the precariousness of life, to reject uncertainty, to adopt a zero tolerance to risk, to imagine that life can be organised to completely eliminate danger, is to think outside time. To be human is to live suspended between danger and opportunity.”

Lee Smolin, Time Reborn

To help us tolerate uncertainty, the psychologist Jonathan Grayson introduced a thought experiment he called the gun test.

Read more

Some people allege that the politicians, bureaucrats and corporate elite that make up the ruling class are conspiring to enrich themselves, gain more power, and transform society into a totalitarian dystopia. From assassinations to false flags, cognitive warfare to the rigging of elections, engineered pandemics to manufactured economic and social crises, there is little they won’t do to achieve their nefarious ends. But to make such assertions is to be branded a conspiracy theorist. And conspiracy theorists are mentally unhinged, paranoid, and deluded, and we should ignore their claims as we would the ravings of a mad man – or so we are conditioned to believe. In this video, relying on the book Conspiracy Theory in America by Lance deHaven-Smith, we explore why a blanket rejection of conspiracy theories is naïve and why our freedom is contingent on more of us being open minded to the possibility that conspiracies among the ruling class are a prime factor contributing to the downfall of the West.

As the historian Kathryn Olmstead explains “A conspiracy occurs when two or more people collude to abuse power or break the law. A conspiracy theory is a proposal about a conspiracy that may or may not be true; it has not yet been proven.”

While conspiracies are as old as civilization itself, the term conspiracy theory only gained popularity in the second half of the 20^th century. The way this term made it into popular discourse was through a 1960s CIA propaganda campaign. The CIA was concerned about the growing distrust surrounding the US government’s investigation into the John F. Kennedy assassination. The Warren Commission, which was tasked by President Lyndon Johnson to investigate this crime, came out with their report in 1964, and it concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Many Americans found the Commission’s conclusions to be unrealistic and the report to be full of flaws. Or as deHaven-Smith writes:

“Americans are not crazy to want answers when a president is assassinated by a lone gunman with mediocre shooting skills who manages to get off several lucky shots with an old bull-action carbine that has a misaligned scope. Why would there not be doubts when an alleged assassin is apprehended, publicly claims he is just a patsy, is interrogated for two days but no one makes a recording or even takes notes, and he is then shot to death at point-blank range when in police custody at police headquarters?”

Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America

The Warren Commission’s inability to satisfy the American public’s demand for answers led independent investigators to develop their own theories about what happened to JFK. Some suggested possible involvement by the man who perhaps gained most from the assassination, namely JFK’s vice president Lyndon Johnson, who took over the presidency following JFK’s death. CIA complicity in the crime was also widely speculated about. The CIA decided they needed to act lest these theories gain too much traction and cause a serious collapse in government trust. In January 1967 they initiated a propaganda campaign targeting those who questioned the government narrative. One part of this campaign, which was revealed in a Freedom of Information Act request, was Dispatch 1035-960. This Dispatch, which was distributed to CIA field offices across the globe, contained the instructions to “destroy it when no longer needed”. And as deHaven-Smith explains:

“Essentially, Dispatch 1035-960 instructed CIA agents to contact journalists and opinion leaders in their locales about critics of the Warren Commission; ask for their assistance in countering the influence of “conspiracy theorists” who were publishing “conspiracy theories” that blamed top leaders in the U.S. for Kennedy’s death; and urge their media contacts to criticize such theories and those who embraced them for aiding Communists in the Cold War, trying to get attention, seeking to profit financially from the Kennedy tragedy, and refusing to consider all the facts.”

Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America

The effort to discredit critics of the official account of the JFK assassination proved effective largely because it introduced a new group label into American political discourse. Individuals who questioned the establishment’s narrative were categorized as “conspiracy theorists” and with the help of the media, politicians, and members of academia this group was branded with increasing pejorative labels, they were called paranoid, mentally unwell, crazy, fringe, extremists, crackpots, and fanatics. And as deHaven-Smith explains:

“The CIA propaganda program was designed to interject a new group into the pantheon of political groups Americans employ to pigeonhole political candidates, issues, movements, and so on. In this case, the group was called “conspiracy theorists,” and its beliefs were described abstractly as “conspiracy theories” about the assassination of President Kennedy. However, like the other group labels in American politics, the conspiracy-theory label was (and is) sufficiently vague and general to be applied to many other events, issues, and individuals in addition to the assassination of President Kennedy.”

Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America

The stigmatization of conspiracy theorists through government propaganda and other covert actions continues to this day. For example, the American legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who was Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration, wrote a paper in 2008, co-authored by Harvard legal scholar Adrian Vermeule, which explores various methods for discrediting conspiracy theorists. The method they propose government use is called cognitive infiltration or as they write: “our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories.” (Cass R. Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule, “Conspiracy Theories”) Cognitive infiltration involves government agents, or private agents acting on the government’s behalf, infiltrating groups that spread conspiracy theories and attempting to fracture their unity and undermine their theories. Or as Sunstein and Vermeule explain, cognitive infiltration occurs when “government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) … undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to [conspiracy] theories. They do so by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.” (Cass R. Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule, “Conspiracy Theories”)

Cognitive infiltration is reminiscent of the FBI’s illegal Counterintelligence Program that operated covertly from the mid-1950s to the 1970s. This program involved the FBI targeting political groups they saw as subversive, such as civil rights and antiwar groups, placing them under surveillance, infiltrating them and attempting to disrupt their functioning. Cognitive infiltration is a form of cognitive warfare that intelligence agencies have long utilized to control narratives and to thwart the spread of information that is disruptive to the goals of the ruling class. Sunstein and Vermeule’s promotion of this theory is merely an academic attempt to justify the state’s control of its citizens’ minds, or as deHaven-Smith writes:

“. . .there is something very hypocritical about those who want to fix people who do not share their opinions. Sunstein and Vermeule say conspiracy believers need to have their discussions disrupted, because they are dangerous. But what could be more dangerous than thinking it is acceptable to mess with someone else’s thoughts? Sunstein and Vermeule’s hypocrisy is breathtaking. They would have government conspiring against citizens who voice suspicions about government conspiracies, which is to say they would have government do precisely what they want citizens to stop saying government does. How do Harvard law professors become snared in such Orwellian logic?”

Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America

Even if it is acknowledged that it was government propaganda that turned the conspiracy theory label into a pejorative term, and even if we believe cognitive warfare is being used to discredit conspiracy theorists, perhaps the government is right to act in this way. Maybe the ruling class of Western democracies largely obey the law and perhaps the public needs to be protected from the dangerous ideas of the conspiracy theorists. But this overlooks the fact that political conspiracies do occur. For example, there was the Watergate scandal in the early 1970s where officials in the Nixon administration conspired to rig the 1972 election. There was Iran-Contra in the 1980s in which members of Reagan’s White house illegally sold arms to Iran and then channeled the money to a rebel army in Nicaragua. More recently the Bush-Cheney administration purposefully misled Congress and the American public about the evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify a war.

But in the minds of those who reject conspiracy theories the fact that these political crimes have been exposed may be interpreted as evidence against speculative and unproven conspiracy theories. For one could claim that even if the ruling class commits a major crime, it can’t be kept secret for long. Investigations by the agencies tasked with maintaining law and order would discover these crimes, or whistleblowers would make them public knowledge. deHaven-Smith describes this rebuttal of conspiracy theories in the following passage:

“But of course those who use the conspiracy-theory label as a putdown to dismiss suspicions of political skulduggery know that political conspiracies sometimes do occur. They are aware of Watergate, Iran-contra, and Iraq-gate, but they argue that official exposure of these scandals proves that secrets in the United States cannot be kept and plots in high office will always be found out. . .”

Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America

This defense of the ruling class overlooks the fact that governments are provably capable of keeping secrets. A prime example is the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb. This project involved thousands of people and took years to complete but only became public knowledge after the first bomb was dropped on Japan. A more recent example relates to the Epstein files. The US government has kept secret the names of many of those involved with Epstein and the true extent of his crimes, even though numerous agents in the FBI, Justice Department, and other government officials have had access to the unredacted documents.

“Clearly, when the US government wants to keep its capability secret,” writes deHaven-Smith “it can do so even when the secret must be harboured by many people and multiple agencies.”

Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America

But even if conspiracies can be kept secret and even if the ruling class commits crimes that we never learn of, is it really something to be outraged about? Are the conspiracies that the ruling class takes part in really affecting our day-to-day lives? And furthermore, if society were truly sliding into a totalitarian dystopia, as some conspiracy theorists claim, wouldn’t the evidence be unmistakable and visible to everyone? But there is an alternative point of view. Perhaps modern ruling elites have learned that openly trying to control all of society, as past totalitarians did, is counterproductive. It is better to offer the illusion of freedom and to use conspiracies to place the chains of servitude around a population. Or as deHaven Smith writes:

“…the truth is that events and information vary greatly in their importance, and hence a more or less totalitarian system can be achieved with a bare minimum of government intrigue and propaganda if the political apparatus and specifically the organs of manipulation are focused on society’s key levers and chokepoints. This might be called “smart” or “selective” totalitarianism. In such a system, the government rarely intervenes into domestic or international affairs for domestic effect, but when it does, it orchestrates hugely important events that set the frame for policy and politics for years or even decades to come.”

Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America

If it is accepted that political conspiracies occur and that keeping them secret is possible, then the real reason why so much effort is put into discrediting conspiracy theories comes to light. It is not done to protect people from falling down rabbit holes of misinformation or to prevent an unjustified collapse in government trust. Instead, it is done to protect the criminals in positions of high power.

“A conspiracy theory directs suspicion at officials who benefit from political crimes and tragedies,” writes deHaven-Smith. “The theories are considered dangerous not because they are obviously false, but because, viewed objectively and without deference to U.S. political officials and institutions, they are often quite plausible.”

Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America

A willingness to evaluate the evidence supporting a conspiracy theory is not a sign that we are crazy or paranoid, it is a sign that we are connected to reality and not deluded by statist propaganda. In fact, it was an openness to the possibility of political conspiracies that led to the creation of one of the greatest countries in history. The founders of the United States of America rebelled against British rule because they recognized, as is documented in the Declaration of Independence, that King George was conspiring to place the colonies in the chains of tyranny. Or as deHaven-Smith writes:

“Those who now dismiss conspiracy theories as groundless paranoia have apparently forgotten that the United States was founded on a conspiracy theory. The Declaration of Independence claimed that “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations” by King George proved the king was plotting to establish “an absolute tyranny over these states.” . . .Among the complaints listed are onerous taxation, fomenting slave rebellions and Indian uprisings, taxation without representation, and indifference to the colonies’ complaints. The document’s signers claimed it was this “design to reduce them under absolute despotism,” not any or all of the abuses themselves, that gave them the right and the duty “to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.””

Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America

If we continue to fall victim to the propaganda that manipulates us into dismissing conspiracy theories, then we risk falling further into the chains of tyrannical rule that the American founders fought against. We make it easier for the corrupt elements of the ruling class to commit crimes that lead to their enrichment and our impoverishment, as well as to their empowerment and our enslavement. This doesn’t mean that we should be naïve and believe all conspiracy theories, as many are false and some act as decoys to distract us from the theories more likely to be true. Rather we need to be vigilant and to recognize that power corrupts and that corrupt rulers commit crimes to further their agendas.

Share

“Learning to know anxiety is an adventure which every man has to affront…He therefore who has learned rightly to be in anxiety has learned the most important thing.”

Soren Kierkegaard, The Concept of Anxiety

As life is uncertain and filled with risk, we all experience anxiety from time to time. When facing important decisions, confronting worries, reflecting on the fragility of life or the inevitability of death, anxiety is a normal response. For some, anxiety is fleeting and does not disrupt the ability to function. But for others, anxiety is debilitating and chronic. It interferes with normal day-to-day functioning and acts as a barrier to a fulfilling and meaningful life. Those in the latter group suffer from an anxiety disorder.

In this two-part series we explore the nature of this psychological disorder. In this first video, we clarify what distinguishes ordinary anxiety from an anxiety disorder, and we examine what causes these disorders to develop and persist. In the second video, we turn to practical insights for recovery and introduce a relatively new, and paradoxical, therapeutic approach that has proven to be highly effective.

Every year more than 19 percent of American adults are diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, and one in three suffer from one at some point in life. There are several types of anxiety disorders, each with its own characteristics and symptoms. The most common is generalized anxiety disorder, or GAD, which is defined by persistent, excessive, and exaggerated worrying.

“Individuals with GAD report feeling anxious or apprehensive most of the time…problematic worry is a key feature of this disorder. GAD should be conceptualized as essentially a disorder of worry.”

Aaron Beck and David Clark, Cognitive Therapy of Anxiety Disorders

Social anxiety disorder, or SAD, is the second most common anxiety disorder. At its core is an intense fear of embarrassment, rejection, or humiliation in social situations. Individuals with SAD do not simply feel anxious when in public; they experience anticipatory anxiety and are weighed down with dread in the days or weeks leading up to a social event. Sufferers of SAD also experience post-event or evaluative anxiety. They replay conversations in their minds, scrutinize and criticize their social performance, and interpret others’ reactions in ways that confirm their fear of negative judgment.

“…people with social anxiety feel like all eyes are focused on them.” write Seif and Winston. “They often describe their distress as a form of unbearable over-self-consciousness. Anxiety can often reach the intensity of episodes of panic attacks, but doesn’t necessarily escalate to that point. People with severe social anxiety may describe themselves as “paranoid,”…”

Martin Seif and Sally Winston, What Every Therapist Needs to Know About Anxiety Disorders

While individuals with GAD or SAD may experience panic attacks due to excessive worrying or social anxiety, panic disorder is a distinct anxiety disorder. It typically begins with an unexpected panic attack that arises due to excessive stress or substance abuse. Afterward, the person develops a highly sensitive fear of having another panic attack, and this fear often triggers the very panic attacks that they worry about.

“Panic attacks are psychologically painful experiences, and patients often describe the feeling as the beginning of an endless nightmare. While in the process of panicking, patients fear going crazy, having a heart attack, having a stroke, going blind, losing control, doing something embarrassing or humiliating, or dying…First panic attacks are often so traumatic that they are ingrained in the patient’s memory with exquisite detail.”

Martin Seif and Sally Winston, What Every Therapist Needs to Know About Anxiety Disorders

A final type of anxiety disorder is obsessive compulsive disorder, or OCD, which consists of two components: obsessions and compulsions. Obsessions are intrusive, repetitive thoughts that feel disturbing or threatening, while compulsions are the behaviors performed to reduce the anxiety those thoughts provoke. A common manifestation of OCD involves obsessive thoughts of being contaminated or catching a disease. This leads to compulsive washing or cleaning in an effort to neutralize the perceived threat. Another common form of OCD is compulsive checking. For example, a person has the obsessive thought that the stove was left on and then feels the need to check, repeatedly, to ensure it is off.

“OCD is a complicated and sometimes profoundly disabling disorder. It consists of two components: Obsessions increase anxious distress. The other component is compulsions, which are actions or thoughts whose function is to lower anxiety.”

Martin Seif and Sally Winston, What Every Therapist Needs to Know About Anxiety Disorders

Although anxiety disorders manifest themselves in different ways, they share a common foundation. All of them are driven by a fear of fear itself.

“People with an anxiety disorder do not merely feel fear, they fear fear. They are frightened by their feelings of fear. They are anxious about being anxious. Being frightened of the fearful feelings is an essential component of having an anxiety disorder.”

Martin Seif and Sally Winston, What Every Therapist Needs to Know About Anxiety Disorders

To understand the fear of fear that underlies anxiety disorders, we must briefly summarize two distinct pathways which our mind uses to detect and respond to potential threats.

Read more

“[Modern man] is blind to the fact that, with all his rationality and efficiency, he is possessed by powers beyond his control. The gods and demons have not disappeared at all, they have merely got new names.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 18

For millennia, in cultures spanning the globe, men and women believed in the existence of demons and saw possession by such forces as an ever-present risk. Most cultures developed practices and rituals to ward off demonic possession and to exorcise them from possessed individuals. In the modern day we consider ourselves to be more enlightened and view demonic possession as a superstitious belief of a bygone era. In this video, we explore why the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung considered this view to be misguided. The demons that wreaked havoc on our ancestors are still with us today. They continue to possess us, to drive us into error, and to push us towards acts of evil, or as Jung writes:

“. . .we are possessed by the demons of sickness no less than [our ancestors], our psyche is just as much in danger of being struck by some hostile influence, we are just as much the prey of malevolent spirits of the dead, or the victims of a magic spell cast by a strange personality. Only we call all these things by different names, and that is the only advantage we have over primitive man…”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 10

To understand how our conception of the demonic has evolved and why we see demons as a superstition, while our ancestors saw them as real, we need to explore a defining feature of the primitive mindset, namely its participation mystique. Participation mystique was a concept introduced by the French philosopher Lucien Lévy-Bruhl in the early-20^th century to describe how primitive man lacked a sharp distinction between the inner world of the psyche and the outer world of the environment. This psychological state was a result of primitive man’s high degree of unconsciousness. The primitive, in other words, moved through life relying heavily on instinct and intuition and when elements of the unconscious pressed upwards towards the fringes of conscious awareness, the primitive would project these elements onto the natural world as their egos were too underdeveloped to integrate them into their self-concept. These projections created an animated state of nature where objects, such plants, animals, rocks, rivers and oceans, as well as forces like fire, wind, thunder and lightning, were imbued with human agency and intention. Primitive man’s participation mystique, in other words, psychologically entwined him with the natural world, or as Jung explains:

“What [is] meant by [participation mystique] is simply the indefinitely large remnant of non-differentiation between subject and object. . . When there is no consciousness of the difference between subject and object, an unconscious identity prevails. The unconscious is then projected into the object, and the object is introjected into the subject, becoming part of his psychology. Then plants and animals behave like human beings, human beings are at the same time animals, and everything is alive with ghosts and gods.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 13

As the psyche is composed of an interplay of opposites – the good and the bad, the light and the dark, the creative and the destructive – primitive’s man projections animated nature with benevolent and malevolent forces. The projection of benevolent forces created the friendly and protective gods of nature, guiding spirits, fairies, and wood nymphs, while malevolent projections, or the projection of the dark and destructive elements of the psyche, were viewed as nature’s dark spirits, angry gods, or evil demons.

“Today we can scarcely imagine this state of mind anymore,” writes Jung “and we can form no proper conception of what it meant to live in a world that was filled from above with the mysteries of God’s wonder, down to the very crucible of the smelter, and was corrupted from below by devilish deception, tainted by original sin, and secretly animated by demons. . .”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 13

Over the millennia, the human psyche underwent a profound transformation. We became more self-aware, and this self-awareness acted as a wedge between subject and object. We increasingly differentiated between the inner world of the psyche and the outer world of nature and as the boundary between inner and outer solidified, we withdrew our projections, and pulled ourselves out of the state of participation mystique, or as Jung writes:

“First [man] was moved to deeds by unconscious factors, and only a long time afterwards did he begin to reflect about the causes that had moved him; then it took him a very long time indeed to arrive at the preposterous idea that he must have moved himself – his mind being unable to see any other motivating force than his own.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 18

When we stopped using nature as the home for our projections, we forced these psychological energies back within ourselves. We ceased to experience the outer world as populated by spirits, gods, and demons and in the process we depsychized nature. Or as Jung explains:

“…the rabble of spooks that were formerly outside have now transported themselves into the psyche of man, and when we admire the “pure,” i.e., depsychized, Nature we have created, we willy-nilly give shelter to her demons. . .”

Or as Jung writes in Volume 10 of his Collected Works:

“Even though nature is depsychized, the psychic conditions which breed demons are as actively at work as ever. The demons have not really disappeared but have merely taken on another form: they have become unconscious psychic forces.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 10

Jung believed that in withdrawing our projections we didn’t get rid of the demonic, instead we magnified its danger. For at least when primitive man projected these psychological forces and energies onto nature he was aware of their ever-present danger. Furthermore, when these forces and energies were experienced as external, it promoted the development of religious and shamanic practices to confront and contain them. But once we started to internalize the demonic, we forced it deeper into the unconscious and began to deny they it existed. And as Jung so often stresses, the more something is repressed the more dangerous it becomes. Or as he writes:

“. . .after it became impossible for the demons to inhabit the rocks, woods, mountains, and rivers, they used human beings as much more dangerous dwelling places. In natural objects much narrower limits were drawn to their effectiveness: only occasionally did a rock succeed in hitting a hut, only rarely was it possible for a river to overflow its banks, devastate the fields, and drown people. But a man does not notice it when he is governed by a demon; he puts all his skill and cunning at the service of his unconscious master, thereby heightening its power a thousandfold.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 18

That modern man is vulnerable to what earlier ages have called demonic possession is most visible in the behavior of those who occupy the highest levels of political power. For the immense authority wielded by such individuals – an authority derived not from moral virtue but from a willingness to partake in the corrupt machinations of the state – creates a dangerous psychological condition. It leads to psychological inflation, or what Jung called “God-Almightiness”, where an individual believes himself to be omnipotent and far superior to the masses over whom he rules. Psychological inflation as Jung explains “causes exaggeration, a puffed-up attitude, loss of free will, delusion, and enthusiasm in good and evil alike” (Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 7). As Jung conceptualized the psyche as a self-regulating system, when our conscious attitude becomes too one-sided, as it does for the inflated individual, it triggers an equal and opposite reaction from the unconscious. Or as he writes in Volume 11 of his Collected Works: “An inflation is always threatened with a counter-stroke from the unconscious. . .” (Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 11). The counterstroke for one with a god-complex comes in the form of an activation of the psychological forces of darkness, depravity and destruction and these forces can completely overwhelm the inflated individual, leading to demonic possession. Or as Jung writes:

“We have lost our superstitious fear of evil spirits and things that go bump in the night, but, instead, are seized with terror of people who, possessed by demons, perpetrate the frightful deeds of darkness. That the doers of such deeds think of themselves not as possessed, but as “Superman,” does not alter the fact of their possession.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 18

While many in the ruling class are controlled by unconscious demonic forces, the masses are not immune to this condition. For when destructive psychological forces press upwards to the fringes of consciousness, as they do for all of us at one time or another, most people cannot accept that these dark powers reside within their own psyche and so like our primitive ancestors we project them. But unlike the primitive, we no longer project these forces onto nature. Science has taught us that rocks, trees, storms, and animals cannot possess human agency. So, the victims of our projections are other people. We project the demonic onto neighbours or colleagues, onto foreigners, immigrants, or members of different ethnic groups or political parties. These others become the screen upon which we find the unacknowledged darkness of our own soul and once located there, we convince ourselves that it is morally justified to bring harm to these people as we think it will help rid the world of evil. But what we overlook is that when we act in this manner we have fallen under the spell of demons and are not decreasing the amount of evil in the world but contributing to its spread. Or as Jung writes:

“. . . a dangerous situation is created because the disturbing effects are now attributed to an evil will outside ourselves, which is naturally to be found nowhere else than with our neighbours on the other side of the river. This leads to collective delusions, incitements to war and revolution, in a word, to destructive mass psychoses.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 10

Share

“The solemn, deep promise to be gentle with ourselves must be invoked again and again.”

Theodore Rubin, Compassion and Self-Hate

Most of us make a genuine effort to treat others with patience, understanding, and kindness, yet we fail to do the same with ourselves. Self-criticism is far more common than self-compassion. We frequently tell ourselves that we are stupid, lazy, unattractive, socially inept, unlovable, unsuccessful, or somehow defective.

In this video, we draw this poisonous self-talk out of the privacy of the mind and into the light of conscious examination. We explore two of the more common forms of self-criticism, examine how self-criticism cripples us, and present a proven method for bringing this practice of self-punishment to an end.

“In pathological self-criticism we have a problem that is extremely common, that is ruinous to the lives and happiness of people, and that entails significant obstacles to change…however, pathological self-criticism can be treated successfully and in some cases in a surprisingly short period of time.”

Raymond Bergner, Pathological Self-Criticism

Not all self-criticism is harmful, rather some criticism is constructive and promotes a virtuous and successful life. Constructive self-criticism serves our best interests: it identifies flaws, mistakes, or ineffective patterns of behavior while illuminating viable paths for improvement.

For example, if we recognize a tendency to procrastinate, or indulge in short-term pleasures at the expense of meaningful goals, it is appropriate to criticize the behavior so long as that criticism affirms our capacity to do better and points toward concrete, actionable steps for change. Or as X continues:

“Constructive self-criticism should inform one, for example, that one’s behavior is unsuccessful, what there is about the behavior that accounts for its lack of success, and/or how the behavior might be improved in the future.”

Raymond Bergner, Pathological Self-Criticism

But there is also a pathological form of self-criticism. Pathological self-criticism is marked by two defining features.

Firstly, rather than identifying a specific weakness and attempting to correct it, pathological self-criticism fixates on a shortcoming and treats it as evidence that we are irremediably defective or worthless. For example, if we are anxious in social situations, we label ourselves a loser rather than recognizing that we may simply be introverted by nature and that the social ease that comes naturally to extroverted individuals is a skill we must cultivate.

Secondly, whereas constructive self-criticism is grounded in an acceptance of human fallibility and the recognition that we all possess weaknesses and flaws, pathological self-criticism is merciless and absent understanding and compassion. When we engage in it, our psyche is transformed into an inner courtroom in which one part of our self assumes the role of the vindictive judge who punishes the part of our self deemed inadequate or defective. It is this prosecutorial quality that led X to use the figure of the “hanging judge” as a metaphor for pathological self-criticism.

A familiar figure in American Wild West folklore, the “hanging judge” was a magistrate notorious for handing down the same sentence – death by hanging – no matter how trivial the offence. In the same way, when we engage in pathological self-criticism, moments of weakness or small blunders, be it an afternoon of procrastination or an awkward social misstep, are met with insults and self-contempt. We function as a hanging judge to ourselves in that the severity of the sentence we pass on ourselves bears no proportion to the gravity of the supposed crime. Or as Raymond Bergner explains:

“What distinguishes the hanging judge form of self-criticism is its overly harsh, vindictive, prosecutorial quality…In the wake of their angry, abusive attacks upon themselves, such individuals characteristically report being seriously depressed and, in extreme cases, suicidal (Stone & Stone, 1993). Such consequences are consistent with the classical psychoanalytic contention that depression is caused by anger directed against one’s own person…Overall, then, in the aftermath of a critic attack, the individual is left feeling quite depressed, personally savaged, and possessed of few ideas or motivations pertaining to the remediation of his or her alleged mistakes and failings.”

Raymond Bergner, Pathological Self-Criticism

Not all self-criticism is of the hanging judge variety, sometimes poisonous self-talk arises from perfectionism.

Read more

“The self-handicapper reaches out for impediments, exaggerates handicaps, and embraces any factor reducing personal responsibility for mediocrity…”

Steven Berglas and Edward Jones, Drug Choice as a Self-Handicapping Strategy

Rather than simply contending with external obstacles to success, many of us actively collaborate in our own defeat. We are our own worst enemies and our inability to achieve goals, develop our character, and attain success is a result of self-handicapping. In this video, we explore the psychology of self-handicapping. We look at why it emerges and why living a life constrained by self-erected impediments can prove so attractive to some people.

The idea that we would deliberately undermine our potential may seem absurd. Given the apparent irrationality of self-handicapping, one may be tempted to relegate it to fringe cases of severe personality disorder. Self-handicapping, however, is not only common, but also an effective way to satisfy deep-seated psychological needs.

“…self- handicaps consistently have been demonstrated in empirical research over the last decade…Indeed, although some persons are especially prone to self- handicapping, there are certain circumstances that may lead the perfectly “normal” person to engage in self-handicapping. So, if some of the people tend to self-handicap most of the time, and most of the people tend to self-handicap some of the time, a reasonable conclusion is that people must be getting something out of such maneuvers. What is that something?”

C.R. Snyder, Self-Handicapping Strategies

To understand the benefits of self-handicapping, we need to recognize that among life’s primary motivations is the need to create and preserve a reasonably tolerable image of ourselves. Psychologists refer to this need to think well of ourselves as the need for self-esteem: “By self-esteem we refer to the evaluation the individual makes and customarily maintains with regard to himself: it expresses an attitude of approval or disapproval.” (Stanley Cooper, The Antecedents of Self-Esteem).

There are both healthy and unhealthy paths to self-esteem. The healthy path is to strive after valued goals and in the process cultivate skills, competencies, and a more complete character. Or as William James puts it, healthy self-esteem is a product of “perceived competence in domains of importance.” To attain self-esteem in this manner requires hard work over many years, the acceptance of risk and sacrifice, and the courage to face up to situations that may end in failure.

Many people recoil from the demands and uncertainties associated with the healthy path to self-esteem. Yet the reluctance to undertake the work of cultivating competence does not eliminate our need to think well of ourselves. When the healthy path feels too threatening or arduous, we seek alternative means of preserving a positive self-image and attaining self-esteem. One such alternative is the strategy of self-handicapping.

“…people in general employ self-handicapping strategies in order to protect self-esteem.”

Frederick Rhodewalt, Self-Handicappers: Individual Differences

And as Raymond Higgins continues:

“…those individuals who are most likely to self-handicap are characterized by uncertainty concerning their abilities and competence.”

Raymond Higgins, Self-Handicapping: Historical Roots

By partaking in chronic substance abuse, habitually procrastinating, identifying as a victim, or playing an active role in the maintenance of anxiety and depressive disorders, we impose impediments on ourselves and then invoke these impediments as excuses for our underachievement. We convince ourselves that our lack of effort and success is not the consequence of cowardice, laziness, or personal failure, but of obstacles beyond our control. Through this mixture of self-deception and self-exculpation, we absolve ourselves of the guilt and regret that accompanies a failure to actualize our potential – and therein safeguard our self-esteem.

In the words of the psychologists Steven Berglas and Edward Jones, self-handicappers “do not primarily set out to insure failure; they are willing to accept (probable) failure if it can be explained away.”

Or as Raymond Higgins continues:

“Self-handicappers are adept at inhibiting or masking their achievement-status concerns and, like narcissistically disturbed patients, may appear to renounce striving for success as a means of masking their self-esteem concerns.”

Raymond Higgins, The Maintenance and Treatment of Self-Esteem

It is because self-handicapping fulfills the defensive purpose of enabling us to avoid the arduous road to healthy self-esteem, while still preserving a tolerable self-image, that the great 20th century psychologist Alfred Adler referred to self-handicapping as the acceptance of “defeat in the interests of protection.” Or as Adler wrote with striking insight:

“The patient selects certain symptoms and develops them until they impress him as real obstacles. Behind his barricade of symptoms the patient feels hidden and secure. To the question, ‘What use are you making of your talents?’ he answers, ‘This thing stops me; I cannot go ahead,’ and points to his self-erected barricade.”

Alfred Adler, Problems of Neurosis

Self-handicapping, however, does more than merely preserve a tolerable self-image in the face of a passive existence; it offers another potential reward. If success comes our way despite the presence of self-imposed impediments, our self-image is greatly enhanced. Achievement in the face of a handicap is interpreted as evidence of exceptional ability – proof of our specialness. After all, if we manage to succeed while burdened by limitations, imagine what we might have accomplished without them. Or as H.S. Baker wrote regarding his analysis of students who avoid studying via procrastination and other self-handicapping strategies.

“Not studying offers two possibilities to maintain the grandiose self intact. If an exam is flunked, it is only due to lack of study, not due to the lack of ability; if, however, it is passed without study, it is doubly delicious, providing a good grade and “confirming” magical powers of brilliance.”

H.S. Baker, The Conquering Hero Quits

Needless to say, success is unlikely to arise from the strategy of self-handicapping. For the symptoms, illnesses, and self-erected barriers we create through self-handicapping make the challenge of attaining success in life much harder than it already is. If we participate in self-handicapping we all but assure ourselves that when we cross into the latter half of life we will have little to genuinely proud of. It is often at this stage that our self-handicapping strategies start to lose their effectiveness. We can only blame external impediments for underachievement for so long before such excuses become old and stale. At the same time, after years or decades of self-handicapping, those within our social circle may grow weary of offering sympathy and may begin to see how desperately we cling to our fake excuses. Without other people to validate our self-constructed handicaps, and facing the emptiness of a meaningless and mediocre life, the fragile structure supporting our self-esteem is left exposed – and may come crashing down. Or as Edward Jones explained:

“The apparent paradox of self-handicapping is that [self-erected barricades] make failure more likely. Though failure can perhaps be more conveniently explained with reference to the inhibiting constraint, it is still failure. And failing or flawed performances can have a devastating long range effect on the very self-esteem that self-handicapping is designed to protect.”

Edward Jones, Self-Handicapping: The Paradox that Isn’t

For those whose potential is being crippled by self-handicapping strategies, the first step on the road to recovery is the awareness of what we are doing. For the power of this strategy lies in the fact that, while we cling to self-created barriers , through an act of self-deception we simultaneously avoid awareness of our self-sabotage. For as Edward Jones writes::

“Self-handicapping phenomena…are strategic while eluding conscious awareness.”

Edward Jones, Self-Handicapping: The Paradox that Isn’t

To bring these strategies into awareness and see how we have been complicit in our own downfall, is often humbling and painful. Yet it is only through this difficult coming to consciousness that there is the possibility of putting an end to this pernicious behavior. Or as Raymond Higgins and Steven Berglas continue:

“…the maintenance of self-handicapping is facilitated by our motivated self-deception (i.e., our lack of awareness) in regard to its enactment.…for self-handicapping strategies to be effective, one must include an element of self-deception . . . so as to prevent full awareness of the purposeful nature of the strategy.”

Raymond Higgins and Steven Berglas, The Maintenance and Treatment of Self-Esteem

We will conclude with a case study described by Alfred Adler, concerning a thirty-two-year-old man whose preferred self-handicapping strategy involved the use of alcohol. This man was intelligent, healthy, and well educated, yet he lived entirely at the expense of his parents and repeatedly engaged in bouts of extreme binge drinking. Over the course of therapy, Adler came to understand that the man’s drinking served a psychological purpose as it allowed him to save face – in his own and others’ eyes – while living far below his potential. Drunkenness and the brutal hangovers that followed, in other words, functioned less as the cause of his failure to launch, than as his secret and cherished alibi. Or as Adler writes:

“The usual tensions of every day were not severe enough to drive him to drink, and he was able to use his sober intervals to display good intentions. … His drunkenness would begin . . . when he was expected to go into society or . . . when there was a demand of duty. . . . His evident aim was to be relieved of every duty and to be supported for his own sake alone. Self-centered and wholly lacking social adjustment, he had nevertheless attained a goal of superiority by the elimination of defeat. He had no defeat in society for he did not enter it; no defeat in work, for he had no occupation. … Subjectively, he triumphed over life, lived it upon his own terms entirely; but objectively, of course, the terms he obtained were almost the worst possible.”

Alfred Adler, Problems of Neurosis

Share

“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good.”

Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

While kindness is a virtue, being excessively nice is not. In this video we explore the nice guy syndrome. This syndrome affects many in the modern day. Its symptoms are as follows: putting the needs and expectations of others above our own; a compulsive seeking for social approval; a fear of interpersonal conflict; and a belief that if we can just be nice to everyone, we will create a smooth and happy life. Those afflicted by this syndrome never attain the contentment they believe they deserve. Instead, as we will explore in this video, their niceness leads to their ruin. It impedes their ability to accomplish goals and unfold their potential, prevents them from forming deep and satisfying relationships, and is harmful to their health.

“Just about everything a Nice Guy does is consciously or unconsciously calculated to gain someone’s approval or to avoid disapproval. Nice Guys seek this external validation in just about every relationship and social situation, even from strangers and people they don’t like.

Robert Glover, No More Mr. Nice Guy

The development of the nice guy syndrome typically has its roots in our childhood years. Specifically, nice guys tend to have parents who fail to offer unconditional acceptance, that is, acceptance that is offered in spite of one’s flaws, imperfections and mistakes. Instead, the love and acceptance that a future nice guy receives is conditional. He is taught that only if he behaves in certain ways and lives up to the parent’s unrealistic ideal of what amounts to a good child will he receive their approval. Children who lack unconditional acceptance come to believe that they must hide certain parts of themselves – those deemed bad by their parents – to be accepted and loved. They are also taught that they will be rejected unless they place the needs and wants of other people, namely their parents, above their own. This childhood environment is fertile ground for the emergence of the nice guy syndrome as it promotes character trait that strike at the heart of the syndrome such as people pleasing, perfectionism, and a fear of conflict. Or as Glover writes:

“Becoming a Nice Guy is a way of coping with situations where it does not feel safe or acceptable for a boy or man to be just who he is. Furthermore, the only thing that would make a child or an adult sacrifice one’s self by trying to become something different is a belief that being just who he is must be a bad and/or dangerous thing.”

Robert Glover, No More Mr. Nice Guy

Developing into a nice guy is an understandable reaction to a dysfunctional upbringing, but it is ultimately a maladaptive reaction that paves the way for future suffering. Firstly, it inhibits our ability to fulfill our potential. For if we believe that we should put the needs of others above our own we will be less likely to strive for goals we find intrinsically worthwhile, which is essential to discovering our true potential. Instead, nice guys become enslaved to the wants and needs of others and their self-worth becomes contingent on how those in their social circle view them. Nice guys are also powerless to sculpt their own fate as their compulsive seeking for approval turns them into passive individuals who are easily used by other people, or as Glover writes:

“In an attempt to cope with their childhood abandonment experiences, all Nice Guys developed the same paradigm: “If I am good, then I will be loved, get my needs met, and have a problem-free life.” Unfortunately, this paradigm not only produces the opposite of what is desired, it guarantees nothing but feelings of perpetual powerlessness.”

Robert Glover, No More Mr. Nice Guy

A second major problem nice guys face is that even though they are obsessed with gaining approval, the way they go about it sabotages their ability to form deep and meaningful relationships.

Read more

“Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength.”

Eric Hoffer, The Passionate State of Mind

The internet has connected the world, but it has also unleashed a torrent of hostility. The primary source of this hostility is the online hater. Hidden behind a screen and protected by anonymity, these individuals mock and insult creators, podcasters, online personalities, and those who express their opinion on social media.

While the medium of the internet is new, the psychology of the hater is not. In this video, drawing on the ideas of the 19th-century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, we show that the hostility emanating from the online hater is a symptom of powerlessness and weakness.

“…the evil of the weak wants to harm others and to see the signs of the suffering it has caused.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Dawn

To understand the psychology of the hater, we must first explore how the desire for power is a primary motivator of man. In On the Genealogy of Morality, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:

“Every animal, including the philosophical animal, instinctively strives for an optimum of favourable conditions under which it can expend all its power and achieve its maximal feeling of power.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality

The desire for power, which Nietzsche regarded as universal, is often misunderstood. Many think of it as a desire to dominate and control other people, and while some pursue power in this form, fundamentally it is the desire to maximize our potency: that is, to overcome limitations and obstacles and move towards our goals. “What is happiness?” asked Nietzsche. “The feeling that power increases – that a resistance is overcome” (Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist).

The healthy way to obtain feelings of power is to engage in creative activity, cultivate excellence in a skill or field, and continually try to overcome our bodily and psychological limitations. The individual who cultivates power in this manner is naturally kind and benevolent. For he who has an abundance of power instinctively finds joy in using it to help others. Take the example of Nietzsche’s character Zarathustra. Overflowing with the power that his deep wisdom granted him, Zarathustra leaves his solitude and descends from his mountain in order to share his surplus of strength with the world.

“Behold! I am weary of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Or as Nietzsche writes of the powerful individual in Beyond Good and Evil:

‘…in the foreground, there is the feeling of fullness, of power that wants to overflow…the consciousness of a wealth that wants to make gifts and give away. The noble man helps the unfortunate, however not from pity, but more in response to an impulse which the excess of power produces.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Unfortunately, only a minority of individuals cultivate power in this manner, which can account for the scarcity of the truly kind and benevolent. More common is the individual who is so consumed by fear, laziness, and an aversion to sustained effort, that they avoid the arduous path of creativity, self-mastery, and self-overcoming through which genuine power is cultivated. Yet like all human beings, such lazy and fearful individuals still possess the desire to feel powerful. And so they seek out power via an easy yet morally corrupt route. Instead of trying to lift other people up, they try to bring them down. They diminish others through cruelty, mockery, insults, and the deliberate infliction of suffering, and therein obtain a fleeting sense of potency which functions as a cheap substitute for the genuine power their lives sorely lack. Or as Nietzsche observes in his book the Dawn:

“Cruelty is one of the oldest festive joys of mankind… for to practise cruelty is to enjoy the highest gratification of the feeling of power.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Dawn

Throughout history, human beings have engaged in festivals of cruelty. For example, in the Roman gladiator games crowds mocked and insulted the slaves and prisoners condemned to fight and cheered their injuries and deaths. Today, we flatter ourselves with the belief that we have evolved beyond such barbarism. Public executions have vanished, blood sports have been outlawed, and cruelty, at least in its socially overt forms, is no longer practiced. Yet this sense of moral progress is largely illusory. For festivals of cruelty have not disappeared; they have merely migrated online.

The internet now serves as the primary arena in which weak individuals obtain feelings of power through the exercise of cruelty. For unlike in the real world, where practicing cruelty carries the risk of a retribution, the safety of the screen removes the physical danger of retaliation, while anonymity dissolves personal accountability and gets rid of the fear of being publicly shamed. Online, the hater can partake in their own private festivals of cruelty by mocking, insulting, and humiliating others – behaviors which they would never dare attempt in the physical world – with little fear of repercussions. Or as Nietzsche explains:

“To see others suffer does one good, to make others suffer even more: this is a hard saying but an ancient, mighty, human, all-too-human principle….Without cruelty there is no festival.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality

But if the desire to feel powerful accounts for the hostility of online haters, how do we make sense of the confidence many of them project? If they are genuinely weak, why do they appear so certain of their superiority over those they attack? Simply put, such people reinterpret their personal deficiencies as virtues. Because the hater never sets big goals and takes risks, he never fails. Because he never creates anything, he never exposes himself to error, criticism, and the vulnerability that is part and parcel of the creative process. His apathetic mediocrity allows him to construct an illusory moral pedestal on which he stands in order to feel justified in criticizing those who have the courage to create and enter the public arena of ideas and debate. Or as Nietzsche put it, the hater is a victim of “that sublime self-deception whereby the weak construe weakness itself as freedom, and their particular mode of existence as an accomplishment” (Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality).

Yet one further psychological mystery remains: why is the animosity of the online hater so vehement and personal? Why do these individuals direct such intense hostility toward complete strangers? The answer lies in the pain of comparison.

When the hater encounters a creator or online persona who appears to be flourishing, that individual becomes a figure of comparison who reflects back the online hater’s own stagnation and misery, and this elicits self-hatred. But instead of using self-hatred as motivation to improve his circumstances, the hater projects it outward onto the very person who triggered it, and lashes out with insults, criticism, and attacks. Nietzsche identified this dynamic when he wrote of “the distortion with which the entrenched hatred and revenge of the powerless man attacks his opponent” (Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality) Yet here lies the great irony. The hater’s hostility is not born of indifference or contempt, but of a distorted form of admiration. The individuals he targets represent the vitality, achievement, and forward momentum he craves. They embody the life he desires, but has neither the courage nor the discipline to cultivate. Or as Nietzsche observed with devastating simplicity:

“One does not hate as long as one has a low esteem of someone, but only when one esteems him as a superior.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

While online haters are weak and powerless beings, they are not harmless. To communicate their danger, Nietzsche, in his book Thus Spoke Zarathustra, offers a potent metaphor for these individuals. He refers to them as “The Poisonous Flies”. Or as he writes:

“Where solitude ends, there begins the market-place; and where the market-place begins, there begins… the buzzing of the poisonous flies.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

One fly is an annoyance. But it can be swatted away. A swarm of flies, however, can drive even the strongest animal to madness. And so it is with online haters. The danger lies not with any single one of them, but with the fact that they are innumerable. A solitary hater can be ignored or dismissed as trivial; a multitude, however, has the potential to wear down even the most resilient individual and inflict a psychological damage that undermines the capacity to work towards goals. Or as Nietzsche warns us in Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

“I see you stung all over by the poisonous flies…I see you bleeding and torn at a hundred spots…Innumerable are the small and pitiful ones…They would have blood from you; blood is what bloodless souls crave…They punish you for all your virtues…In your presence they feel themselves small, and their baseness gleams and glows against you in invisible vengeance…Therefore they hate you…what is great in you — that itself must make them more poisonous, and always more fly-like…Therefore be on your guard against the small ones!”

Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

What is the appropriate antidote to these poisonous flies? The immediate impulse is often to engage – that is, to reply, to defend one’s creations or reputation, and expose the errors, distortions, and faulty reasoning behind the attacks. But Nietzsche counsels against this. For the hater wants a reaction. They want to lower you to their level so they can feel the fleeting power that comes from bringing someone down. When you react, it only emboldens them and fuels their hostility. The only way to deal with the poisonous flies is to ignore them completely. For the flies of the digital marketplace are too numerous to swat away individually. If you try you will only exhaust yourself. Therefore, let them buzz unheard, and continue directing your energy towards what really matters; your work, goals, and the improvement of your bodily and psychological health. Or as Nietzsche wrote:

“Flee, my friend, into your solitude: I see you stung by poisonous flies…Flee into your solitude! You have lived too near the small and the pitiable men. Flee from their hidden vengeance! Towards you they are nothing but vengeance. No longer lift your arm against them! They are innumerable and it is not your fate to be a fly-swat.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Share

“The difficulties of our psychotherapeutic work teach us to take truth, goodness, and beauty where we find them. They are not always found where we look for them: often they are hidden in the dirt or are in the keeping of the dragon.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 16

We all possess what Carl Jung called a shadow, and this is made up of the contents of our personality we repress due to the shame, guilt, or fear they trigger. But what is often overlooked about the shadow is that it contains both positive and negative elements, or as Jung wrote:

“What our age thinks of as the “shadow” and inferior part of the psyche contains more than something merely negative.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 10

In addition to repressing weaknesses and character flaws, many of us do the same with strengths, talents, and our highest potentials. Or as the author Ken Wilber writes:

“You can completely lose track of incredibly positive things about yourself – your beauty, goodness, strength, and virtue. . .the so-called Golden shadow.”

Ken Wilber, Finding Radical Wholeness

In this video we explore why we fear the contents of the golden shadow and why we avoid moving towards our highest potential.

“The impetus that makes you fly is our great human possession,” wrote Hermann Hesse. “Everybody has it. It is the feeling of being linked with the roots of power, but one soon becomes afraid of this feeling…That is why most people shed their wings and prefer to walk and obey the law.”

Hermann Hesse, Demian

The 20th century psychologist Abraham Maslow believed that we all possess an impulse to achieve greatness and an innate urge to move toward what he called our “highest possibilities”. Very few of us, however, move anywhere close to these possibilities. A primary reason for this, according to Maslow, is simply that we fear our greatness more than we desire it, or as he wrote:

“We fear our highest possibilities. We are generally afraid to become that which we can glimpse in our most perfect moments…We enjoy and even thrill to the godlike possibilities we see in ourselves… And yet we simultaneously shiver with weakness, awe, and fear before these very same possibilities.”

Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature

Maslow considered the fear of one’s highest possibilities so widespread that he gave it a name: the Jonah Complex. He drew the term from the biblical story of the prophet Jonah who tried to escape the destiny assigned to him by God. But what fuels this complex? In his book Art and Artist, the psychologist Otto Rank offers an answer. Rank argued that we are driven by two fundamental fears: a fear of death and a fear of life. The fear of death, according to Rank, is more than simply a fear of our physical extinction. It is also the fear of a psychological death that occurs when we lose our individuality through excessive conformity. This fear, according to Rank, motivates us to differentiate ourselves by actualizing the potentials that make us unique. It drives us to “exist” in the Latin sense of the word, that is, “to step out, stand forth, emerge, appear”. While this fear of death motivates us to individuate, a fear of life pulls us in the opposite direction. The fear of life, is the fear of moving too far away from the comforting confines of conformity. It is the fear of becoming too much of an individual. For there are risks to individuating – it can feel lonely and isolating and can set us up for ostracism or social rejection. Or as a Japanese proverb puts it “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down”.

The fear of life and the fear of death create a dynamic tension that sculpts our personality. “Between these two fear possibilities”, wrote Rank, “…the individual is thrown back and forth all his life.” (Otto Rank, Will Therapy) Most people in the modern day, however, are more afraid of life, or becoming an individual, than they are of the diminishment of their personality that comes with excessive conformity. And this fear of life helps account for the Jonah complex as the more afraid we are of being different, of discovering our individuality, the less likely we are to move toward our highest possibilities. Or as Nietzsche remarked “The concept of greatness entails…being able to be different.” (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil).

But a fear of life is not the only factor inhibiting us from attaining our highest possibilities. Colin Wilson, one of the most prolific authors of the 20th century, suggested that an “insignificance neurosis” permeates modern society, acting as a barrier to realizing our potential. Wilson observed that much of contemporary thought is dominated by what he called “the unheroic hypothesis”, which he defined as “the sense of defeat, or disaster, or futility, that seems to underlie so much modern writing” (Colin Wilson, The Age of Defeat). In answering the age-old question, “is man more akin to a God or a worm?” modern culture instills in us the belief that we are much closer to the worm. For example, the dominant narrative of mainstream science tells us that we are nothing but a configuration of matter that turns to dust after we die. While the most popular political ideologies devalue the individual and tell us that we are merely a cog in a machine meant to serve the needs of the collective. If we accept these mainstream views, we will underestimate the potential of man and leave many of our strengths hidden in our golden shadow.

Maslow, who was a friend of Colin Wilson’s, came to similar conclusions regarding the insignificance neurosis. Maslow made it a habit to ask his students who among them would write a great novel, become a great composer, or achieve excellence in their chosen field and discovered that:

“Generally, everybody starts giggling, blushing, and squirming until I ask. “If not you, then who else?””

Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature

Maslow goes on to explain that even if we get an inkling that perhaps we could accomplish something great, these thoughts are quickly thrown to the wayside. “Who are we to have such grandiose thoughts”, we ask ourselves and an accounting of all our flaws will have us reject any grand aspirations. Or as Maslow writes:

“The person who says to himself, “Yes, I will be a great philosopher and I will rewrite Plato and do it better,” must sooner or later be struck dumb by his grandiosity, his arrogance. And especially in his weaker moments, will say to himself “Who? Me?” and think of it as a crazy fantasy or even fear it as a delusion. He compares his knowledge of his inner private self, with all its weakness, vacillation, and shortcomings, with the bright, shining, perfect, and faultless image he has of Plato. Then, of course, he’ll feel presumptuous and grandiose. (What he doesn’t realize is that Plato, introspecting, must have felt just the same way about himself, but went ahead anyway, overriding his doubts about himself.)”

Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature

But there is another factor that can account for the Jonah complex, and this may be the most influential of them all – we fear our potential for greatness and the impulse that pushes us in this direction because if we acknowledge their existence we will no longer have an excuse for living a passive and mediocre life. If we tell ourselves that we lack the natural talents, positive character traits and opportunities that allow others to achieve great feats, it is easier to accept our personal failings. Blaming an unlucky lot in life serves a defensive purpose – it allows us to seek out comfort and ease of life without feeling guilty about wasting our potentials. We fear our greatest possibilities, in other words, because we fear the hard work, discipline and courage that are required to actualize them, or as Nietzsche wrote:

“They fear their higher self, because when it speaks, it speaks demandingly.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human

Share

“I once listened to the dream of a young man who was living still with his mama. He was twenty-nine years old and had never had a girl in his room. We seriously discussed the possibility of his getting a room outside his mother’s home. He was terrified…When he was trying to make up his mind to move out, he dreamt that he had to slay the dragon. Though t…

Read more

The modern West is in decline. Economic stagnation, rising tax burdens, moral disorientation, political corruption, bloated bureaucracies, and soaring levels of poverty, drug addiction and homelessness, all point to a faltering civilization. While many agree that the West is faltering, explanations as to why vary; some blame the collapse of religion and the loss of a shared moral order, others the rise of consumerism and hedonism, or the dumbing down effects of modern technology. Still others point to mass-immigration, the rise of socialist ideologies, or the corrosive influence of the mainstream media. Yet these explanations may be masking a deeper, more fundamental cause: the biological deterioration of Western men and women. Or as the medical doctor Peter Niemann writes:

“Many books have been written about the decline of the West, some brilliant… Unfortunately, however, they do not focus on the biological dimension and so miss the point…the decline, even collapse, of the United States and the Western countries as a whole is directly, causally connected to changes in biology.”

Peter Niemann, From Apex to Abyss: The Biological Roots of the West’s Decline and What Can Be Done to Reverse It

In this video, we draw from Niemann’s book From Apex to Abyss: The Biological Roots of the West’s Decline and What Can Be Done to Reverse It, to explore how widespread biological changes are driving the West’s fall from grace.

For all our technological and cultural sophistication, we are biological animals, and the body is the foundation of the human world. Every thought we form, every value we hold, every invention we produce, is influenced by our biology. Politics may flow downstream from culture, but both culture and politics flow downstream from biology. If the biological condition of a people deteriorates, if they become physically weaker, more obese, less intelligent, or if their hormonal balance is disrupted, the state of culture and politics deteriorates as well. As Niemann puts it:

“It should be obvious how changing just a few things in a person’s body can make people think, act, and live completely differently. What would happen to societies if they were to experience these effects among most or even all of their citizens? What if they all experienced a drop in their IQ or gained weight; would not their societies act differently? If the people making up society are not the same as before, how could the societies themselves be immune to those effects?.. Well, this is just what happened in recent decades. People have changed because their bodies have changed. The biological reality of today’s society and citizens is vastly different from what it was a few decades ago.”

Peter Niemann, From Apex to Abyss: The Biological Roots of the West’s Decline and What Can Be Done to Reverse It

A decline in intelligence is one sign pointing to a biological decline among Westerners. For most of the 20th century, average IQ scores in developed nations rose steadily – a trend first identified by the researcher John Flynn in the 1980s. Subsequent studies confirmed this finding and showed that between 1909 and 2013, IQ scores in Western countries increased by roughly two standard deviations, or about 0.28 points, per year. This phenomenon is known as the Flynn effect.

“Many experts believe that this rising intelligence contributed significantly to the wave of innovation in the 20th century, which saw breakthroughs in science, technology, and industry.”

Peter Niemann, From Apex to Abyss: The Biological Roots of the West’s Decline and What Can Be Done to Reverse It

But starting in the early 21st century, the rise in IQ slowed, plateaued, and then IQ levels began to decline. Western individuals started to become less intelligent, year over year. This dumbing down of Westerners was first noted by scientists in Denmark, but in recent years researchers in nearly all Western countries have confirmed this trend.

“Something happened to the West,…the new generation stopped being smarter than their parents’ generation and even started becoming dumber…As scientists studied and compared various countries, it became evident that prosperous Western countries had, for the most part, experienced a decline in the average IQ starting around the turn of the century… while most non-Western countries, including those in Asia, Africa and also South America had experienced the opposite, a continued rise in IQ rates…The magnitude of the IQ reduction [in the West] is in the range of 0.1-0.3 IQ points per year, seemingly offsetting the rise in IQ levels of Western populations in prior decades.”

Peter Niemann, From Apex to Abyss: The Biological Roots of the West’s Decline and What Can Be Done to Reverse It

Niemann lists several factors that can account for this widespread IQ reduction. The first is the increase in marijuana usage. In 1970, only 4% of American adults reported using marijuana in the last year. Today, around 22% of adults report past-year use, with daily or near-daily use 5–10 times higher than in the early 1970s. Among the youth, daily marijuana use is now higher than daily alcohol use for the first time in history. And as Niemann writes:

“A large number of scientific publications show that regular use of marijuana and THC (a main active ingredient in marijuana) leads to lower adult IQ values. The younger one is when starting to use THC products, the more regular the usage and the larger the quantity consumed… correlate negatively with intelligence in adulthood.”

Peter Niemann, From Apex to Abyss: The Biological Roots of the West’s Decline and What Can Be Done to Reverse It

Pesticide usage also correlates negatively with IQ. Niemann cites a study showing that American children who live within five miles of farms that use pesticides have IQ levels 2.6 points lower than children who grow up farther away from such agricultural chemicals. Yet as Niemann adds, “As these pesticides are found in many residues in food and food products, we may assume that their effects go beyond those who work on or live close to farms where they are used: they affect people who consume food products or drink water tainted by these substances.”

Spending hours a day glued to the screen of a smartphone or tablet is also contributing to the dumbing down of Western individuals.

“There’s an abundance of evidence that screen time also adversely affects the brain, specifically the development of intelligence in children and infants.”

Peter Niemann, From Apex to Abyss: The Biological Roots of the West’s Decline and What Can Be Done to Reverse It

Increased screen time coincides with declining levels of physical activity, which is known to hinder neurocognitive development in children. And when reduced movement is paired with diets high in sugar and processed foods, the result is a dramatic rise in obesity. According to a study titled The Origins of the Obesity Epidemic in the USA, in the 1970s, only about 15% of American adults were obese. Today, that number has risen to 43%, and 74% of American adults considered overweight. Obesity among children has risen from 4.2% to 16.9% in the same time span. And as Niemann notes, multiple studies show that excess body fat impairs intelligence and cognitive functioning. In other words, one of the reasons Western populations are getting dumber is simply because they are fatter than ever. And as Niemann writes regarding the studies linking higher body weight to negative cognitive performance:

“These findings suggest that in Western societies, where overweight and obesity rates have risen sharply in recent decades, cognitive function across large segments of the population may be adversely affected.”

Peter Niemann, From Apex to Abyss: The Biological Roots of the West’s Decline and What Can Be Done to Reverse It

Obesity suppresses testosterone production, as does porn consumption, excessive screen time, and endocrine disrupting chemicals found in plastic products and packaging, personal care and household products, and tap water. And falling testosterone levels are another sign that the biology of Western individuals is deteriorating. Across the Western world, the average testosterone level of men has fallen by 30 to 50 percent in just two generations. In contrast, in many non-Western societies, such as regions of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and South America, men are experiencing less of a decline in testosterone levels, or in some cases, no decline at all.

“A 30-year-old [Western] male today has a significantly lower testosterone level than a 30-year-old male born 30 years earlier… almost the same (low) testosterone level as his 60-year-old father.”, writes Niemann.

Peter Niemann, From Apex to Abyss: The Biological Roots of the West’s Decline and What Can Be Done to Reverse It

Testosterone is not only a hormone associated with aggression and reproduction; it is the biological substrate of energy, confidence, drive, and purpose. It enhances muscular strength and bone density, as well as focus, mood, competitiveness, resilience, and it decreases fatigue and sensitivity to pain.

“In experiments where participants were splashed with ice-cold water, those with higher testosterone levels showed a reduced reaction and stress response, that is, stronger resilience and resistance to stress.”, explains Niemann. “The so-called parasympathetic nervous system, which has a more relaxing effect on the body, was more strongly activated in men with high T [testosterone], and they remained overall calmer.”

Peter Niemann, From Apex to Abyss: The Biological Roots of the West’s Decline and What Can Be Done to Reverse It

As testosterone levels have fallen, so has fertility. Sperm counts in Western men have declined by more than half since the 1970s, while birth rates have fallen below replacement levels in every Western country. The biological engine of civilization – fertility – is sputtering. And as Niemann explains:

“Declining testosterone levels also negatively affect sperm count and quality. Sperm cells are produced in the testicles under the direct influence of testosterone: if levels are low, then sperm quality and numbers decrease, impairing male fertility. It has been observed at least since the 1970s that both sperm count and quality are decreasing in most Western countries.”

Peter Niemann, From Apex to Abyss: The Biological Roots of the West’s Decline and What Can Be Done to Reverse It

Low testosterone levels can account for the crisis of masculinity and the scarcity of men who embody the virtues of heroic manhood. A society of men with healthy testosterone tends to be oriented toward building, protecting, taking principled risks, defending and upholding important values, and showing resilience in the face of hardship. But as testosterone levels decline, the character of men changes. Men with low testosterone are apathetic, physically and emotionally fragile, pathologically risk-averse, obsessed with safety, and increasingly dependent on external authorities – be it parents, bureaucrats, or the state – to guide, protect, and provide. And as Niemann writes:

“Could it be that young men increasingly stay at home because they are listless and lacking in energy? That they prefer video games to being out and about in reality because they feel apathetic about life? That there is less and less drive in men because they simply have less testosterone?…Western men are less competitive and aggressive, more listless, apathetic, depressed, less dynamic, childless, weaker, more sensitive to pain, and less powerful…We may safely assume that even the tendency towards androgynous could stem from a decrease in T [testosterone] levels.”

Peter Niemann, From Apex to Abyss: The Biological Roots of the West’s Decline and What Can Be Done to Reverse It

The biological decline of Western individuals can also help explain the growing authoritarian tendencies of Western governments. As IQ and testosterone levels have dropped, people have become more apathetic to political corruption, less resistant to governmental overreach, and more accepting of the simplistic narratives of state propaganda. An intellectually dull society is more likely to demand paternalistic government rule and far more likely to accept authoritarian or totalitarian forms of governance – as the COVID era made clear.

“Scientists have found a correlation,” Niemann writes, “between more intelligent citizens and a more vibrant, transparent, open, and largely corruption-free democracy…Research suggests that individuals with lower intelligence tend to show less interest in democratic values, combating corruption, and promoting transparency.”

Peter Niemann, From Apex to Abyss: The Biological Roots of the West’s Decline and What Can Be Done to Reverse It

Or as Niemann continues:

“The data show that corruption has increased in Western countries from 1996 to 2023, while many non-Western countries have seen a decline in that societal scourge. In other words, over the past 17 years, democratic processes have taken a hit in almost all Western countries, and corruption has worsened in the past 27 years…Just when these negative shifts in corruption and democracy began, we saw a drop in intelligence…On top of that, testosterone levels have fallen, and there’s an interesting (though subtle) correlation between high testosterone levels and the imperative to achieve justice. Men with lower testosterone are more likely to accept injustice rather than fight it.”

Peter Niemann, From Apex to Abyss: The Biological Roots of the West’s Decline and What Can Be Done to Reverse It

Despite the severity of our civilizational decline, Niemann reminds us that the West’s continued collapse is not inevitable. “Such decline or collapse can be and has been averted,” he writes. “There are countless examples of empires on the brink of collapse regaining strength to prosper again.” But for the West to recover strength, more individuals need to recognize that a healthy civilization “is based on certain types of behavior, not others, on specific body types and character types” (Peter Niemann, From Apex to Abyss)

The importance of a healthy body for a healthy mind, and in turn, a healthy society, was recognized by the great 20th century American psychologist William James, who wrote:

“I hope that here in America more and more the ideal of the well-trained and vigorous body will be maintained neck by neck with that of the well-trained and vigorous mind as the two coequal halves of the higher education for men and women alike.”

William James, The Gospel of Relaxation

Reversing the biological decline of the West begins with the individual. By eating less processed foods, minimizing exposure to pesticides and chemical-laden products, exercising regularly, lifting weights to support healthy testosterone levels, and prioritizing restorative sleep, we improve the health of our body and by extension our mind. But these choices do more than improve our personal well-being. For each act of biological renewal functions as a modest but important contribution to the renewal of Western civilization itself. For a society cannot be strong and vital when the bodies of its people are fat and weak.

“In reality only a change…of the individual can bring about a renewal in the spirit of nations. Everything begins with the individual.”, observed Carl Jung.

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 11

Or as Niemann warns:

“We are in jeopardy. We need to reverse the current trends, to realize that our nation was built on strong, healthy minds and bodies…Unfortunately, our bodies and, with them, our minds have become weaker, sicker, not what they used to be…the Western model will fail as long as we fail to recognize this decline and try to reverse it…as we, the peoples of the United States and other Western countries, continue to weaken, our countries will continue to decline, and our societies will become less efficient, more dysfunctional.”

Peter Niemann, From Apex to Abyss: The Biological Roots of the West’s Decline and What Can Be Done to Reverse It

Share

“Always he imagines his worst enemy in front of him, yet he carries the enemy within himself—a deadly longing for the abyss, a longing to drown in his own source, to be sucked down to the realm of the Mothers.”

Carl Jung, Symbols of Transformation

A boy with a devouring mother and absent father is at maximum risk of developing a negative mother complex. To understand what a negative mother complex is, we must briefly review what we have covered in preceding chapters.

The early symbiotic bond between mother and infant is profoundly intense. For the boy, the psychological challenge lies in separating from this bond of dependency in order to forge an independent masculine identity. This process is rarely smooth. Throughout childhood and adolescence, a boy is caught between two opposing forces: the call to grow into manhood and the seductive pull of regression. Thomas Gregor described the pull of regression as the yearning to take “the path back to fusion with the mother and the pleasures of infancy” (Thomas Gregor, Anxious Pleasures). While Carl Jung referred to it as “…the spirit of regression, who threatens us with bondage to the mother and with dissolution and extinction in the unconscious” (Carl Jung, Symbols of Transformation).

If a boy is supported by a present and committed father, or initiated through a meaningful rite of passage, he may overcome his regressive yearnings and begin the journey toward mature manhood. But when he lacks cultural support, and when his father is absent and mother devouring, these regressive yearnings tend to persist in his psyche, follow him into adulthood, and consolidate into what is known as a negative mother complex.

A complex is simply a group of psychological contents which aggregate together and operate beyond the control of the ego, or as Carl Jung writes “Complexes are autonomous groups of associations that have a tendency to move by themselves, to live their own life apart from our intentions” (Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 18). Alternatively, Jung suggested that a complex can be viewed as sub-personality, or as put it: “Complexes indeed behave like secondary or partial personalities in possession of a mental life of their own” (Carl Jung, Psychology and Religion).

Many of us are familiar with individuals who have an inferiority complex or a power complex. In such cases, the individual’s feelings of inferiority or desire for power overwhelm the individual and make them act in ways that are contrary to their well-being. In the case of a man with a negative mother complex, psychological contents related to his desire to remain dependent on a maternal figure and to regress psychologically, group together in the unconscious and form a secondary personality which prevents him from maturing and developing his masculinity. Or as Anthony Stevens observed:

“A son trapped in this position cannot break free. Psychologically speaking, he is locked in the mother, devoured by his mother complex.”

Anthony Stevens, Archetype Revisited: An Updated Natural History of the Self

In this chapter, we turn to mythology to shine a light on some of the regressive energies which compose a negative mother complex. For the negative mother complex is not a modern affliction – it has been an ever-present threat to men since time immemorial. Across cultures and epochs, the negative mother complex has been symbolized in myth through the motif of the Terrible Mother, which Erich Neumann described as the motif of “the Great Mother and her dominance over the son-lover” (Erich Neumann, The Origins and History of Consciousness). In different myths, the Terrible Mother assumes different forms, yet in all myths she is a destroyer of men. She is the archetypal symbol par excellence of the negative mother complex and hence of the regressive psychological forces that attack and weaken a man from within.

In this video we will explore various myths that reveal the power of the Terrible Mother and we examine how these myths are symbolic of the regressive unconscious forces that afflict the man with a negative mother complex.

“…myths represent psychological facts…myths actually represent typical [psychological] phenomena.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works Volume 8

In The Origins and History of Consciousness, Erich Neumann explains the connection between the mythological Terrible Mother and the negative mother complex.

“The Terrible Mother, the all-inclusive symbol of this devouring aspect of the unconscious, is therefore the Great Mother of all monsters. All dangerous affects and impulses, all the evils which come up from the unconscious and overwhelm the ego with their dynamism, are her progeny…When one knows how the Terrible Mother wreaks her vengeance in the myths, one can see [that]….in every case the central fact is…the overpowering of the ego by subterranean [i.e., unconscious] forces.”

Erich Neumann, The Origins and History of Conscious

In certain myths, the Terrible Mother destroys men with her devouring womb and castrating vagina. A vivid example is Medusa. With serpents writhing from her head and tusks reminiscent of a wild boar, Medusa embodies the archetype of the vagina dentata – the toothed vagina.

The vagina dentata is a universal symbol that is found in stories and myths in tribes and cultures all over the world. The anthropologist David Gilmore described this symbol as “the saw-toothed orifice that waits to mutilate the male” (David Gilmore, The Male Malady). While Norman O. Brown referred to it as “the vagina as a devouring mouth.”

These universal symbols were given visual form in the paintings Christ in Limbo by Hieronymus Bosch and Death Mouth by Zdzisław Beksiński. In these paintings adults scramble into a monstrous head with a gaping, tooth-lined mouth, i.e., the toothed vagina. They are entering the devouring womb. Or as Erich Neumann explains:

“The snapping–i.e., castrating—womb appears as the jaws of hell, and the serpents writhing round the Medusa’s head are not personalistic—pubic hairs—but aggressive phallic elements characterizing the fearful aspect of the womb…She threatens the ego with the danger of self-noughting, of self-loss —in other words, with death and castration…Among the symbols of the devouring chasm we must count the womb in its frightening aspect, the numinous heads of the Gorgon and the Medusa…and the male-eating spider…The open womb is the devouring symbol of the Terrible Mother.”

Erich Neumann, The Origins and History of Consciousness

While repulsive, the universality of this mythological motif points to its importance. For in psychological terms, the vagina dentata and devouring womb of the Terrible Mother are symbolic of the unconscious regressive forces which motivate a man to evade the responsibilities, demands, challenges, sufferings, conflicts and difficulties of life, in favor of returning to the womb.

“…he hopes to be caught, sucked in, enveloped, and devoured. He seeks, as it were, the protecting, nourishing, charmed circle of the mother, the condition of the infant released from every care…No wonder the real world vanishes from sight!”

Carl Jung, Aion

Or as James Hollis writes:

“One cannot overemphasize the power of this dreadful longing for the womb; sustaining the consciousness to counter it is immensely painful.”

James Hollis Under Saturn’s Shadow

Of course, to return to the physical womb is impossible, and so a man with a negative mother complex tries to satiate his regressive yearning via what Erich Fromm called a “symbiotic fixation to the mother”. This involves remaining pathologically dependent on the mother well into adulthood. Or as Fromm explains:

“…the symbiotic fixation we are discussing here [is] the wish of being loved like an infant, losing all one’s independence, being a suckling again, or even being in mother’s womb…it is a desire to lose completely one’s individuality, to become one again with nature. It follows that this deep regressive desire conflicts with the wish to live. To be in the womb is to be removed from life.”

Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving

A symbiotic fixation to the mother may lead one man to live in his mother’s house (a symbolic womb) well into adulthood, intentionally avoiding financial independence so that he can justify his regressive behavior by telling himself, and others, that he is being financially prudent. Another man may leave his mother’s house yet remain close by (in the womb of his childhood neighborhood), so that he can return to his mother for frequent visits and be at her beck and call. Another man may live physically apart from his mother yet still talk to her every day, share all the intimate details of his life with her, and rarely make a decision without first consulting her.

Regardless of the form it takes, a symbiotic fixation to the mother leads to the same outcome: the man remains stalled in his development, unable to move toward autonomy and mature individuality. Instead, he is pulled backwards into the symbolic womb by the regressive forces of the negative mother complex. And if the mother is of the devouring type, she will actively reinforce her son’s womb-seeking behavior by rewarding it with affection, attention, and financial support. Or as Carl Jung explained:

“If this situation is dramatized…then there appears before you on the psychological stage a man living regressively, seeking his childhood and his mother, fleeing from a cold cruel world which denies him understanding. Often a mother appears beside him who apparently shows not the slightest concern that her little son should become a man, but who, with tireless and self-immolating effort, neglects nothing that might hinder him from growing up and marrying. You behold the secret conspiracy between mother and son, and how each helps the other to betray life.”

Carl Jung, Aion

Read more

“Many are born; few live. Men without personality are innumerable and vegetate molded by their environment, like melted wax.”

José Ingenieros, The Mediocre Man

In the early-20^th century, the Argentinian philosopher, physician, and essayist José Ingenieros wrote a book titled The Mediocre Man. In it he explores what distinguishes the mediocre masses from those who strive after bold ideals and in the process accomplish remarkable feats. In this video we examine the wisdom contained in this book focusing on how we can use it to help us escape from a mediocre existence.

“Individually considered, mediocrity can be defined as the absence of personal characteristics that permit distinguishing the individual in its society.”

José Ingenieros, The Mediocre Man

Mediocre men and women are hyper-conformists. Such individuals do not think for themselves but passively adopt the popular attitudes, opinions and beliefs of their society.

“The characteristic and unequivocal sign [of mediocrity] is his deference for the opinion of others. Never speaks; always repeats. Judges men as he hears them judge.”

José Ingenieros, The Mediocre Man

The mediocre individual also lacks moral intelligence. His or her judgements of good and bad are not reached through introspection and critical thought, but through imitation of those in their family, peer group, and society at large. Or as Ingenieros writes:

“The mediocre man is a shadow projected by society; [he] is, essentially imitative and is perfectly adapted to live with the herd, reflecting the routines, prejudices and dogmatisms acknowledged as useful for the domesticity. . . His characteristic is to imitate those who surround him: to think with other’s head and be incapable of forming their own ideals.”

José Ingenieros, The Mediocre Man

But while most people, at most times, are mediocre conformists, in any given society there exist a relatively small number of people who reject the path of conformity and go their own way in life. Some of these people accomplish great feats, cultivate great personalities and live fulfilling and meaningful lives, while other non-conformists drift without a purpose. What distinguishes the former from the latter, according to Ingenieros, is that they are guided by an ideal.

Looking at the great figures of history reveals the power of ideals. For example, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Charles Darwin were driven by the ideal of truth – they desired to understand the laws that govern the workings of nature. Others like Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and Vincent Van Gogh were driven by the ideal of beauty, trying to capture it in their works of art. Sri Aurobindo, St. Monica, and William Blake were guided by religious, spiritual or mystical ideals and strove to connect to the divine ground of all being. While individuals like Benjamin Franklin or Martin Luther King Jr. were driven by the ideal of justice; they desired to rid the world of moral corruption.

Relatively few in the modern day are passionately possessed by an ideal. Instead, conformity narrows our focus to the attainment of social validation, wealth, status or fame. Furthermore, most people are more concerned with attaining these things in the quickest and easiest way possible, than with the process that leads to their attainment. But living in this manner locks us into a mediocre existence and paves the way for a morally corrupt life. If we wish to escape mediocrity, we should seek out an ideal to guide us through life.

“Ideals are a vector towards that which is best, becoming anticipations of the future.”

José Ingenieros, The Mediocre Man

There are countless ideals we can choose, but if our goal is to cultivate a great life and a great personality, we should adopt an ideal that is subsumed under one of three main categories – the good, the true, or the beautiful. For example, adopting the ideal of striving to return freedom to an unfree world would be subsumed in the category of the good, dedicating one’s life to scientific or technological advancement would be in the category of the true, spending one’s life writing works of fiction or creating music would be an ideal in the category of the beautiful, while spiritual or religious aims can typically be placed in multiple of these categories, but as Ingenieros writes:

“Without ideals, human betterment would be impossible. They have and always will be there. They palpitate behind all magnificent human endeavors. The imagination ignites them surpassing experience and anticipating its results. That is the law of human progress and evolution: Events receive life and heat from the ideals, without whose influence they would be inert and centuries would be muted. Events are departure points; ideals are beacons of light that illuminate the path ahead.”

José Ingenieros, The Mediocre Man

If we discover an ideal that we are passionate about, we must guard it like treasure and be sure not to let its spark die, for as Ingenieros warned:

“When your visionary bow aims towards the stars and you unfold your wings towards such unreachable loftiness, eager of perfection and rebellious to mediocrity, you carry deep within, the mysterious spring of an Ideal. It is a sacred ember, capable of annealing you for great deeds. Guard it! If extinguished, it will not re-ignite. And if it dies, you are left inert; cold human rubbish. You only live for that particle of fantasy that lifts you beyond reality.”

José Ingenieros, The Mediocre Man

In addition to discovering an ideal, to escape a mediocre existence it is important to seek out a mentor. For much of our character is sculpted through the process of imitation or as Theodor Adorno wrote: ‘The human is indissolubly linked with imitation: a human being only becomes human at all by imitating other human beings’ (Theodor W. Adorno, Minima Moralia: Reflections on Damaged Life) Unless we have good role models to emulate, our default tendency will be to imitate the masses of mediocre men and women.

There are countless historical examples of the power of a mentor. Perhaps the most famous is from ancient Greece where Socrates acted as a mentor to Plato, who was a mentor for Aristotle, who in turn was a mentor to Alexander the Great. More recent examples include Michelangelo acting as a mentor for Raphael, Joseph Haydn for Mozart and Beethoven, and Sigmund Freud for Carl Jung.

In a society pervaded by mediocrity, finding a good mentor can prove difficult. But we don’t need to know someone personally for them to serve this purpose. We can turn to the great figures of history and through a study of their works, and a reading of their biographies, learn what made them tick and what drove them, and use this knowledge to shape our own life. And as Iain McGilchrist writes:

“Imitation gives rise, paradoxically as it may seem, to individuality. That is precisely because the process is not mechanical reproduction, but an imaginative inhabiting of the other, which is always different because of its intersubjective betweenness.”

Iain McGilchrist, The Master and His Emissary

In addition to using those who excel in a similar field as role models, we should also look to them as sources of inspiration.

“Those who do not admire the best cannot improve. The one who sees defects and not beauty, blames and not merits, discordances and not harmonies, dies in a low level where [he] vegetates with the illusion of being a critic. Those who do not know how to admire do not have a future and are incapable of rising towards an ideal perfection.”

José Ingenieros, The Mediocre Man

The greats of our generation, individuals, in other words, who currently exceed us in accomplishments, can also help us realize our potential by sparking our competitive spirit. Michelangelo is a famous example of this process in action. In 1496, at the age of 21, Michelangelo went to Rome where he carved The Bacchus and Pieta which are now looked upon as two of the greatest sculptures ever created. In 1501 he returned to his hometown of Florence but to little fanfare. Few knew or cared of his recent accomplishments and most of the admiration in the Florence art scene was directed toward his older rival, Leonardo da Vinci. The fame and adulation that da Vinci received, and Michelangelo lacked, fed his competitive spirit and as William Wallace writes in Michelangelo: The Artist, the Man, and His Times:

“Out of the limelight, but determined to outdo his more famous rival, Michaelangelo began working on a large but unpromising block of marble. . .”

William Wallace, Michelangelo: The Artist, the Man, and His Times

This block of marble was to become the sculpture of David, one of the greatest works of art ever created and a work that placed Michelangelo in the same echelon as da Vinci. Michelangelo’s David is even more impressive when one looks at the challenges he faced in creating it, or as Wallace writes:

“The block, so large it was called “the Giant,” had been quarried more than 40 years previously. Marble is best carved when it is fresh from the quarries; with age and exposure to the elements it becomes increasingly intractable. At least three sculptures had taken chisels to the block, each one making it more difficult for his successor. Already thin, the block grew thinner, more weathered, more resistant. . . He laboured mightily for three years to realize his masterpiece.”

William Wallace, Michelangelo: The Artist, the Man, and His Times

Michelangelo’s relentless commitment to his ideal – to the creation of beauty – highlights another important characteristic of history’s great figures. Such individuals work extremely hard. They may be blessed with natural talents, but natural talents alone do not create a genius. Rather focus, dedication and discipline are necessary to see the full flowering of one’s potential.

“[The great geniuses] know that the natural gifts are not transmuted into talent or in genius without effort,” writes Ingenieros “which is the measure of their merit. They know that each step towards the glory has cost work and vigils, deep meditations and endless trials. . .”

José Ingenieros, The Mediocre Man

Even if we don’t possess the natural talents of a Michelangelo, most of us only scratch the surface of our potential and waste the v majority of whatever talents we do possess by chasing shallow ends. Instead of spending hour after hour honing our skills and striving toward bold ideals, as the greats of history do, most of us work jobs we hate and spend the rest of our time distracting ourselves from the emptiness of our life. But over time ignoring the call of our higher self manifests as anxiety and depression and results in regret for a life not lived. To avoid this outcome, we don’t need to scale the heights of glory reached by history’s greatest figures, we just need to emulate their approach in order to discover the heights of our own true potential.

“And who is it who calls me?” [asked Nietzsche’s Zarathustra] “But you know that,” replied the soothsayer violently; “why do you conceal yourself? It is the higher man that cries for you!””

Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Share