The myth of self help has replaced religion (translated from Swedish) | Hacker News Reader

The myth of self help has replaced religion (translated from Swedish)

translate.google.com

21 pointscolund26 comments

And a sorry replacement it is.

In his Institutes John Calvin argues that knowledge consists chiefly of two things: knowledge of ourselves and knowledge of God. When we dispensed with God we thought we'd finally found the key to human happiness: freed from the constraints of ancient superstition we'd usher in a golden age of human flourishing. What we got instead was an unimaginable amount of human barbarism, empty, meaningless pleasure seaking (ala Brave New World) on the one hand and an oppresive, omnipotent police state (ala 1984) on the other. Ours is a decadent culture, post- and anti- everything, which no longer stands or believes in anything.

We were supposed to get Star Trek, what we got instead was the Walking Dead.

This is the paradox of happiness:

> Happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side effect of one's personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one's surrender to a person other than oneself. - Viktor Frankl

Man was never meant to worship himself, as Augustine says:

> You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You.

And CS Lewis:

> Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth 'thrown in': aim at Earth and you will get neither.

Those are pretty fancy conclusions to draw from the fact that one's brain is wired for religion, in the same way it is wired to make you jump if something that could be a snake moves in your field of vision, or to think that one's luck will change.

We have a inherited a lot of propensity toward various delusions from our ancestors. Sometimes we can make a decision not to wallow in them. Are you sure it is a morally defensible position to, even tacitly, encourage such delusions?

Nonsense, turning away from knowledge of God brought us the Age of Enlightenment. Apart from a few bumps in the road, I'd say humanity is way better off.

> In his Institutes John Calvin argues that knowledge consists chiefly of two things: knowledge of ourselves and knowledge of God.

This makes atheism a big step forward for people with limited time on planet earth: our job is made significantly easier by eliminating one of the tasks -- the one having no subject.

It's interesting that this particular article should bubble up at HN. You only have to look at all the self-help and New Age gurus clogging up PBS and the top of the Amazon best sellers to realize that a huge number of people got stuck somewhere between realizing that religious beliefs are unlikely to be real and accepting that their consciousness is an emergent phenomenon.

The honest try to get the masses un-stuck. The dishonest and evil people exploit them or justify a tawdry and easy elitism through this situation.

The HOnest?

Tawdry easy elitist much?

Am I less honest than a "spiritual advisor?" More elitist than a Straussian?

I just happened to tune in to PBS last night (KLRU) and was shocked at the spamvertizements for 3 or 4 "Doctor" based self-help shows coming up this weekend.

What has happened to the last bastion of quality programming in the US?

I've been living in a bubble of streaming for the last few years.

Actual book referenced - Stephen Briers "Psychobabble: Exploding the myths of the self-help generation"

http://www.amazon.com/Psychobabble-Exploding-myths-self-help...

I wish I understood this translation:

"Against "self-esteem" Briers wants to make the concept of "self-esteem", meaning that they have no basis for their self-image, that you act in order to feel satisfied with their effort.

"If it were possible to wait for the man himself would come into a room," wrote British writer Rebecca West, "so there are not many of us who would feel his heart swell with anticipation when we heard the handle is pushed down."

It is a black and provocative image, but maybe it can be taken as the basis for our efforts to improve ourselves, trying to be such that one feels a thrill of joy when that door opens"

The second "esteem" is "aktning", which have a bit different connotation. They got a "no" added in the translation, which inverted the meaning. What is meant, i believe, is that it is better with a real basis for your view of yourself, e.g. that you think you have reached something that needed hard work in some way (the "work" I use here could be just thinking inside your head).

The second quote from the author is, I believe, about getting to where you're able to be expectant and happy to see your true self.

Edit: To me this seems like a literary author trying to obfuscate a simple point: "It is better for your ability to work to be someone that is happy by trying to see who you are, instead of following suspect gurus." That this was made poetic and hard to understand is imho a really fun irony... But perhaps I've known too many literary/idealistic people which were so good with language that they could rationalize anything to themselves.

Edit 2: Tried to make what I believe this means clearer.

Norwegian here.

I can't really translate your first quote, but a better translation of the second one is:

" 'If it were possible to wait for one-self to enter a room', the British author Rebecca West wrote, 'then there is not many of us who would feel their heart swell in expectation when we heard the door-handle being pushed down.'

This is a dark and provoking image, but perhaps it can be taken as a starting point for our struggle to improve ourselves: to attempt to become such that one feels a thrill of joy when that door is opened."

Thanks. That makes much more sense.

Sounds about right.

To be more accurate, the myth of self-help has replaced the myth of religion.

The article is about the pseudo scientifical life advice that is popular. There is not much about religion. After a spammy first half a book is discussed which sounded interesting.

Religion is generally just not discussed in Sweden, which is the most non-religious country on the planet. It is considered a bit embarrassing to discuss faith, like your toilet problems or something. (At least Sweden used to be the leader. The statistics might be different after the large immigration wave.)

(This service provided for anyone trying to use translate.google.com :-) )

I like that attitude. Someone wrote religion is like genitals - its ok to have it, be proud of it, use it, but just don't go waving it around in public.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Religion is fascinating, if nothing else it tells you how people throughout history thought about the universe and their role in it.

So... you think folks should definitely go preaching everywhere they go? Is that the stupid part? Confused.

I believe dominotw is not talking about what you wrote.

I think he is making an obfuscated argument that since religion was a big force culturally and is interesting from a historical viewpoint, it should get some respect.

Preaching? No.

I'd find it very disturbing if someone started discussing their genitals over dinner, though, whilst a discussion about faith and religion can be interesting and fun.

I imagine; yet its a notorious avoid-at-all-costs issue around many groups of friends.

Sorry, I was referring to quote in your comment.

I find it frustrating the religion has become such a taboo subject because few people decided to misinterpret it and use it for their selfish purposes.

Other than being fascinating in its own right. It can be a perfect antidote to our modern anxiety filled lives that we live in constant conflict both with ourselves and with the external world. We NEED religion now more than ever. We need religion that questions our view self [1], questions nature of our consciousness, questions nature of the world we live in [2]. I see it as a tool which lets us explore the things that are unsuitable for exploration through the scientific method.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)

The same is true of any advice, generally. Giving people diatribes on all that's wrong with Windows and all that's right with Ubuntu doesn't produce many converts, and probably gives Ubuntu a bad name. But if someone says "I hate Windows, because it's expensive and made by Microsoft" then it would be entirely appropriate for me to talk about Ubuntu.

I'm that way with religion. I don't walk up to people outside the station telling them to repent, but if someone told me they were having a hard time in life right now, I might suggest coming to church with me one Sunday.

You caused me some cognitive dissonance. Why does the latter strike me as offensive, but the former doesn't? My reaction to the latter is "preying on the vulnerable". The former is also, so is the reason that only the latter offends me is that I'm an Ubuntu using atheist?

"Self help" is a vague term, but they tend to be rooted more in New Age concepts than in Western monotheism. New Age concepts tend in turn to be linked to Eastern religions or spiritual practices. So no, I don't think that self help books have filled the void of Western religions. It might be only in the existential questions that they answer, but then again, the Buddhist idea of an "afterlife" is very different from the typical Christian one, and has a very different appeal.

(I think that this is more of a Maslow's Hierarchy kind of thing. But oh well.)

Perhaps the typical self help consumer is too wide-eyed and expects too much of life. It might also be that they are turning to un-scholarly, unlicensed authors because no established science or human institution has been able to give them the kind kind of knowledge that they want. In such a case, these psychologists in this article might be wise to think of their professions monumental failure to inspire confidence in the general population. If psychology had found results that were relevant to the common person, I expect them to have been incorporated into the common vocabulary. Instead, psychology is not associated with anything that a healthy person might be in need of; only the 'crazy people'. Of course these psychologists think that self help is too optimistic, when the field has historically been so pre occupied with illness (how old is 'positive psychology', again...?).

We might know how a good life is lead, but there is no authority, currently, on how to achieve it (taking into account human motivation and all that). Some will turn to bestselling authors because, really, having sold a lot of books is about as good of a mark of quality in this field at this point. Then perhaps start to proclaim that we are all ONE, because quantum physics. What these might have in common with the archetypical religious person is wishful thinking.

These people should consider just giving up on this whole self help thing, anyway, as there are simpler alternatives. Our understanding of the world - at least the world outside of ourselves - is so well understood that we can use this as a sleeping pillow. Gone are the days when a rationally inclined mind would have to also be a philosopher, in order to fill in the gaps where the obvious models of the world don't make sense. Now, you can just 'like' "I fucking love science' on Facebook, make the occasional off-hand joke about homoeopathy, and you're safely in the in-crowd of modern, pseudo intellectual rationalists. "If I can't see it, I don't believe it" is as simple as "If there is no study about it, I don't believe it". What these people have in common with the archetypical religious person is close-mindedness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com