Saturday, February 11, 2017
A minor celebrity in recent years has
been Sam Vaknin. He is a former businessman who got busted for some
kind of white-collar crime and gained modest fame for promoting the
concept of the narcissistic personality disorder. In the process he
has made a number of claims that should be addressed.
Mr. Vaknin states that narcissism is
common to people who are smart, handsome and lacking in conscience.
Most people think that I'm smart; some people think that I'm
handsome; but I very much do have a conscience, otherwise I would not
feel guilty about so many things. When I was working for Oracle, I
put in an atrocious performance, and this has been on my conscience
for years. I have since then apologized to my former boss. We are now
good friends.
Mr. Vaknin stated that Jesus had been a
narcissist and a sociopath. This is something that happens when wrong
people get to define mental health. A conman will always be against
anything absolute, and an anal retentive will always be against
anything passionate. When wrong people decide what is health and what
is sickness, the world suffers. This is regardless of whether or not
they are narcissists.
Mr. Vaknin has been making the case
that there are things that people owe to others and that there are
things that people owe to themselves. My response to that is, How
dare you tell me what I owe myself. As for others, they can speak for
themselves. I do not need Mr. Vaknin telling me what I owe to others.
They can do so themselves.
Mr. Vaknin militates against both
Renaissance and Romanticism. He claims that Renaissance produced
people who were amateurs, and that Romanticism produced people who
were emotive. So why is it then that we now look back to Renaissance
and Romanticism? Was Michelangelo an amateur? Were Elizabeth Barrett
Browning and Mary Shelley bad people? Or is this something that one
might hear from someone who has no use for beauty and wisdom and is a
controlling person, whether he be a narcissist or not?
The idea of narcissism of course
precedes Sam Vaknin. The problem with the idea is that it would
pathologize most people who make meaningful contributions. If it is
narcissistic to seek great success, or if it is narcissistic to have
original ideas, then everyone who's achieved great success – and
everyone who has original ideas – is a narcissist. This would
pathologize most of the world's greatest contributers. Do not claim
to be protecting society when you are destroying what made it great
in the first place.
Mr. Vaknin argues that a narcissist is
someone who's lost his true self. The question to ask here is, True –
according to whom? I once encountered people claiming those who adopt
European and Japanese styles as posers. I can't believe that such a
belief is practiced in America. What is one's true self? Is it
whatever people saw you as being when you were a child? Is it however
people may have pigeonholed you before you had anything to do with
this matter as a conscious, volitional being? Are the people who came
from Europe to America or Australia guilty of narcissism because they
left the places that thought they knew them in order to build a
better life elsewhere? Are we to be forever bound to the false
judgments that people made of us when we were children? Or is this
mentality that denies the most fundamental reality – that of choice
as to who, and what, to be?
Of course people have been calling one
another narcissists left and right ever since this idea was
popularized. I have seen kind, genuine, compassionate people being
branded narcissists as well. In most cases they are wrong. And even
in cases where they are right, the question to ask is, So what?
America's new president is a narcissist. He built a $9 billion
business empire, and you haven't.
There will always be times when one or
another profession goes off a cliff. We are seeing this today with
psychology. The qualities that made America great in the first place
– ingenuity, risk-taking, original thinking – are being treated
as a pathology. This is terrible for America. It is more terrible for
the world.
According to the definition of this
concept, America was founded by narcissists. According to the
definition of this concept, most of America's industrialists and
inventors were narcissists. According to the definition of this
concept, there is now a narcissist in the White House. Gates, Clinton
and any number of others were accused of narcissism. Yet these people
made vast contributions, whereas people demonizing them have not.
I take issue with the concept of
untreatable disorders. All it says is that the person has no idea how
to solve whatever problem a person may have. The correct solution in
such situations is to stay away from people who think that way and
find real solutions in other places.
One such place most certainly is
religion. God promises redemption for all sinners, which psychology
does not. Who is a better authority: Jesus Christ or Dr. Sam Vaknin?
Who has better ideas as to what you owe yourself and what you owe
other people? Who was a better person and a better teacher?
Now I do not consider myself a better
person than Mr. Vaknin. I do however believe that I have better
ideas. On this issue, the claim is based on simple reason. Anything
human is capable of choice. And anything capable of choice can be
good, bad, or a mix.
If someone is on a destructive path,
fine, correct them. But do not go around claiming that some people
are evil and can only be evil whatever they do. Once again, anything
capable of choice can be good, bad, or a mix. This is not only
limited to narcissists. This is the case for everyone.
It is in this – recognition of the
fact of human choice – that solution can be found to all such
problems. Choice elevates you above bestial dynamics and gives you
authority as to what you want to be. Anything human – narcissist or
not – can choose to act rightfully; and it is in this that lies the
true solution to fascism, whatever may be its source and whatever may
be its direction.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home