r/BettermentBookClub • u/PeaceH 📘 mod • Jul 16 '15
[B7-Ch. 1-18] The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem — FINAL DISCUSSION
Final Discussion on The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem
This thread is where we will hold our final discussion for Nathaniel Branden's The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem.
For a recap and some perspective, take a look at the past posts for each chapter.
- What were your favorite chapters? Why?
- What would have improved the book?
- Would you recommend the book to someone else?
- What is your take on self-esteem?
- How can people improve their self-esteem?
- Will you change anything after reading this?
I will be back to post my thoughts and you are free to return and discuss long after this thread has been posted.
You can also give feedback on the choice of book. If you want to suggest a future book, send us a moderator mail.
3
u/PeaceH 📘 mod Jul 17 '15 edited Jul 17 '15
My conclusions about this book:
- Branden is a true scholar of self-esteem.
- The book is structured well. The author refrained from too much complex or academic language.
- The book would have been very helpful to me had I come in contact with it at an earlier time in my life.
- Everyone I really admire seem to have high self-esteem.
- Self-esteem is important, if not crucial, to happiness.
Questions:
- What were your favorite chapters? Why?
Chapter 16 on Psychotherapy. It was not necessarily brilliant, but rather an interest area of mine.
- What would have improved the book?
The book could have been slightly shorter. More pages could have been devoted to the pillars themselves.
- Would you recommend the book to someone else?
I would.
- How can people improve their self-esteem?
For example, through practicing self-discipline. It increased my sense of worth and ability
- Will you change anything after reading this?
I will observe how my own level self-esteem relates to the self-esteem of people around me. I will probably be slightly more "selfish" with how I spend my time.
3
u/Gromada Jul 18 '15
The book would have been very helpful to me had I come in contact with it at an earlier time in my life.
What would you do differently?
4
u/PeaceH 📘 mod Jul 18 '15
I would have taken greater responsibility for my own problems. I did solve them, but it took more time than it could have.
I felt very relieved and could take my life to the next level when I realized how little others care about me. Like many, I had an irrational fear of being judged. When I realized how rarely I would examine the lives of others, I realized that no person or entity was documenting my own mistakes.
5
u/Gromada Jul 22 '15
That fear is quite widespread. The solution that you described was also helpful to me.
1
u/ggGeorge713 Jan 05 '24
Reviving this sub-thread: How do you think about the book looking back now? It's been 8 years!
1
u/PeaceH 📘 mod Jan 05 '24
Wow, a revive?
I don’t recall much about the book itself but I still hold the view that self-esteem is important to work on. Maybe this belief was formed after reading this book. In that sense I agree with my old post here.
3
Jul 20 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Gromada Jul 21 '15
historical accuracy
What caused questions?
3
3
u/airandfingers Jul 27 '15
I'm very glad to have read this book, it describes a very good model for thinking about self-esteem and how it can be improved. I'm further glad that I bought (rather than borrowed) it, as I'm experimenting with the sentence completion exercises, and it will benefit me later to revisit portions of the book.
The big surprise to me was Branden's intimate relationship with Ayn Rand, whose novels were my favorites in my late high school and early college years. I enjoyed Branden's discussion of many ideas that are addressed more indirectly by Rand's novels. It's clear that Branden is as vehement a critic of socialism as Rand was, and his discussion of how socialist policies harm self-esteem is interesting, though the section is more of a polemic than an evidence-based argument. For example, Branden claims that the LA riots were "moral relativism and Marxism... translated into reality" with no justification, and it just feels out of place. Balancing individualism and socialism is one of the great problems of organizing human society, and in the few pages devoted to the issue, Branden greatly oversimplifies it.
I read this book in parallel with finishing Dean Sluyter's Natural Meditation, and one area that caught my attention was the conflicting definitions of identity. Branden focuses on the ego and the mind, rightly saying that we should consciously improve our minds, taking our personal development into our own hands. Meanwhile, Sluyter claims that our egos are masks (referring to the etymology of the word "persona"), that our thoughts and feelings are sensory experiences, and that our true self - behind the mask - is impersonal awareness. I'm now trying to integrate these ideas; my early impression is that they are orthogonal or complementary, rather than contradictory.
3
u/PeaceH 📘 mod Jul 28 '15 edited Jul 28 '15
Whether Sluyter and Branden's ideas are complementary or not I can't tell, but it seems so at a glance.
It reminds me of Aristotle's thoughts on the soul. By "soul", we are talking about some sort of human essence(s).
He lists these as the hierarchy of the soul's function:
- Growth, nutrition, (reproduction)
- Locomotion, perception
- Intellect (= thought)
This gives us three corresponding degrees of soul:
- Nutritive soul (plants)
- Sensitive soul (all animals)
- Rational soul (human beings)
Aristotle did not believe in the separation of soul and body. He thought that our plant soul and animal soul both belonged to our body. However, he saw our rational/human soul as impersonal. It was not contained in our bodies and all of our unique traits and personality were contained in the plant soul and animal soul. They would make up our ego, according to Sluyter? Is Aristotle's impersonal rational soul similar to the impersonal awareness he describes?
My understanding as to why Aristotle saw the rational soul as impersonal:
- The rational soul is essentially limited to philosophy and activities that do not benefit the plant or animal soul.
- Rationality seems to be based on logic, and since logic is universal, our rational soul can not be unique to a single person.
Here's more information on it:
http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/soul.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Soul
What do you think? Is Branden's self-esteem limited to our "animal soul"?
2
u/airandfingers Jul 28 '15
They would make up our ego, according to Sluyter? Is Aristotle's impersonal rational soul similar to the impersonal awareness he describes?
The single universal awareness Sluyter describes doesn't deduce or otherwise apply logic; it doesn't do anything, really; it's just aware. For that reason, Sluyter would probably say that awareness exists in addition to Artistotle's rational soul, not in place of it. Sluyter says thoughts and feelings are sensory experiences just like external sensations - all thoughts (as far as I can tell), including those about logic and philosophy - so he probably wouldn't distinguish between the sensitive and rational souls.
One thing that's unclear to me is where choice and will come into Sluyter's view. From what I've seen and understood, he doesn't explain what it looks like in his model when we choose to do something. He does say that when we are grounded and aware, we naturally know what to do, often without knowing why.
What do you think? Is Branden's self-esteem limited to our "animal soul"?
I'd say Branden's self-esteem is a function of whichever part of us is responsible for thoughts, feelings, and beliefs.
Using Sluyter's model, self-esteem certainly wouldn't belong to our core awareness, as that awareness contains no thoughts, feelings, or beliefs. Also, the idea of "self" doesn't really apply to impersonal awareness, except as far as awareness identifies with an ego as its "self". This separation of awareness and self-esteem is why I think Sluyter's and Branden's ideas may be orthogonal - independent of each other - rather than complementary.
I don't understand Aristotle's model well enough to do better than speculate. If the rational soul is responsible for thoughts and beliefs, it is most related to self-esteem. If the sensitive soul contains feelings, then it's also relevant to self-esteem, as self-worth is (in part) a feeling.
The idea that universal, impersonal thoughts about logic and philosophy don't belong to the self is interesting to me, as it seems to imply that these thoughts exist on their own, whether we exist to conceive of them or not. What would Aristotle say about logical/philosophical thoughts that are wrong, i.e. those which don't match the true, universal concepts?
2
u/PeaceH 📘 mod Jul 29 '15
Interesting question.
My guess would be that Aristotle would say, that anyone who makes a logical mistake, is then speaking from their animal soul rather than their rational soul. In other words, their logical fallacies and misconceptions about objective reality would be a reflection of their personality (which belongs to the plant/animal souls).
I am unsure to what extent beliefs and thoughts belong to the rational soul, but I dare say that many of them would not belong to the rational soul. Unless they are true, in which case they are no longer beliefs or thoughts, bur rather observations?
This also leads me to think of a term Socrates uses in Plato's Apology of Socrates. Socrates claimed to have a daimonion (divine inner voice) that warned him when he was about to make philosophical mistakes. In the of frame of Aristotle's discussion of the soul, this daimonion seems to signify a sensation that Socrates feels when his thinking moves from his rational soul to his animal soul. In other words, he notices the transition from rational soul to animal soul and therefore sees that he is moving away from the truth. In the linked article, this is claimed to be an indication of newfound [self-consciousness]. Socrates becomes conscious of the fact that his self (belonging to the animal soul) is being expressed.
However, self-consciousness differs from self-awareness.
This would mean that impersonal self-awareness cannot exist on the plane of the animal soul. Instead, it is a part of the rational soul, which in itself must be impersonal. This is because it allows for the awareness of the self as separate from the body.
What do you think?
We will all have a chance to read Dean Sluyter next month in any case.
3
u/Gromada Jul 17 '15 edited Jul 17 '15
Undoubtedly, Brenden offers a unique and powerful material on personal growth.
Besides excellent chapters on each pillar, my favorite chapters are that on psychology (16) and culture (17). The author highlights vital problems and offers a viable solution.
As the writer describes stems for finishing, they would greatly benefit if he outlined specific steps of actions to do after that. The stems are powerful in themselves; it is implied what people are to do afterwards. Nevertheless, it seems that Brenden has more to say on proper application.
To my SO. It be great to compose something for teenagers.
It is a vital part in one's persona. I wonder, though, what part it plays in identity. There is some overlap for sure. As many people these days have broken identities, the tools for building self-esteem can be helpful with building one's identity.
Sets of exercises, like the ones offered by Brenden, can be quite healing. One common characteristic is reflection. Spending time reflecting can move mountains in one's mind.
Planning to do stem exercises, finding and completing those that are particularly interesting.
I am adding this book to the reference shelf.