TheCanadian1867

TheCanadian1867 t1_iuhyg51 wrote

Yeah that's a fair criticism. He can definitely come off as too analytical/matter-of-fact and less compassionate. Admittedly it's been a few years since I read his book so it's tough to recall more than just the major themes. But it's interesting you liked his videos and then disappointed by the book. It's nice to hear reasonable critiques from someone who approaches his work with good-faith.

Agreed on the polarization thing. Which is funny, my post is already getting hit by downvotes. Despite (I think) it being a fairly innocuous opinion of his work. So it's somewhat manifesting on a Monday morning r/books thread!

3

TheCanadian1867 t1_iuhumka wrote

I would argue his approach really isn't meant to be a feel-good type of self-improvement strategy. He posits that suffering is inherent to the human condition and discusses (through biblical, mythological, literary, psychological, etc. means) how we as a species overcome such suffering. To which he generally says: tell the truth, adopt responsibility, don't ignore your problems, be grateful, improve incrementally.

The community is very polarized on this guy. I think his stuff on the importance of adopting responsibility to overcome suffering and live a meaningful life is an excellent lesson. His politics bother people, but his clinical psychology insight has taught me a ton. So it sort of depends how willing you are to take lessons from someone despite other disagreements (that is if you do in fact actually disagree, there's absolutely nothing wrong either if you don't. It's important for a society to have both liberal and conservative thinkers).

2