I listened to the entire podcast and while I respect Helen Lewis, I think she offers a narrative here that is disappointing and tainted by her own confirmation bias. Lewis posits this newly coined definition of "Guru" which appears to be another example of the pseudo intellectual theories that are rampant in our society today. Theories…
I listened to the entire podcast and while I respect Helen Lewis, I think she offers a narrative here that is disappointing and tainted by her own confirmation bias. Lewis posits this newly coined definition of "Guru" which appears to be another example of the pseudo intellectual theories that are rampant in our society today. Theories that are interesting and make sense at first glance, but have no foundation.
To begin with, her use of the term Guru, (a term intended for an individual who sincerely shares spiritual wisdom), is defined in her narrative in ways that clearly describe something closer to occult leader and con-artist. Not to say there is no history of disingenuous people posing as gurus, however, that fact does not change the intended meaning of the word, (this is perhaps a reflection of her view of spiritual teachers through an atheist lens).
Further, her application of this theory is wrought with bias. Lewis states that the core traits of the "guru" is galaxy brain, grievance mongering, overt vulnerability, anti-establishment and the mantra "never criticize me". The interesting thing to me is that Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein are the primary focus of this discussion of gurus, but I've never heard any of them take a "never question me approach", they passionately defend their perspectives in thoughtful ways but on multiple occasions I've heard them change their mind or soften their perspective when faced with a factual counter-point. I personally respect their approach to intellectual exploration even when I don't agree with their view.
The discussion also ignores that the "outsider/vulnerability' piece in each of these cases were not self-ascribed as a part of an act, but were based on legitimate injustices that were inflicted on their careers. Injustices that run counter to basic principles of academia and free speech. Meanwhile, the only person mentioned in this interview who has repeatedly expressed a "never criticize me" edict, gets a grade of A- for his handling of the pandemic.
I think Lewis is an intelligent individual and there is much that she writes that I agree with and many points in this interview that I think she gets right. However, I was disappointed in Bari's wholesale acceptance of Lewis' new definition of guru, and particularly the unnuanced dissection of Rogan, Peterson and Weinstein.
It's interesting to me that I subscribe to The Free Press, have gifted a subscription as well and shared numerous Honestly interviews with friends, family and co-workers all while praising Bari Weiss, yet the way I found out about her is by hearing her praised by the three people above she has indicted as "gurus" in this interview.
What if the phenomenon here that is worth our examination as a society is not this ill-constructed theory of the modern "guru". What if the more important exploration is asking why David Fuller and millions of other educated, and good hearted people need to worship people who are genuinely exploring and sharing ideas as part of their own imperfect journey.
Without much effort, I can review past work of Helen Lewis and Bari Weiss, and use this silly construct to make an argument that they are themselves the modern gurus they hunt. But I don't want that, because I value and respect Lewis and Weiss and their contribution to our society. I also value Rogan, Peterson and Weinstein, not because they always get it right, but because they kept the dialogue open during a period when it really looked like it was going to be extinguished, and by the way, the success of the Free Press and the very recent re-balancing of the Atlantic Monthly is built on the personal risk that these imperfect individuals and others took when it was a lot harder to decent than it is today.
I love Bari Weiss, and the Free Press, but I don't know Bari Weiss and I have developed no para-social relationship with her in my mind. Does that mean she is not a guru? Does the fact that their is almost undoubtedly people out their who have created a para-social relationship with her in their minds make her a guru. The construct is faulty, like so much in our society today that focuses, and lays blame on the "Activating Event" and ignores the "Beliefs and Consequences" that are forged within the mind of the beholder. Albert Ellis got a lot of this right forty years ago, yet we have doubled down on the dysfunctional side of the equation today. Creating endless lists of "triggers", "offenses" and "demons", while ignoring the need to self-regulate and coexist.
In my opinion, using the definition of guru offered by Lewis, is just another way to identify the "other", the "demon" and unfortunately, that jeopardizes the greater societal dialogue. If you disagree with someone, say why and support your why with facts, but call them by their name while you're doing it, don't allow yourself to dehumanize them in your mind by calling them "guru" or some other childish other-term.
Friends at Free Press and Honestly, thank you for all you do. Thank you for keeping the dialogue alive. In the shifting sands of intellectual discourse, it is easy to worry that you're losing perspective, especially when some suggest that their are no facts and everything is a construct. My humble recommendation is to schedule an interview with Dr. Karen Reivich of U-Penn's Positive Psychology Center. Her resiliency program work is tremendously important and extremely grounding.
I listened to the entire podcast and while I respect Helen Lewis, I think she offers a narrative here that is disappointing and tainted by her own confirmation bias. Lewis posits this newly coined definition of "Guru" which appears to be another example of the pseudo intellectual theories that are rampant in our society today. Theories that are interesting and make sense at first glance, but have no foundation.
To begin with, her use of the term Guru, (a term intended for an individual who sincerely shares spiritual wisdom), is defined in her narrative in ways that clearly describe something closer to occult leader and con-artist. Not to say there is no history of disingenuous people posing as gurus, however, that fact does not change the intended meaning of the word, (this is perhaps a reflection of her view of spiritual teachers through an atheist lens).
Further, her application of this theory is wrought with bias. Lewis states that the core traits of the "guru" is galaxy brain, grievance mongering, overt vulnerability, anti-establishment and the mantra "never criticize me". The interesting thing to me is that Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein are the primary focus of this discussion of gurus, but I've never heard any of them take a "never question me approach", they passionately defend their perspectives in thoughtful ways but on multiple occasions I've heard them change their mind or soften their perspective when faced with a factual counter-point. I personally respect their approach to intellectual exploration even when I don't agree with their view.
The discussion also ignores that the "outsider/vulnerability' piece in each of these cases were not self-ascribed as a part of an act, but were based on legitimate injustices that were inflicted on their careers. Injustices that run counter to basic principles of academia and free speech. Meanwhile, the only person mentioned in this interview who has repeatedly expressed a "never criticize me" edict, gets a grade of A- for his handling of the pandemic.
I think Lewis is an intelligent individual and there is much that she writes that I agree with and many points in this interview that I think she gets right. However, I was disappointed in Bari's wholesale acceptance of Lewis' new definition of guru, and particularly the unnuanced dissection of Rogan, Peterson and Weinstein.
It's interesting to me that I subscribe to The Free Press, have gifted a subscription as well and shared numerous Honestly interviews with friends, family and co-workers all while praising Bari Weiss, yet the way I found out about her is by hearing her praised by the three people above she has indicted as "gurus" in this interview.
What if the phenomenon here that is worth our examination as a society is not this ill-constructed theory of the modern "guru". What if the more important exploration is asking why David Fuller and millions of other educated, and good hearted people need to worship people who are genuinely exploring and sharing ideas as part of their own imperfect journey.
Without much effort, I can review past work of Helen Lewis and Bari Weiss, and use this silly construct to make an argument that they are themselves the modern gurus they hunt. But I don't want that, because I value and respect Lewis and Weiss and their contribution to our society. I also value Rogan, Peterson and Weinstein, not because they always get it right, but because they kept the dialogue open during a period when it really looked like it was going to be extinguished, and by the way, the success of the Free Press and the very recent re-balancing of the Atlantic Monthly is built on the personal risk that these imperfect individuals and others took when it was a lot harder to decent than it is today.
I love Bari Weiss, and the Free Press, but I don't know Bari Weiss and I have developed no para-social relationship with her in my mind. Does that mean she is not a guru? Does the fact that their is almost undoubtedly people out their who have created a para-social relationship with her in their minds make her a guru. The construct is faulty, like so much in our society today that focuses, and lays blame on the "Activating Event" and ignores the "Beliefs and Consequences" that are forged within the mind of the beholder. Albert Ellis got a lot of this right forty years ago, yet we have doubled down on the dysfunctional side of the equation today. Creating endless lists of "triggers", "offenses" and "demons", while ignoring the need to self-regulate and coexist.
In my opinion, using the definition of guru offered by Lewis, is just another way to identify the "other", the "demon" and unfortunately, that jeopardizes the greater societal dialogue. If you disagree with someone, say why and support your why with facts, but call them by their name while you're doing it, don't allow yourself to dehumanize them in your mind by calling them "guru" or some other childish other-term.
Friends at Free Press and Honestly, thank you for all you do. Thank you for keeping the dialogue alive. In the shifting sands of intellectual discourse, it is easy to worry that you're losing perspective, especially when some suggest that their are no facts and everything is a construct. My humble recommendation is to schedule an interview with Dr. Karen Reivich of U-Penn's Positive Psychology Center. Her resiliency program work is tremendously important and extremely grounding.