Q: Would you consider it hypocritical for someone to pay a ghostwriter to write a self-help book on #Stoicism, so they can pretend they wrote it themselves and publish it under their own name?
I think I've been asked about this maybe three times now. It's not something I would ever agree to do personally. I don't think it's a big deal for a celebrity to have their memoirs ghostwritten but Stoic philosophy is an ethical system that is supposed to value truth.
I was asked once to write Stoic content for a famous influencer, which they wanted to pass off as their own pearls of wisdom. I declined. It just seemed much too insincere on their part to be claiming to teach principles of a philosophy they didn't care about enough to even read.
There's a spectrum that runs from being credited as co-author on bits of a book through to ghostwriting the whole thing, and someone passing it off as their own work. I've definitely met people who wanted the whole thing just done for them, though, so they could take the credit.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Jordan Peterson preaches a self-improvement doctrine of extreme personal responsibility, clean your room, etc, but he also implicitly encourages his fans to disown responsibility for their negative emotions by blaming them on other people rather than their own underlying beliefs.
It seems very obvious to me that his whole schtick encourages a victim mentality, which seems in total contradiction to what he claims to be teaching. There's virtually no reference, e.g., to the role of beliefs in shaping emotions like anger.
I think that's why, surprisingly, he avoids any mention of cognitive therapy, the leading evidence-based form of psychotherapy, despite being a former professor of clinical psychology himself, and writing extensively about self-help for confidence, anxiety, depression, etc.
People think that Stoicism is joyless but they're wrong. They're confusing the Greek philosophy called Stoicism with the modern concept of (lowercase) "stoicism", the unemotional coping style. Marcus Aurelius describes the following three sources of happiness in Stoicism...
1. The primary source of happiness (positive emotion) in Stoic philosophy comes from contemplation of our supreme good, which is the concept of moral wisdom or virtue itself, and our capacity for virtue; by clarifying our own values, for instance, we experience deeper happiness.
2. We likewise experience happiness by learning to appreciate the capacity for wisdom and virtue in other people, despite their imperfections, which Marcus Aurelius demonstrates at length in Book One of The Meditations.
Russell Brand is a good example of precisely what Socrates warned us against. He said that the Sophists gave long speeches, refused to let anyone interrupt them or ask questions, changed the subject, launched into prepared speeches, etc., to avoid justifying their claims.
He frequently raises his voice and shouts over the top of people who are trying to question him or disagree with him, makes dubious assertions, and then goes off at tangents to avoid answering questions about them, worse, actually than most politicians.
I think regardless of what the guy is saying, it's pretty easy to show that he's using rhetoric in a way that resembles the ancient Sophists, e.g., it's an objective fact that he often talks over other people, and changes the subject to avoid questions, etc.
I guess Adolf Hitler had "something of value that he brought to the table" (Kanye) in the sense that a hamburger laced with cyanide might include a slice of tomato that could potentially contain a few healthy vitamins or something.
In other words, while it's true that nobody is all bad, and we can find something positive in anyone, obviously, some people believe and do things so horrible and destructive, like genocide, that it justifiably overshadows things like making the trains run on time or whatever.
Also, I can't think of anything of value that Hitler "brought to the table" that you wouldn't be better advised to get from another source. I mean, he said German youths should march more miles and drink less beer, but I doubt we *need* to go to Hitler for that sort of advice.
🧵 It seems to me that @SubstackInc is way better than @Medium if you're a writer, for the following reasons.
I have 31k "followers" on Medium but they own that list, not me, and when I publish a new article, it seems barely any of them are typically notified. I have 26k subscribers on Substack, all emails, which I can potentially migrate elsewhere, and roughly 30% open rate.
Medium Curation is a black box - it seems highly unpredictable whether or not an article is chosen for distribution and things like plugging your new books, if you're an author, seem to reduce your chances of reaching readers. That's just not a problem with Substack.
The big question with Twitter has long been how it could be monetized. There doesn't seem to be an easy answer. Elon Musk tried charging for a "verification" check mark but I think it's already pretty clear that flopped and comes nowhere near the $$$ he needs to generate.
When it was first floated, author Stephen King responded "Fuck that, they should pay me", and, you know what, he had a point. Twitter could be paying content creators, like Stephen King, to keep their platform alive, while raking in more money from advertisers.
They could put premium content behind a paywall, like Medium tries to do, and pay the authors a percentage. At the moment Twitter sends traffic to sites like Medium and Substack who then charge for access. Why doesn't Twitter just cut out the middleman and do that itself?