Tuesday, February 4, 2025

smooooooth


 

















Pete Hegseth, Princeton, and Me

 Pete Hegseth, Princeton, and Me

Caixa de entrada

Patrick J. Deneen from Postliberal Order postliberalorder@substack.com 
Anular subscrição

03/02/2025, 09:37 (há 1 dia)
para mim






Pete Hegseth, Princeton, and Me

Patrick Deneen reflects on his time at Princeton, particularly as senior thesis advisor to the current Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth - and its wider meaning.

Preview
 
READ IN APP
 

I began my academic career at Princeton University, where I held an appointment as assistant professor of Politics from 1997-2005. During much of my time at Princeton I felt like an outsider looking in - I was a graduate of nearby Rutgers University, which I had attended both as an undergraduate and a doctoral student. Due to a fluke of history, Rutgers is sometimes thought by many to be one of the Ivies when, in fact, its actual name should be “The University of New Jersey.” As such, I lacked the Ivy league imprimatur of most of my Princeton colleagues.

This discrepancy never bothered me, and I was grateful to have bucked the odds, but my background led to widely differing perspectives from those of my colleagues. I especially remember feeling utter incredulity over the university’s boasts that Princeton was a bastion of “diversity.” At that time, it was claimed, Princeton’s diversity was especially evident given the vast geographic range from which students were drawn, not only from every state in the Union, but a large number of foreign nations. Yet, as a professor in classrooms filled with students of nearly identical educational and experiential advantages as well as class backgrounds, albeit from a myriad of locations, it immediately struck me that there had been more actual diversity in one of my Rutgers undergraduate classes - in which almost every student was from New Jersey - than an average Princeton class. While students at Rutgers mostly hailed from nearby towns and cities such as Paramus, Vineland, Freehold, and Camden, they were not only racially and ethnically diverse, but diverse in life experience. Some of my classmates were well-prepared for college, the children of professors and pharmaceutical scientists; most were middle-class children of middle-tier professionals; and quite a few (at that time) were first-generation students whose parents were janitors, retail clerks, farmers, cops, and the like.

This was one of the many pervasive forms of disconnect that was readily evident to me at Princeton and places like it. I was already skeptical about progressive liberalism, which seemed a philosophy especially attractive to elites who simultaneously and loudly proclaimed their devotion to equality while enjoying a life that was anything but ordinary. Among my fellow political theory faculty I was not a devotee of liberalism in general, and loathed the philosophy of John Rawls in particular, which put me outside the philosophic and methodological approaches of most of my colleagues.

Around this same time, during academic year 2002-03, I came to know a Princeton student whom I discerned was also outside the Princeton mainstream - by a considerable margin. His name was Pete Hegseth, whom I knew of as a member of the Princeton basketball team and for having a somewhat notorious reputation as a conservative firebrand as editor of the conservative student paper The Princeton Tory. But it was as an ROTC student on a campus of students who would mostly go on to well-heeled jobs as investment bankers or consultants, or law school or medical school, that I recognized something of a fellow internal exile, albeit for different reasons. He was a Princeton man, but refused to go along with the expected liberal pieties of the typical Princeton student. He was that most unusual of students, a contrarian among the elites, and someone who chose the hard path rather than the way of wealth shrouded by a progressive veil. I saw something then that has left me unsurprised and even filled with considerable hope as I’ve watched his rise to prominence and power. He was then, as now, a contrarian within a system that was based on falsehood - and he dared to call it out.

Postliberal Order is not funded by any of the multitude of Right Liberal foundations that are keeping Con. Inc. afloat. We hope readers interested in the actual future of political conservatism will become regulars, and assist us in building up this upstart publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. ...

Subscribe to Postliberal Order to unlock the rest.

Become a paying subscriber of Postliberal Order to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content.

A subscription gets you:

Subscriber-only posts and full archive
Post comments and join the community
Access to monthly podcast episodes
 
Like
Comment
Restack
 

© 2025 The Postliberals
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
Unsubscribe

Get the appStart writing





Sunday, February 2, 2025

xaite


 

think more adaptively

 Fast Company & Inc © 2025 Mansueto Ventures, LLC

DAA Icon
Newsguard Icon
100 Shields Icon

Fastcompany.com adheres to NewsGuard’s nine standards of credibility and transparency. Learn More



Socrates’s two-column technique only teaches one small part of his famous philosophical method, but it’s a great way to start thinking more flexibly and adaptively about life.

5 ancient habits from Socrates to help you think more adaptively

Alcibiades Receiving Instruction from Socrates, François-André Vincent, 1776. [Photo: Wikipedia]

BY NEXT BIG IDEA CLUB7 MINUTE READ

Donald Robertson is a cognitive-behavioral psychotherapist. He has been researching Stoicism for over twenty years and is one of the founding members of the nonprofit Modern Stoicism. He is also the founder and president of the Plato’s Academy Centre nonprofit in Greece.

WHAT’S THE BIG IDEA?

The philosophy and methods of Socrates can help bring calm and clarity to the distracted, nervous, and angry modern mind. His training techniques share remarkable overlaps with modern cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Below, Donald shares five key insights from his new book, How to Think Like Socrates: Ancient Philosophy as a Way of Life in the Modern WorldListen to the audio version—read by Donald himself—in the Next Big Idea App.

1. HOW TO PRACTICE THE SOCRATIC METHOD.

Socrates, despite being one of the most influential philosophers in history, wrote nothing. At least, that’s what people like to say. However, Plato, his most famous student, tells us that while in prison awaiting his execution, Socrates wrote poetry. More intriguingly, Epictetus, the famous Stoic philosopher who lived four centuries later, claimed that Socrates jotted down countless notes that were designed for his own self-improvement but never intended for publication. Another of his students describes how Socrates taught a young man to practice philosophy by means of a formal written exercise.

Compass Newsletter logo
Subscribe to the Compass newsletter.Fast Company's trending stories delivered to you daily

For this exercise, Socrates drew two columns, the first headed “Justice” and the second “Injustice.” His companion was invited to list examples of wrongdoing under the heading of injustice, such as theft and deceit. It’s often easier to understand our values if we begin by defining their opposites. However, the basic skill underlying the Socratic Method really comes into play in the next step. Socrates asked his friend to imagine any situations where the things he’d listed under Injustice might be placed under the heading of Justice. For instance, a general who seized the weapons of the enemy during a war might be said to be stealing, but perhaps that’s not unjust. Likewise, a father might be considered justified in concealing medicine in his sick child’s food despite this being a form of deceit. Socrates was skilled at coming up with these sorts of examples.

Training yourself to think of exceptions to rules and definitions can help you avoid applying them too rigidly. This skill is important because the advice and techniques we learn from self-help books are often of limited value. What’s good advice in one situation may become bad advice in another. Solutions that work well for some problems may backfire when applied to others. Wisdom consists of thinking for yourself by adapting rules to fit new situations. Socrates’s two-column technique only teaches one small part of his famous philosophical method, but it’s a great way to start thinking more flexibly and adaptively about life.

2. GENERATE ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES.

Epictetus said, “People are distressed not by events but by their opinions about events.” This was one of the main inspirations behind cognitive therapy, the leading form of modern evidence-based psychotherapy. The idea goes back to Socrates, a century before the Stoic school of philosophy was founded. Modern psychological research has confirmed that our beliefs shape our emotions more than we normally assume. By changing the way we think, we can change the way we feel.

“Socrates, at times, behaved rather like a modern-day cognitive therapist.”

An obstacle stands in the way. Some of our beliefs are so entrenched that we find it difficult to imagine ever viewing events differently. When we’re gripped by strong emotions, such as fear or anger, it may feel natural to view certain events as catastrophic or certain people as unbearable. Socrates, at times, behaved rather like a modern-day cognitive therapist. He would ask his friends whether they imagined that the events that upset them might be viewed differently by other people. What you see as a catastrophe, someone else might view as bad but only temporary, whereas a third might even look at it as an opportunity. By becoming aware that multiple alternative perspectives are conceivable, you can attune to the way your beliefs influence your emotions.

3. SEPARATE YOUR THOUGHTS FROM EXTERNAL EVENTS.

Cognitive therapists say our beliefs are like colored lenses through which we look at the world. Suppose you’re wearing blue lenses, which color the world with sadness. There’s a difference between looking at the world through your sad, blue lenses and looking at them. This shift in perspective can be compared to observing your own biases as if you were observing someone else’s.

When we can distinguish between our thoughts and external reality, we experience two main benefits. The most obvious is that our emotions tend to be reduced in intensity. The second is more subtle but arguably even more valuable: We become better at exploring alternative ways of looking at problems. With this flexibility, we find creative solutions to improve how things work out in the long term.

Therapists today have fancy names for this, like cognitive distancing or defusion, but it basically means learning to separate beliefs from the things they refer to. It allows you to view your own thinking with greater objectivity and has been found especially helpful for emotional problems such as anxiety and depression. The simplest way to do this is by writing your thoughts down and observing them from a detached perspective. Another method is to tell yourself, “I notice right now that I am having the thought . . .” and then state the thought you were having as if you were putting it in quotation marks. You can also imagine that some thought or belief has been painted in big letters on a wall, picturing the color and shape of the letters or changing their appearance until you have a sense of the words being like external objects. Therapists may also ask their clients to repeat a troubling thought aloud rapidly for around 30 seconds or to say it more slowly, with longer pauses. It’s interesting to try worrying in slow motion!

These techniques allow us to experience a thought or belief with greater detachment by looking at our mental lenses rather than looking through them. You’re not avoiding the thought, and you can still discuss evidence for and against it. You’re just experiencing it from another perspective. I believe that Socrates gained this sort of detachment from his own beliefs by discussing them with his friends. He compared self-knowledge to an eye that sees itself, and the best way to achieve this, he thought, was by engaging in philosophical conversations where you view the other person as a mirror for the mind, in which you contemplate your thinking more objectively.

4. ILLEISM, MEANING TALKING IN THE THIRD PERSON.

When Socrates finished discussing philosophy with his friends, he would go home and continue the conversation with himself in private. He would imagine another Socrates interrogating him about his assumptions concerning wisdom, justice, and other virtues. Socrates appears to have been known for referring to himself as if he was another person. A similar technique, which involves talking about yourself using your name or third-person pronouns, is called Illeism. It is occasionally used in modern psychotherapy to help clients manage anxiety and other distressing emotions.

“We often seem better at giving other people advice than solving our own problems.”

The psychologist Igor Grossmann heads a center that conducts research on the nature of wisdom at the University of Waterloo, in Canada. He was intrigued by a paradox: We often seem better at giving other people advice than solving our own problems. He and his colleagues carried out a variety of experiments and found that when people write about their problems in a journal using the third person, they exhibit more wisdom than when writing in the first person. He calls this method distanced reflection, and it can improve your ability to reason, especially about problems that normally evoke strong feelings.

5. ANGER AND PERCEIVED INJUSTICE.

Philosophers have debated the nature of justice for thousands of years, but we don’t normally think doing so is therapeutic. However, studies have found that individuals who suffer from clinical depression often perceive themselves as victims of injustice. Ancient Greek philosophers understood that anger is often associated with a desire for those we perceive as having acted unjustly to be punished. Cognitive psychologists have arrived at a similar conclusion:Anger often involves blaming others for violating some rule.

Socrates insisted that the injustice of others could not harm him. He was not angry with the men responsible for his unjust trial and execution. Paradoxically, he believed that injustice harms the perpetrator more than the victim. Few people today would accept such a radical position, but we can imagine how it may have helped Socrates show extraordinary fortitude and resilience in the face of persecution.

Get into the habit of asking what does you more harm: your anger or the things you’re angry about? Although there are real injustices in the world, anger is seldom the most helpful response. In trivial cases, it may be best to let go of our sense of injustice so that we can move on. When facing more serious problems, it may be easier to replace anger with assertiveness. It can be challenging to decide whether our feelings are justified, but it’s important to spot when anger is doing us more harm than the wrongdoing we’re concerned about.

This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The best new nonfiction book summaries in 15 minutes, directly from the authors. Book club curated by Malcolm Gladwell, Adam Grant, Susan Cain, and Daniel Pink. More


EXPLORE TOPICS