Sorry the posting has been light of late. There are reasons for that, and I’ll get to it some other time. But I stumbled across this today and had to share. Barricade Garage is becoming one of my favorite YouTube channels for the humorous yet pointed way they look at modern issues. I think we would all be better off if we could look inward and examine our own ways of thinking and our own flaws before we attempt to tell everyone how to fix their own. That is true self-reliance.
Category Archives: Spiritual / Motivational
Is self-reliance a white invention?
I don’t want to get political on this blog, but this week saw a rather…interesting…publication from the National Museum of African American History and Culture, part of the Smithsonian Institution. The publication* attempts to spell out the elements of “White” culture that, because of the white majority status, may have been adopted by minorities. As with most generalizations, it’s difficult to know what to make of it, but I did find interesting what it had to say about self-reliance:
Rugged Individualism:
– The individual is the primary unit
– Self-reliance
– Independence & autonomy highly valued + rewarded
– Individuals assumed to be in control of their environment, “You get what you deserve”
Taking all of this at face value, it would appear that self-reliance and individuality are inherent in being “white.” Less clear, however, is whether they can be assumed to be unique to Caucasian peoples, or even if there is any ethnicity to which they are not inherent. Certainly cooperation and compliance are more prevalent in some other cultures than in America, as witnessed by the willingness in other countries to adopt blanket measures against the COVID-19 virus.
But is this generalization even true of Americans as a whole? Identity has become a major issue in America, with individuals relating more closely to factors other than race. I’m not so sure we can claim that the individual is the primary unit anymore–if it ever was. Likewise, independence and autonomy is increasingly downplayed, even criticized. Helicopter parents and lawnmower parents are witnesses for the contrary opinion.
In some ways independence and autonomy are still valued and rewarded, but there seem to be plenty of rewards for going with the herd these days, as well. Both sides of the increasingly prevalent “cancel culture” reinforce this. Usually the one being canceled was doing something independent and autonomous, and the mobs doing the canceling seem to lack independence, if not autonomy.
I would also argue that the individualist and the self-reliant understand they are not in control of their environment. What they “deserve” scarcely enters into their calculations. What they want is what drives them, coupled with focused, committed work to overcome or compensate for an environment that is ambivalent at best, hostile at worst. They don’t assume the environment is just going to roll over and give them what they want.
What one “deserves” is more the watch-cry of the entitled, a most decidedly reliant group if there ever was one. It’s the motivation of the proverbial “Karen,” who assumes he/she deserves everything precisely the way they want it, with no more effort on their part than to harangue into compliance those who stand in their way.
It would be interesting to conduct a study of non-white immigrants to the United States, and to other countries. Do those immigrants who succeed here do so in spite of their non-compliance with dominant, white culture? Or do they succeed because they came here already equipped with similar values instilled by their native cultures? Or is it that they recognize in American culture the same values they have sought to develop, and that drives their decision to come here instead of other places they could go? Can immigrants without those values succeed just as easily or well in countries with entirely different values?
I’m willing to accept, depending on definition, that America, by and large, is an individualist society. Individualism, however, is a two-edged sword, and could just as easily manifest in very un-self-reliant ways. But in any case, if the above assumptions on individualism and self-reliance can currently be considered true, it’s also true that those values are very much under siege, and the undermining of those values is largely the source of any decline in the effectiveness of our culture. If it is indeed becoming increasingly harder to “make it” in America, there’s as good a chance it is due to the quality and approach of Americans trying to make it, as any change in the environment in which we operate.
From a self-reliance standpoint, at the heart of self-reliance is the assumption that we are not in control of our environment, but that knowing that, we can do things to be prepared for when things don’t go our way. We can anticipate the most likely fluctuations in that environment and be prepared with backup plans. We can build up reserves of whatever we need to ride out periods of scarcity and uncertainty.
If the self-reliant attitude were truly intrinsic in American “white” culture this blog wouldn’t be necessary. It would be as redundant as sites pushing the value of education, or clean water, or wearing clothing. But it is precisely because many of those values listed by the NMAAHC are not prevalent in modern culture any more that we see much of the turmoil we currently experience in this country. It is a return to those values that is needed if we’re going to reverse the decline we are in.
*- The publication has evidently been removed now because of the controversy.
Securing your base
By now you all know I rather enjoy the site Art of Manliness, though frankly it could almost as easily be called the Art of Common Sense. There are certainly a lot of articles exploring “manliness” from all angles, but there is also a lot about basic preparedness and self-reliance.Take their recent article, Sunday Fireside: Secure Your Base.
Deriving supposedly from Carl Von Clausewitz’ “On War,” writers Brett and Kate McKay discuss what “securing your base” means in practical, civilian ways:
Securing your base means establishing a self-sustaining, shock-resistant “headquarters” that is well-defended against disruptions from external forces.
They list foundational concepts such as:
- Good health
- Financial independence (avoiding debt)
- Mechanical skills
- Domestic skills
- Strong social relationships with family and friends
- Firmness in beliefs
That last point I found most interesting, as it was the least predictable:
Finally, a secure base requires secure beliefs. While philosophic and political positions can and should evolve over time, they should not be so unexamined, so lacking in well-studied context, that every current of change knocks you into an incapacitating stupor of confusion and cognitive dissonance. You should know why you believe what you believe.
I suspect many of us are experiencing some of that confusion and cognitive dissonance these days amid the political and social turmoil in the United States and around the world. We are being simultaneously told that “Speech is violence,” and “Violence is speech” as valid, peaceful protests transform into destructive mobs inflicting significant property damage, cultural vandalism, and loss of life on the very people they claim to be supporting in their “protests.” The only way out of this mess as a society comes from people firm in their principles insisting on a better way forward than what we’re currently getting.
The purpose behind securing your base is best summarized by the authors, and I’ll close with this:
The purpose of creating this kind of personal garrison isn’t to passively retreat from the theater of life; rather, it is to create a fortification from which to better launch your offensive operations.
Life comes at you hard sometimes
Our neighbors’ eleven-year-old daughter has cancer. I was going to say that I don’t know how they can handle it, but I know better. You do, because you must. You take it one step at a time, any way you can, because that’s what you do.
I recently came across an interview between Jordan B. Peterson and his daughter about his recent recovery from benzodiazepines and how he became dependent in the first place. It’s really a frightening story when you realize this was someone who stood to legitimately benefit from a drug prescribed by his doctor, but it went on a little too long until it was almost too late. It may still be. Life came at him hard, and what was supposed to help just made it exponentially harder.
In both cases there are support systems in place. Our neighbors have family and friends within range to help. They have us–we’ve been cultivating a relationship for years. They know we can and will gladly do anything within our power to make this easier on them. Peterson had a daughter and son-in-law willing to go to incredible lengths to get him help, who quite literally saved his life.
No one wants to need help. But that’s the problem with self-sufficiency. Everyone has their breaking point, where you just can’t cope any more, when doing the most basic of tasks seems pointless. It’s important to have friends, to have that network who care enough to step in and take care of whatever can be reasonably delegated so that you can focus on what’s most important, what only you can do.
No one wants to be a burden on others. On the other hand, people love to feel useful, to be needed, especially by those they care about. I was thrilled today when my neighbor approached me about taking care of something for them over the next couple of days while they’re seeing to their daughter. We have a chance to show them we care and how much they mean to us as neighbors.
This is the reason why I’ve always insisted that self-reliance does not mean becoming a hermit. Some of the greatest satisfaction in life comes from being useful in some way to others. I believe everyone has something to give that at the right time would mean the world to someone. It’s not where the rubber meets the road, but where people meet people that magic happens.
Asking the right questions
Nick True at Mapped Out Money often has good budgeting and personal finance advice. This episode looks at the questions we ask ourselves regarding money and suggests maybe we’re asking the wrong things.
I find there’s a lot of value in what he says, especially in comparing yourself to others. My wife and I could drive ourselves crazy if we were to compare our grocery budget to others. We’re vegans, which tends to be more expensive for base ingredients, but we don’t eat out very often, mostly because of the expense. On a strict analysis that doesn’t make sense. If we’re really interested in saving money on food, why shell out for vegan food? Or, if we’re so interested in health, why not go even more expensive and buy everything organic? (That’s not why we’re vegan, but that’s another story for another time.) The answer lies with our values. We do value vegan living, and we also value saving money. This is the balance we’re comfortable with.
At the end of the day, if we don’t live in accordance with our values we’re going to be dissatisfied with whatever other choices we make. Granted, values can–and sometimes should–be changed. If your primary value is to live as large as possible regardless of income, then you’re headed for trouble and either need to to not disregard income so much or decide not to live so large. But on the whole, money needs to serve our needs and not the other way around.
The pursuit of usefulness
I’m often on the search for the thoughts of others on self-reliance. One time the search engine showed me an article by Darius Foroux. I’ll probably get to that one at a later date, but in the process I ended up reading another of his articles which I also found quite interesting. In it he proposes that the purpose of life is not happiness, but usefulness. This may sound familiar; it was posited by Ralph Waldo Emerson:
“The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well.”
Foroux expands on this:
Most things we do in life are just activities and experiences.
You go on holiday.
You go to work.
You go shopping.
You have drinks.
You have dinner.
You buy a car.
Those things should make you happy, right? But they are not useful. You’re not creating anything. You’re just consuming or doing something. And that’s great.
Don’t get me wrong. I love to go on holiday or go shopping sometimes. But to be honest, it’s not what gives meaning to life.
What really makes me happy is when I’m useful. When I create something that others can use. Or even when I create something I can use.
He goes on to explain that it’s what we are doing each day, in large or small ways, to make a difference is what life is all about. Whether it’s taking on a little extra work, unasked, for your boss, writing an article sharing something important you’ve learned, or building a piece of furniture, it’s all useful in some way to someone. It’s nothing big, necessarily, but a life built out of these small things adds up to a what we could consider “a good life.” Or, as Thoroux puts it:
The last thing I want is to be on my deathbed and realize there’s zero evidence that I ever existed.
He’s not advocating changing the world in any big way, necessarily. Just do something a little outside yourself, a little more permanent:
One day I woke up and thought to myself: What am I doing for this world? The answer was nothing.
And that same day I started writing. For you, it can be painting, creating a product, helping the elderly, or anything you feel like doing.
I think his last piece of advice must have been aimed directly at me:
Don’t take it too seriously. Don’t overthink it. Just DO something that’s useful. Anything.
Is it worth it?
Ken Jorgustin at Modern Survival Blog takes up the question of whether it’s worth it to invest in self-reliance. He looks at various types of home production, such as raising your own chickens, growing your own garden, or even switching to solar energy all cost money, and often those same products can be obtained commercially for less.
During the process of building their palace, I’ve thought about the money it took to get this done. As well as the ongoing costs of maintaining the small flock, and feeding them. Let me put it this way. You might get depressed to realize the ultimate cost per dozen eggs output compared to the money input!
Ken Jorgustin
I’ve noticed that with gardening. In both places we’ve lived our irrigation and gardening water comes from the same water as our culinary and hygienic water, and the cost can more than double during the summer months. Whatever money we save by growing our own vegetables is more than eaten up in the water, seeds, tools, and fertilizer needed to grow them. We ultimately decided it simply wasn’t worthwhile to try to grow our own potatoes in Idaho.
We also looked at solar power ourselves a few years ago and realized that in spite of what the salesman told us, the system would never pay for itself, even if the power company paid for any excess electricity we generated–which they stopped doing within a few years. While we would like to have been able to do more to reduce pollution and our own energy dependence we just couldn’t justify the expense.
It can all be enough to make you step back and wonder if it’s really worthwhile to take a different path. But, as Jorgustin explains, the answer will be different for everyone. For some people cost is the only consideration, and they’ll likely not bother with many self-reliance measures. For my wife and I, we find home-grown food is usually healthier and better tasting. What’s more, there may be rough times ahead–times when the stores won’t be able to get the stock they usually get. We may very well need to supplement our food supply from our own yard. In the middle of the crisis is not the time to be learning what grows and what doesn’t, or how to lay out your garden, your watering, etc. And as we’ve seen, the price of things can increase quickly when it’s in short supply.
A considerable part of self-reliance, and especially emergency preparedness, is not just having the things you need when things go wrong, but knowing what to do with them. Maybe not everything we can do we should do, but it is worthwhile to consider what things you want to be able to do. And sometimes it just feels good to do it.
Who do we trust our lives to?
I had a brief discussion with a friend on Facebook the other day in which it became apparent we have differing opinions on the role of government. I don’t think either of us will change the other’s mind any time soon, but he said something that stuck with me. It was essentially, “We trust the government with our lives, so why not to distribute wealth?”
I had to stop and think about that. Do we trust the government with our lives? Should we?
Ultimately I suppose we do trust the government with our lives to some extent. I rely on my local city government to provide me safe drinking water–something they failed at not so long ago. I’ve since taken steps to lessen that risk, but truth be told, if there’s something dangerously wrong with my water I may not know it in time unless the government warns me. I have to trust that they’re doing their best.
I also trust the national government to maintain an army sufficient to deter any other country from coming in and killing me. As we’ve seen in recent years they’re not entirely successful in that responsibility, but they’re keeping the risk acceptably low. And they’re also doing a decent job at deterring those who might take shortcuts or act irresponsibly with our food supply. Incidents still happen, but still, the risk is still quite low.
There are, however, many more ways in which to die. In most of those cases the government acts more as a deterrent than a protection. They can’t keep some idiot driver from cutting across four lanes of traffic to make their exit and plowing into me instead. They can’t guarantee my neighbor’s tree isn’t going to fall on my house as I sleep and crush me. They can’t guarantee the airplane I get on isn’t going to crash, nor can they promise me I won’t die during heart surgery at some future point.
All they can do (or perhaps more accurately, are willing to do at present) is tell people what they should or shouldn’t do, and then affix punishments for noncompliance. And for the most part that is enough. Most people don’t act irresponsibly or seek to do deliberate harm, and they wouldn’t, even without those laws. And many more also don’t because they find the potential punishment sufficiently unpleasant.
And yet 90 people per day are killed in car accidents in America. Several million every year are injured, many permanently. Is the government failing or succeeding? If their responsibility is to protect our lives, I’d say they’re failing. We’ve lost over 80,000 Americans to the Coronavirus this year in spite of all the protections government can provide, including some fairly dramatic precautions. At the same time, those measures have cost lives as well, to say nothing of the jobs at least temporarily lost. The long-term impact on lives may not be fully understood for years yet.
So I guess one question to ask ourselves is whether or not any government can guarantee us our lives. Can a government eliminate all risk? And would we like it if they did? What would our lives be like? I see plenty of examples all around right now of people starting to push back against government control over their lives as the governmental restrictions put in place to save lives from COVID-19 continue in effect well into the second or third months. I live in a state that imposed less strict restrictions and perhaps coincidentally, perhaps in correlation with other factors, has the fourth lowest death rate in the country. I’ve pretty much willingly complied with those restrictions.
But when I hear of some of the other states’ more extensive efforts to control the virus by controlling people I am particularly grateful to live where I live. I fully understand why those states are facing popular backlash. Clearly, even if a government could keep us all from dying, most people feel those all-controlling restrictions would make life no longer worth living, especially when there is no end in sight.
In fact, history seems to prove that a restrictive government, even in the name of protecting life, tends to fall sooner or later. Human nature tends to lead governments to go too far, and usually for decreasingly benign reasons. They may start out well-meaning, but soon grab more and more power simply for the sake of hanging onto that power.
But then let’s look at the alternative. A total lack of government tends not to work very well, either. While I don’t entirely subscribe to the “Lord of the Flies” theory of humanity, a complete lack of common law–or the enforcement thereof–tends toward disaster. People will usually work out some sort of pact, a set of rules for maintaining peace, property, and ensuring basic rights. But as demonstrated by certain parts of our current world, the rule of “might makes right” is more common than we’d like to think.
Humanity needs government. It’s even part of my religion’s basic tenets. Governments that ensure basic rights and basic rules governing human interaction are essential to maximize productivity, cooperation, and peace. But in all cases it falls upon the governed to govern themselves to some degree. The value of traffic laws to a victim is not in the enforcement of those laws, but in the threat of enforcement. It does me precious little good if I’m dead knowing the idiot that decided to continue through the red light at 50 miles an hour to broadside my car will be heavily fined and potentially jailed. The hope is that, knowing he could be heavily fined and jailed, the person will choose not to speed and run red lights in the first place.
And yet we still lose around 40,000 Americans to car accidents every year. If we apply the same logic to cars I’ve been hearing about the coronavirus, we should all be voluntarily getting rid of our cars or agreeing to cap our speed at ten miles an hour. We’re not, and we won’t. Deep down even the strongest proponents of government protection in all area of life seem to accept that communal rights must be tempered by individual rights. We’re willing to accept responsibility for protecting ourselves in order to avoid our own inconvenience.
In fact, as a society in America, we still retain far more personal responsibility for our own protection, prosperity, and happiness than we surrender to government. There is constant pressure from some to push more and more of that control to government, but much of it seems to be due to some mistaken belief that such power could never be abused, or that the other party who we distrust/hate so dearly will never actually hold power, giving them the opportunity to abuse the power we want to hand the government when under our side’s control.
That’s why I tend to believe that we need to be self-reliant rather than government-reliant, especially when it comes to protection. The deterrent power of government is important, but they can’t (and probably shouldn’t) be everywhere. As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Ultimately we can’t completely avoid all danger in life. But we can take responsibility for our own safety.
Hopefully every one of us who has taken formal drivers education has been taught to be aware of what’s going on around us in order to anticipate threats. Hopefully none of us, seeing that idiot in the far left lane who suddenly realizes they should be in the far right lane, just continues on at the same speed, staring straight ahead, trusting entirely in the law to protect us. We slow down. We start looking for room for evasive action. We do our best to make sure we are not in their path.
Most anyone who is looking after their financial future recognizes the inadequacy in America of the government safety net to support the retired. Even assuming Social Security will survive all the political wrangling around it, most retirement plans include coming up with funds well above and beyond what we can count on from the government. Similarly, during the two years I spent on unemployment, had I needed to rely on that alone my family would have really struggled.
We can’t anticipate everything, but we can take reasonable precautions in much of what we do. We can take steps to reduce negative impacts on those we love. We can act morally and responsibly in our interactions with others. We can think before we act.
I think, whether we like it or not, so long as we choose to live within society, within the bounds of modern infrastructure we’re going to have to trust government at some essential level. If we don’t trust in our social structures to at least some degree we will spend the majority of our time and resources trying to eliminate any and all dependence on government and other people, effectively pushing us to the lowest level of Maslow’s Hierarchy, and that’s not where we should be. We need to be able to trust that a vast majority of the time when we turn on our faucet, when we flip the light switch, when we set out to drive to work we’re going to have a predictable, quality experience.
At the same time, where the absence of that predictable result threatens our lives, we need to be prepared to shoulder that burden ourselves, if only for a short time. I’ll drink tap water, but I’ll make sure I’ve got a reserve supply in case I can no longer trust that water. I’ll enjoy all the daily benefits of electricity, but have other options available in case it fails. I’ll do my best to assume every moment I’m in my car that other drivers may not abide by the law. Government is very good and beneficial for many things. But over-dependence on them can be deadly. Our own safety and happiness must always be our responsibility.
Work is essential
Mike Rowe has become something of a hero of mine. The man observes, thinks deeply, and explains himself very well. People try to impose a political agenda on him, but by and large his thoughts don’t lay with any particular ideology.
Recently he was interviewed by Dave Rubin, but don’t let that worry you. Their discussion transcends politics, at least in my view, and explores what I would consider the bedrock of humanity and a major pillar of self-reliance: the value of work.
I agree with Mike. It’s dangerous to our long-term survival as a country and culture, and perhaps even as human beings, to place too high a value on education and too low a value on work. I say this as a person who has an MBA and works a white-collar technology job. I can’t say I’m enamored with physical labor. But I’m not afraid of it. I’ve built a shed from scratch at each of the three houses I’ve owned. I’m used to doing most of the physical labor required for maintaining my property, be it fixing sprinklers, landscaping, laying flooring, or basic plumbing. And I do find shoveling snow to be oddly therapeutic. I only hire others when I need it done quickly, am concerned for my safety, or the skill-set is not something I can acquire quickly (or can afford to do wrong).
And I’ll tell you what, I’ve felt as much satisfaction from the physical things I’ve accomplished as from the “knowledge-worker” jobs from which I support my family. I’ve been involved in projects that save companies millions of dollars. I’ve saved people’s jobs with my recommendations. I’ve uncovered the causes some of the most daunting system errors. I get as much long-term pleasure from a bookshelf I’ve built.
That’s not to say I get no satisfaction from my education. I’ve also been a partner in building up a successful brick-n-mortar business using the tools I acquired in my MBA program, and that little venture has been one of the high points of my life. But this idea of education being the be-all, end-all of existence is ridiculous. My first degree was in Music. I enjoyed every minute of it. But ultimately that degree left me unemployed in Pocatello, Idaho (possibly worse than Greeeeenlaaaaand) and depressed out of my skull. And what got me out of it and into my career wasn’t my education, but my ability to learn. The two are not synonymous.
But whatever we do, I would certainly hope we derive more from it than a paycheck. There ought to be some satisfaction from the work itself. I would hope those who serve me in some capacity derive pleasure and satisfaction from their work. Sooner or later I’m going to need heart surgery, and I would feel much better knowing my surgeon is passionate about heart surgery, and not just viewing it all as just another transaction. I’d want him actively concerned about whether I live or die, and not just whether I’ll be able to pay him or not.
I’m not entirely sure where I’m going with this, except perhaps for this: it is foolish to denigrate physical labor, perhaps even dangerous. The point of our lives should not be avoiding work, or working only so we can play, or even working only so we can retire. Most of us will spend the majority of our adult lives working in some way. Hopefully we can derive a little satisfaction, a little pride in our work, along the way. And hopefully our society will learn to value that work, regardless of what it is.
Diogenes and self-reliance
The story is told of Alexander the Great visiting Diogenes and finding the philosopher laying in the sun. Alexander approached him and asked him if he could anything for him. Diogenes replied, “Yes, stand a little out of my sun.”
Kyle Eschenroeder examines this exchange in more detail and analyzes what Diogenes tells us about self-reliance in his article, “A Man’s Guide to Self-Reliance” from The Art of Manliness website.
Diogenes’ simple, ascetic lifestyle may seem to exemplify self-reliance, but these externals are not its essence.
Rather, self-reliance is a mindset, an approach to life that can be adopted whether you live in a wilderness cabin or a “little box” in the suburbs. Self-reliance is about living a life in which you make decisions and opinions with primary respect to your own experience of the world. You trust yourself. You’re true to yourself.
This doesn’t mean living in a void, it just means that we’re conscious about our relationship to the world and other people. It’s not rejecting external advice outright, but trusting ourselves enough to sift through which advice is worthy. We’re aware of the agendas of others, and don’t let them sway us from our self-determined path. Self-reliance doesn’t necessarily mean rejecting all established customs and values, it just means experimenting with them so we know if they work for us. It’s putting stock in our inner wisdom.
There’s a lot to unpack in this, but the last paragraph is especially of interest to me, especially these two lines: “It’s not rejecting external advice outright, but trusting ourselves enough to sift through which advice is worthy. We’re aware of the agendas of others, and don’t let them sway us from our self-determined path.” Put simply, we need to think for ourselves.
Far too often these days we are expected to buy into an ideology and follow it to the exclusion of all else. If we relate with an identity group we must think a certain way to remain in step with our fellows. Our news media, where once they would simply report the facts and let us decide what those facts mean, increasingly tells us what to think of those facts as well. Anyone who disagrees needs to be beaten down. We get our information from headlines and proceed as if we know and understand not just the details, but the nuance.
But how can we? Why should we? Why should we blindly accept another person’s “truth?”
The short answer is, “We shouldn’t.” We need to question, to seek to see as broad a perspective as we can, to measure what we’re being told against what we have learned through our own experience. We need to seek to verify, not just accept. We have far too many examples of history where terrible wrongs were committed under the cover of “I was just following orders,” or “It didn’t want to go against the crowd.” If we are to be judged and sentenced we should at least be so for our own beliefs, not for someone else’s.
Intellectual self-reliance is not an easy path. The world is a complex place, and it takes time and effort to sort through that complexity. But while we need to question, we can’t afford to continually question everything. We need some solid ground to stand on before we can move forward. We should be willing to adjust as we discover new information and encounter new perspectives, but be prepared to stand firm on our own foundation when a choice must be made.
Perhaps most importantly, even when we come to reject a particular philosophy or ideology, we need to resist the easy temptation of “that which we cannot believe we must despise, must hate.” We can oppose, but even when our own thinking in solid we can still learn much about ourselves and our beliefs through associations with those with whom we disagree. Someone with whom we can disagree, yet still respect and listen to, is invaluable in this world. It’s far too easy these days to dismiss anyone who thinks differently, but such intellectual reactionism is as wrong and dangerous as those who follow the herd. From Eschenroeder again:
In fact, there may never have been a time when developing this type of self-reliance has been more important. We’re over-politicized and polarized. Advertisements are creeping further and further into our content, making them less obvious. The Internet has given us two or two-thousand sides to every story. Social media feeds allow our peers to weigh in on our every decision. The comment section of a blog post allows us to see what other people thought of an article before we’ve formed our own opinion. It’s increasingly difficult to live a life that is inner-directed rather than other-directed.
In order to operate effectively in this kind of autonomy-sapping environment, developing a strong sense of self-reliance is crucial.
To be truly self-reliant may mean we not only stand firm, but that we stand apart. To follow the crowd too closely, however well-intentioned, is to invite disaster. As anyone in a mob or riot or Black-Friday frenzy understands, if you stand in the middle of any crowd it can be extremely difficult to escape before they run headlong off the cliff. Keep an intellectual distance, and trust in yourself to decide what is best for you.