[ email | Criticism/analysis of society | Travelling | Projects | Goncharenko centre: Talks/discussions » Talk/discussion: Goncharenko centre 2025-9-21: Essentialism + stoicism ]
Post event notes: See farther down on this page, partially mixed earlier.
Translation: auto translation of this page into Ukrainian
So, I took a some goodies with me from NL such as:
Candies:
and some other goodies:
One of the attendees commented that Roshen candies are better: No they are not. I tried Roshen before 2018, various cookies and candies, and nothing impressed me. As a whole cookies and candies and crisps in UA are nowhere near as good as you can buy in NL (and crips are far more expensive in UA than in NL too), both in variety and how good each type tastes.
Here is an overview of what good tasty snacks I found in UA:
I mentioned that in 2018 in Kharkov I and a (former) friend went to a supermarket to buy sweets, as we wanted to go to an orphanage. Children like sweets so we should buy some, I said to her. One attendee objected, and before she finished her sentence, I already responded "not just children of course", and I explained that I mentioned that children like sweets because "this friend did not like sweets, only fruits", so my friend wanted to buy only healthy stuff. [ which for children would be disappointing ] We then talked about Roshen. My friend mentioned how Poroshenko got a lot more wealthy during his time as president of Ukraine so we decided "No Roshen" and I continue with that to this day. The argument that his increase in wealth came from his Roshen sweets factory didn't convince me. If you become a lot richer in a too short time, while running a country, then I do not trust that. But already that nothing I tried from that brand before that time stood out to me as being tasty, says enough. I miss nothing by not trying anything from them. "They are sold in various countries" was then said. I don't care, they are inferior to Dutch products.
Further, I listed a few sayings in English. [ I listed some in the Telegram group too ]. I don't use them, and as I mentioned in this meeting I don't see the point because often they are longer than just saying directly what you mean [ and as I mentioned in the Telegram group, I prefer to describe what I mean in a precise manner ], but, you need to know them as they are used in books, TV series and films. Some I don't like to even hear, because they are vulgar or stupid sports expressions. You can often deduce the meaning without much difficulty so I gave examples:
I read the whole book and as usual [ actually, as always, so far ] with books on self-help and psychological topics, I was not impressed. Who of the attendees had read the book? Nobody who was present, but, 1 of them made a good comment: I didn't read it because you said it was not good. Yes, in essence I did write that, in the Telegram channel... Clever :) But sometimes it is good to read something that is not good, to improve your skills in analysis and to be able to talk in more depth on certain points...
I discussed a few things in the meeting such as that his entire book is a giant advertisement for that book itself, with name-dropping and stating that person xyz is an essentialist. He creates a term then says people are that, and that gives the impression of "they are following his ideas" even if he doesn't mean it like that. There are more issues but already just the name dropping is particularly annoying. I just don't care whether some billionaire does xyz, I care only whether any methods or ideas work in general and why. How it works should be explained, not "famous person xyz talked to me about abc". I do not care about those people, I am not impressed by the fact that someone is famous or rich, that is almost always related to good fortune. Example Billy Gates, the autist/criminal who got lucky in software, held back software development at least 5 years with his garbage OSs of DOS, Windows, Windows 95 (and counteracting other software makers which was illegal). [ I also don't care about the autist Jack Dorsey who McKeown mentions in one place, who created Twitter and started political censorship there. What works for him is of no interest to normal people because autists are strict rule followers, in contrast to normal people. ]
[ before the meeting I posted this in the Telegram group:
- So I am thinking about things that could be interesting for in a meeting and in essentialism an essential part is 'saying no' and 'dealing with criticism'. I see commenters now and then who are fantastic at both. Here is an example, this video on screwdrivers: https://youtu.be/GrPEEjNBdB4
A guy comments:
Change the title
Obviously not a civilised response. It is criticism but also the video maker wants to say no. So, his response:
I'll have my people call yours
This is like a business deal. You set something up and lawyers etc. working for you deal with the details. But there is no deal, no business, so essentially he says "no". Much better than all the examples in 'essentialism', which are pretty bad (Chapter 11) and even rude which McKeown doesn't realise... Example from my analysis:
p.128- 129 --- Peter Drucker, in my view the father of modern management thinking, was also a master of the art of the graceful no. ---
WHS: No he wasn't. The example he gave was crude.
]
To come (I am adding some more explanations and background information): You can find my complete analysis here: Book review: Essentialsm (McKeown).
Then someone mentioned stoicism in the meeting, and I mentioned that I had started to read "A guide to the good life" (by William B. Irvine). I mentioned that book a few weeks earlier already on the telegram channel.
I stated that it does not impress me at all so far, up to the end of the introduction chapter. I read out loud various points/claims by the writer (see below, the points from my analysis) and I asked what attendees thought. To me it was clear already, and the answers confirmed it, that the points the writer makes are simply not valid. I am sure I will dislike [ the rest of ] this book :)
I will post here what I wrote in my analysis so far, and that I talked about in the meeting, with the note that people generally did not agree with Irvine's claims.
Analysis of a small part the book "A guide to the good life" (by William B. Irvine), which is about 'stoicism':
p.16 ===== Introduction / A plan for living
p.16 --- But a grand goal in living is the first component of a philosophy of life. ---
WHS: No, not necessary.
p.16 --- This means that if you lack a grand goal in living, you lack a coherent philosophy of life. ---
WHS: Nonsense.
p.17 --- There is, in other words, a danger that when you are on your deathbed, you will look back and realize that you wasted your one chance at living. Instead of spending your life pursuing something genuinely valuable, you squandered it because you allowed yourself to be distracted by the various baubles life has to offer. ---
WHS: Not true. Because when looking back generally you find that people can't do things differently even if they know the outcome. [ This is because they are limited by their personality which guides their actions ].
WHS: My recommendation [ see also the 1st meeting at the Goncharenko centre, 2025-3-16, about my list of life, not worrying, how I see life in Ukraine, and more ]: Never regret, just do what you find interesting, do what you like to do most of all in life at any point in your life.
p.17 --- This strategy will specify what you must do, as you go about your daily activities, to maximize your chances of gaining the thing in life that you take to be ultimately valuable. ---
WHS: That sounds like [ just ] another business book.
WHS: It all depends on your personality what is the best thing to do, the best strategy and what goals you should pursue.
[ Here I skip a part from my analysis that I didn't deal with in the meeting ]
p.20 --- I instead felt comfortable with what is, for almost everyone, the default philosophy of life: to spend one’s days seeking an interesting mix of affluence, social status, and pleasure. ---
WHS: For me: 1. No, 2. No, 3. Not much. Instead of those, I seek interesting things in life...
About big goals 1 attendee made the comment: "What if you don't reach that big goal?". Exactly, you can't be sure about this. Will your life then be worthless? Do most people then live worthless lives? This question springs in my mind because most people do not have big goals and in fact most people cannot be famous actors, inventors, scientists, etc. Goals should be about what you like, not necessarily about something big, it can be multiple goals. See also my list of life: soft and hard goals and changing goals... [ 1st meeting at the Goncharenko centre, 2025-3-16, about my list of life, not worrying, how I see life in Ukraine, and more. ]
About stoicism: I mentioned in the meeting that this book refers to the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and that they created almost everything: history (writing down and analysis), philosophy, literature, art, and so on, far beyond what other cultures created. They could have created the industrial revolution if Greece hadn't consisted of so many islands and if there was good access to an energy source such as coal. [ they had steam powered toys, as one of the attendees knew ]
Related to that I mentioned that in NL philosophy is taught as a part of classes of Latin, though only in the highest level secondary schools do pupils have the option to study Latin [ and in a smaller number of schools they can also choose ancient Greek. ].
Further, in NL books like "Animal farm" and 1984 that we talked about in a previous meeting, are required reading in English classes, but I was told that in UA there are general classes of literature in which such books are discussed.
Negativity influences people in how they act/think, said one of the attendees when we talked about stoicism, and I responded to that in 3 parts:
[ Summary:
1. I banished negative influences from my life as much as possible, in school already.
2. when thinking back to the past, are you then negative? I am not, people generally remember positive things which also causes hankering back to the past: "everything was better then".
3. in the present there is a bit more negativity, because you need to do problem solving in your life, but all in all I think other issues are more of an influence on how people think/act, personality in particular ]
|
Copyright W.H.Scholten, 2025. To contact me you can email or send a message via telegram (via phone +31648816383), or via vk.com (https://vk.com/w.h.scholten, which I don't really use but I will get notified of messages from there). I don't use: facebook, linkedin, twitter. |