Sam Vaknin has made a name for himself by promoting on the Internet the concept of the narcissistic personality disorder. He is a good writer, and he has interested many people in his view. Having once been on an Internet forum in which he posted, I developed familiarity with some of his views.
One of his views was that Renaissance produced amateurs, and that Romanticism was a malignant 19th century form of Renaissance. I consider both claims to be incorrect. There was nothing amateurish at all about Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci. As for the idea that Romanticism was malignant, that is compeletely wrong. Romanticism championed passion and genius, and it produced some of the greatest works that have ever been produced. And while it is rightful to affirm reason, it is not rightful to affirm bigotry; and this is what we see with many people who take objection to Romantic attitudes.
In his blistering diatribe against the Macedonian academics, he said that inside they were “atavistic poets.” As a poet I take objection to that claim. I for one am not atavistic at all. I am in favor of science and technology. That does not however prevent me from being in favor of passion or in favor of poetry. I see no reason at all why these things should be incompatible with one another. Both add vastly to the civilization. And we vastly benefit from both.
Are there poets who are against science and technology? Yes there are, but once again I am not one of them. Once again, I am in favor of science and technology. That does not keep me from being in favor of poetry and romantic passion as well.
Often people who think in different ways do not get along. Often people who think in ways that they consider to be rational are at loggerheads with people who think in ways that they consider emotional or superstitious. I have come to the conclusion that there is a need for both modalities. And I have been practicing both modalities, allowing me to come up with insight, using both modalities, that neither modality would have accomplished nearly as fast in and of itself.
He talked about what we owe ourselves and what we owe others. On the first count I have this to say: How dare you tell me what I owe myself. As for others, they can speak for themselves. They do not need Dr. Vaknin to do the job for them.
As for his claims about narcissistic people, well. Donald Trump is one. Bill Gates is one. Any number of other major contributors are ones as well. If it is narcissistic to have original ideas – or if it is narcissistic to seek great success – then the world owes vastly to its narcissists. Maybe Hitler was a narcissist; but so have been any number of people who did not kill anyone. The solution with these people is not psychological evisceration. The solution with these people is directing their attentions toward something valuable, at which point they will become a force for good rather than for ill.
Now there have been people claiming that I was a narcissist. However I care about many other people besides myself, and I have proven that repeatedly. I volunteer at the Salvation Army. I put vast intellectual and emotional effort into solving problems of other people. This leaves us with two possibilities: Either that I am not a narcissist or that narcissists are not necessarily bad. And it is much more important for people besides myself to see the latter conclusion.
Mr. Vaknin made many statements against people whom he saw as emotive. But then he subscribed to the ideology that claims that people without what they see as regular human emotions are incurably evil. This is hypocrisy at its worst. Either emotions are good and people without them are evil; or emotions are bad and one should be what Mr. Vaknin claims to be a narcissist.
Now I did not start this battle, but I can finish it. Mr. Vaknin is wrong on any number of accounts, and they contradict with one another. I do not wish him ill, but I will confront wrong beliefs wherever I find them. And we see many wrong beliefs in the writings of Dr. Sam Vaknin