[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 11 KB, 201x251, download (25).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12430040 No.12430040 [Reply] [Original]

Retard here which of these guy's book would be the best for self improvement which ones do you guys think has the better literature?

>> No.12430051

>>12430040
read Plato ironically alongside Aristotle for self improvement

>> No.12430066

>>12430040
Seneca

>> No.12430067

>>12430040
Neither. Read Epicurus.

>> No.12430099

>>12430040
Stop thinking classic philosophers are self help authors, /fit/

>> No.12430192
File: 83 KB, 507x763, 1543802500405.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12430192

>which of these guy's book would be the best for self improvement
Philosophy isn't for you.

>> No.12430200
File: 222 KB, 418x485, a.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12430200

>>12430040

>> No.12430202
File: 116 KB, 611x768, 688.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12430202

Plato makes you feel better internally. Aristotle makes you want to do more externally.

>> No.12430206

>>12430040
diogenes

>> No.12430241

>>12430067
FUCKING SHIT

>> No.12430247

>>12430040
Plato is definitely the more poetic writer, and I prefer him mainly because Aristotle is so dry, but both are very good and you should read both.

>> No.12430248

You really, really should not read for self improvement.

>> No.12430251

>>12430192

How is dragging your self out of the cave not self improvement? As Socrates said, philosophy can be thought of as dying well, detaching the desires of the mind from the soul.
A metaphysical outlook is definitely helpful in this materialist rat race world.

Just because self help bullshit has pervaded philosophy sections in book shops, doesn't mean you cannot apply classic philosophy to yourself

>> No.12430279

>>12430251
If you could summarise Plato's philosophy into a raison d'être, what would you say it is?

>> No.12430284

>>12430248
why not?

>> No.12430332

>>12430284
The goal of knowledge is truth, above all else. Follow me closely.

1. Any person has an idealized self, a self which they consider like they are now, but somehow better. They might be more confident, more healthy, more kind, more knowledgable, less anxious, less foolish etc. Perhaps they aren't looking for perfection, just a practical better version of what they are.

2. We might note that some actions help the idealized self come into being, while others prevent it. So it would seem reasonable for a person to try and do what helps it become and to avoid what prevents it.

3. But how do we know that the idealized self we conceive of is actually better? Is it because they are happier? Is it because they are more well liked? Is it because we imagine we will feel contended with ourselves once we have become the ideal? But how would we be content if (1.) Is true? And how do we know that being happier is the reason we should strive for? How do we know we won't accidentally become more loathsome to others, for example, because of their jealousy? Furthermore, what if it is not actually possible to become the idealized self, even an imperfect version?

4. To try and cut through this, we might ask "towards what end should I strive? What is the good life?"

5. Can what is false lead to the good life? How do we know where to proceed except by what is true? Suppose you disagree with me. Then you mean to say I am false. But then this must mean you are seeking after truth.

6. To discover what is good, and thus to discover what the meaning of "improvement" really is, we must be guided by what is true. We cannot assume right away that we know what ends to strive for. All we know is that what is true is better to know than what is false. So we must strive in our reading towards what is true, and not what we think will bring about our naive, ideal selves.

>> No.12430346

>>12430279

Hmm, I wouldn't be qualified to give a proper answer, but like Socrates who was deemed to be the wisest man by the oracle of delphi and could only find that it had been true in the sense that no one else possessed any greater wisdom under scrutiny: question every assertion, let no dubious claim meet silence.

>> No.12430362
File: 14 KB, 247x223, 1545107650273.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12430362

>>12430332
what is truth?

>> No.12430374

>>12430040
Start with Phaedrus.

>> No.12430381

>>12430040
Read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics for self improvement but read the Socratic dialogues for fun.

>> No.12430453

>>12430040
Read both of them, Plato first, then Aristotle.

>> No.12430461

>>12430362
Truth, as a noun, I know nothing of. Except perhaps that it is the form of those things which may be called more true.

Put another way we should not worry ourselves so much with Truth, but rather the relative truth of things.

>> No.12430465

Philosophy isn't about self improvement.

>> No.12430467

>>12430040

Plato: titanic father radiating good faith and true optimism.

Aristotle: finger-wagging mother sucking into her anality.

>> No.12430501

Plato.
I would read the Stoics too.

>>12430192
>>12430248
>>12430465
Socrates and Plato would disagree. So would the Stoics.
What do you think was the point of The Republic? The well ordered soul. If you order your soul well, you are improving yourself.

Or do you think the only way people can see philosophy is as an academic career?

>> No.12430527

>>12430346
My point is that Plato's highest good is knowledge for its own sake, not by any means self-improvement. Though he believed that having a well ordered soul is necessary to perceive some knowledge, he also admits in phaedrus that to grasp some forms one must be wicked and unvirtuous. This ties in with his idea of the the immortality of the soul. The allegory of the cave is a allegorical of his epistemology, not some self-help triumph. basically what >>12430332 says. Philosophy is, to borrow from Aristotle's rhetoric, something to be argued that is good for its own sake, not for instrumental reasons. That is why it shouldn't be viewed as a tool for self-improvement.

>> No.12430541

>>12430501
You're not necessarily ncorrect, I expected this point to be raised.

There is a distinction between what is meant by self-improvement in the colloquial sense and self-improvement in the ancient philosophical sense. I think if you read >>12430332 it's quite clear what my angle is.

If its not, then two examples:

>contemporary self-improvement: I need to improve my health, my grooming and my vocabulary so as to be more respected by society

>ancient sense: I must decrease the influence of my body to obtain a mind more prepared for truth

>> No.12430621

>>12430527
I disagree. Plato didn't care about all knowledge. He didn't care about "the knowledge of being a good shoemaker". He cared about the knowledge of ruling.

>> No.12430626

>>12430541
Let us in good faith assume that OP meant the ancient example

>> No.12430643

>>12430192
>tells a person that philosophy isn't for them
>watches anime
big yikes from me dawg

>> No.12430649

>>12430541
have you actually read any plato, the distinction between being respected by society because of your rhetoric, athletic ability, ... and having a mind and soul prepared for the truth is discussed a lot just read book 1 of the republic

>> No.12430651

just read Nietzsche

>> No.12430665

>>12430541
Ah, yes, I see what you mean. I guess it depends on what kind of self help OP wants.

>> No.12430726

Plato is continental. Aristotle is analytic.

>> No.12430731

>>12430621

He careda bout the knowledge of human nature and the question of good and evil. His political studies came from an ethical perspective.

>> No.12430741

>>12430251
u know what happened to those who get out of the cave. They where killed by the cave dwellers.

>> No.12430835

>>12430040
Philosophy is dead when it becomes 'self improvement.' but self improvement might be a good intro to philosophy. Read greater and lesser hippias.

>> No.12430882 [DELETED] 

>>12430835
Philosophy died when it changed from the search for the good to "just another academic discipline".

>> No.12431057

>>12430040
Aristotle is better in every way other than styling, which Plato got down very well in his dialogues.
Plato is more esoteric and mystical while Aristotle is more comprehensive and empirically guided, it is Important to note that they were pioneers in a field that was taking shape for a long time and are mostly read today as a reference for other later philosophers and scientists, that is not to say that they are of any deficiencies in value, but better theories and ideas have objectively been made as far as the term objective truth holds ground.
So I’d say it’s all up to you and the kind of research you find valuable, In general I would say philosophy is a linguistic structure constructed across time and is maintained by logic, so never disregard the epistemological basis of a claim philosophical or otherwise, remain true to the ideals of empiricism.

>> No.12431211

>>12430040
Read Plato then read Aristotle.

>> No.12431218

>>12430247
Aristotle is "dry" because all his books are just his students study notes

>> No.12431238

>>12431057
>but better theories and ideas have objectively been made as far as the term objective truth holds ground
Not on what Socrates held to be the most important thing.

>> No.12431262

>>12430835
Philosophy was always about self improvement.

>> No.12431287

>>12431238
Not really unless you refer to his “wisest of all man” deduction which is far better stated by later philosophers in regards to clarity of articulation.

>> No.12431340

>>12431287
In regards to what is the good and how to live the best life. Unless by later writers you mean Epicurus or the Stoics instead of what we have nowadays.

>> No.12431985

>>12430206
i would kill for his thoughts on paper

>> No.12432026

>>12430649
>Have you actually read any Plato?
Apology, Crito, working through Phaedo, I think my posts above show a pretty obvious influence.

>>12430626
With all these Marcus Aurelius faggots and self styled Stoics, with the self-help culture, its hard for me to not suspect OP is coming from that angle.

>> No.12432396

>>12432026
For the Stoics, improvement would be the same thing as it was for Socrates.
But then, I kind of see what you mean considering some "modern Stoics".

>> No.12432417

>>12430247
>Aristotle is so dry

Compare Plato's dialogues to Aristotle's dialogues.

>> No.12432946

>>12431340
His ethics are very simplistic and don’t even touch fundamental questions such as The Death of God, and modern Nihilism, it’s completely irrelevant to ethical issues the modern man actually face with.
You forgot Hume and replace is with an aught and completely disregard his bias as a 4th century greek, in addition you subscribe to his archaic epistemology and debunked metaphysics probably because you find any answer for meaninglessness intrinsically more valuable than meaninglessness itself.
But that is psychological and besides the point, the bottom line is Plato’s philosophy as a whole is not believable nor is it a desirable mode of being for the modern man, it is purely the mark of one genius drop in an ocean of continuous progress that far outlived him as an individual and as a conveyer of truth.

>> No.12433201

>>12432417
I have and i still think Plato is more satisfying to read. That’s not a ground breaking opinion either, there is a story about Plato as a young man idolizing Homer and wishing to become a poet, until he met Socrates and destroyed all his work because he believed philosophy was the greater pursuit.

>> No.12433209

>>12432946
>a conveyer of truth.
you mean homer

>> No.12433257

>>12433209
homer is platos standard.whatever idea he is mired in whatever argument plato turns to homer to orient and center himself.

>> No.12433328

>>12433209
I really don’t mean Homer, I mean every person who’s made considerable progress in the effort to describe what exist through meaningful terminology.

>> No.12433341

>>12432946
>Plato’s philosophy as a whole is not believable nor is it a desirable mode of being for the modern man,
And what would be a desirable mode of being for a modern man?

>> No.12433801

>>12430040
The self-improvement of philosophy leads to you becoming a schizoid

>> No.12434530

>>12430040
Improve yourself by never reading these wankers, or much of anything else in or near anything called the Western Canon, or that has been written or published, frankly. Which certainly includes anything posted on the internet, before this post, and after. Especially by people who spend their spare time training artificial "intelligence" algorithms for free. This post is pretty good though. Recommended for self-improvement purposes (by the author).