charlie cho

Isn't it obvious? People had philosophies of success, be it a creative success philosophy such as art, economical prosperity, and maybe music composition, be it destructive success philosophy such as golf manuals to beat the opponent, chess manuals, Art of War by Sun Tzu, and Machiavelli's the Prince. Much like novels weren't sophisticated until Cervantes "Don Quixote", most fictions were written by religion, or people like Aesop to teach a lesson about life. Bible is a fiction, a metaphorical book, to teach the realities of life. And so were books like Thus spoke Zarathustra were wisdom compiled to teach what Nietzsche felt why success was important, and possibly how one could attain such success. And now, we can say selfhelp was crude as knighthood books existed just before Don quixote, and many people scoffed at those books because it was more pleasure seeking, then seeking wisdom in the likes of reading books of wise metaphors and fiction like the Bible, or Aesop's fables, or the Illiad and Odyssey. Selfhelp is basically a study of success. A philosophy of success. Why should we succeed? And how can we succeed? These two basic questions comprise the whole of self-help. I think the word self-help may have become hurt, because people have forgotten what it means to do self-development, and forgot the two questions that lead self-help. And those two questions had existed from the beginning of human history. I've come to this conclusion whilst reading a book called "Guan Tzu". A politician and economical reformer 2500 years ago in the spring and autumn period of Asia, he not only reformed good policies in a country, he revolutionized how business and commerce was done at the time, and made a country tremendously rich. Guan Tzu always had ambition since young, he always had the desire to write out his name amongst history, so his desire for success was eminent, but his desire for wisdom may have been in question. Confucius who cared a lot about wisdom, love, and honor, questioned Guan Tzu's motives, but because his economic prosperity and poltiical genius made the country's civilization more honorable, loving, and educated, Confucius couldn't criticize Guan Tzu outright for not explicitly or time-honoring the likes of moral principles rather than the pursuit of economical wealth and political success. Guan Tzu had written about leader's conduct for good political strategy, a good economical prosperity for the leader's followers, and many more strategies. The whole book of 'Guan Tzu' seemed like a book about creative and destructive success. And as Confucius liked to criticize him for, the book had no care or presumption for understanding morals, spirituality, or about life. It was basically a treatise to understand the philosophy of why one must succeed in art, culture, politics, and economy, and how one leader can attain it. Yes, Guan Tzu talks about Taoism and the spiritual principles needed to succeed, but he doesn't philosophize about spirituality that much (he does a little). The book made me think, as an Enneagram 3 (I am enneagram 3), who cares deeply about success and achievement, I wonder if there is any wisdom and philosophy that can be sought and found in books like Guan Tzu. Is there a wisdom in achievement? Is there wisdom in getting results? In the end, doesn't God the greatest result maker? He's the one who creates all the art of the world. he's the one who creates all the destruction and diseases, supposedly to cleanse the world. he even makes laws to restrict any bad behavior, from the likes of Moses' ten commandments? Did Moses really write that himself? Or maybe he wrote that from Divine Inspiration. I suspect we need to think doubly about the word 'self-help' and not make it taboo or be ashamed of the word. Don Quixote, in the novel, one of the characters argues against Don Quixote for reading too many knighthood books and fiction, saying lies are bad for the brain. Don Quixote argues against that that maybe lies may help one to be more honorable, happy, and more pragmatic about living one's life. And see, how important the books of the bible (a metaphorical fiction to teach the realities of life), books like Crime and Punishment, the Devils, 1984, had taught the masses the philosophies of life as a whole, maybe it had taught much more about life than science! Is the word 'self-help' the right word to use really? I guess the word 'philosophy of success' can sound quite ridiculous, but not to me. That is basically what self-help is. And just like the word 'fiction' had come out after the 17th century because of how Cervantes Don Quixote had popularized the genre, I feel the word 'self-help' may not be sufficient, and the word 'philosophy of success' may be more an accurate term so people will not simply bash the word out of ignorance. The genre had existed from the beginning of time, just like the bible, just like Homer's Illiad, only it wasn't as explicitly categorized like that right now.

@koyadr3 If someone writes to you a long essay, a thank you would be the standard minimal procedure for a decent normal human being. Otherwise if not answered, it wouldn't be too decent of a human being. Or maybe you're not.

@Enlightement Well one could say honesty in itself can be considered being a 'bad man'. It's a very attractive attribute of a man. Because an honest man will say what is right, not what is necessarily accepted. And people think being accepted is 'right' which is very very wrong. So it's easy to be seen as 'bad' if you're doing the right thing. And being honest doesn't mean you have to say something 'truthful' all the time. A truly honest man wouldn't habitually say something truthful. He will have to do placebos to people, white lies, write fiction, speak fiction, pretend to be something else to do what's necessary for good functioning. Otherwise, without fiction, society wouldn't function virtuously, and there wouldn't be any privacy. Honest people would respect other's privacy.

How ever a person pretends to be a 'bad boy', how ever he is good at the acting, it's going to show because it's not his genuine self if he's acting. Case solved.

A very simpleton explaination, I have for you. Religions from the past tend to shun the possibility of virtue or righteousness being ever blissful. If one looks at statues of Jesus or any portraits of saints, they never look happy, while they think sinners look happy. Many people had associated, from the very beginning of human history, bitterness as truth, as Dostoevsky liked to put it, suffering as an antidote to love. Hence, it's easy to associate happiness, as Jordan Peterson likes to put it, as fleeting and not a worthy goal to attain. Jordan Peterson likes to think of himself as a saint, or at least he sees it as a noble goal to attain as his profession is a professor of psychology. And coming to the fact he comes from a religious past, Christian upbringing, of course he will associate sainthood as not 'necessarily' happy. That was how traditionally people thought of sainthood, and sinning, as happiness. But blissfulness is virtue. It does have to be a criterion. Dostoevsky, a novelist who Peterson admires most arguably, had said to 'find blissfulness in suffering' and he defined that as the deepest Christian love that one could attain. I disagree, there is no blissfulness in suffering, nor virtue in it. Tradition, especially the christian religion, never outright says suffering is virtue, but there is a vibe that they withheld, a murky goo of habitual thinking Christian had made offspring to to think that 'sinfulness' is happiness, while 'virtue' is not 'necessarily' happy. Jordan Peterson had once said in other videos that happiness is not a goal, associating happiness with mice pumping up cocaine without virtually putting nothing of effort to chase food and survive for itself. Dying in the end, the mice, Jordan Peterson teaches this as the epitomy of how people will end up when one has happiness as a goal. No wonder he never presents an image of happiness in his videos or presentations. If he tries to present himself to the world, an image, of a saint and a person who does not 'associate with happiness as a virtue' type, he will end up depressed his whole life. I guess, he's already successful at that coming to the fact he takes depression pills even to this day. I think he's a very smart person. I wish somebody tells him to think of happiness in a different way. Perhaps happiness has nothing to do with pleasure, as he thinks of Mice with Cocaine. It's an absurd way to think of blissfulness. I want him to write a novel or something in the future and write many good books so that people could read in the coming times. Somebody ought to help him with his depression, and I've just written what I thought of him.

@Razard86 I won't demonize him, but I do have to criticize him, otherwise, he'll believe in his own fantasy and drive himself to hell. He's intelligent so I believe he will get out of the funk. If he, though, continues to hold an image of a person of seriousness and suffering to show his 'devotion to Christ', he will go insane. He needs to stop fantasizing and crying about that he's a tenant for those values. But who cares, I'm just a random person in a forum.

Were you being serious when you asked this question to me? This question is very weird you know that? At least, what I've done is this. I've known that reading something that interest my brain was most important. Everything is created out of selfishness, passion, greed, need, or love. Love stems from greed, it has the same root word. And greed and need has a similar aspect to it. Tribes are created out of greed, or should I say love? At least the best organizations are created out of healthy 'greed', which could be called love. So the book you need to read what you love most about the world. People are different. I have a personality type of an ENTJ, Enneagram 3w2, so I'm geared towards trying to understand how to persuade, charm, influence people, while my ENTJ type would try to understand about success, fighting, manuals, and leadership. So these are the books that I had to read, and speed reading them was so easy since young, because I was 'interested'. While my bigger brother was INTP 9w8, possibly. I advise people should not read too much when young, but rather should be physically involved more because eventually, physical activity helps tremendously with reading. Ask Chess and Go players how important physicality is. If you read Sherlock Holmes, you realize why Sherlock was a genius, not because he reads very well. In fact, it's his physical ability, translated to informational data that made him a genius. I assume Sherlock is an INTP more than an ISTP, because his sensory data is translated to his analytical thinking, not vise versa. One cannot analyze a scene, an action, a physical activity, a movie, a picture well if one is only a reader. The best way to analyze a dancer, to analyze a boxer's moves, to analyze a basketball game play is obviously to play the game, to dance yourself. People who approaches to analyze moves by reading is very very unaware of the realities of life, hence why academics are so easily manipulatable by people who don't read as much. The genius of Sherlock is that he applies both phsyical activity with his reading. Hence, I tell you don't masturbate mentally or physically, but rather read self-help books and apply them outside, and be physically active; it's important, contrary to how your brain thinks and works. My brother was kind of like this. He read fiction books, kind of like knighthood books, but in the Korean style in the early 2000s. I don't know why he could consume all this ferociously, but he couldn't consume any self-help books. I don't know why. My mother bashed my brother for this, and it kind of destroyed his interest in books, while I didn't read too much until the age of 14. People have their own way of reading. But I have to tell you, my brother, if he were to continue reading, because he was physically adept, he would have been a better genius than me, because I didn't read from a young age as my brother, who was reading ferociously at the age of 7 or less. I analyze him reading knighthood books and pop fiction well early, because he was lazy. Enneagram 9w8 also shows that he loves fighting. He would always try to make me box him and play games. So I say he has a wing of 8. He read books those books because he loved fighting. So laziness and the love of fighting translated for my brother to read knighthood books, while my love for success and influence made me read books about leadership and influence. So it's important to know what you desire, love, and appreciate about life, so to understand the personality you have, so you can understand what books you will automatically read. so your asking me to recommend you a book is very skewed, unless I'm a person you admire, greed for, or love very much, which is highly unlikely. Last, recommendation is that this doesn't only go for material books. This can also go for people you admire. So for my own personality type, I have people I admire most, or my own heroes. I find out what they have read, and what mentors they have, because I truly want to be like those people. However difficult the book they have read, I read. For example, the book I've read was Dante's Inferno, because I wanted to understand Leonardo Da Vinci and Machiavelli. They both are my heroes and they drawn tremendous influence on Inferno, Paradiso...etc. I was also recommended to read Notes From UnderGround by OSHO who is also a person I admire very much. Leo has very very good books also. These books recommended by people you admire will get you reading without need for motivation. If there are books you want me to recommend, I will kindly do it. 1. Dante's Inferno - his book inspired Da Vinci and Machiavelli's philosophy very much. Need I say more. 2. Art of War - This has to be read also with commentaries. Every fucking word has to be studied, even if you can't read Chinese, at least try to study why Sun Tzu had phrased a sentence in a certain grammatical structure. You can't say you read this just because you read this once, it's a dumb way of thinking. And never ever get this analysis from academics solely. Try to read commentaries of this book by real life warriors, (Jocko had a good analysis of this book) because a person who went to war once can analyze this book a hundred times better than an academic who read this book a thousand times. 3. A Study in Scarlett - The first book about Sherlock Holmes. Makes you think very deeply what a true intellectual should live like. I think there are two kinds of intellectuals. One is applied, one is more pure. Sherlock is more applied, because he's not really a pure scientist, but more like Edison and Tesla, applying science on his job. Nevertheless, the book shows how to put joy in your studies, and not be a drab about life. How to be honorable in your intellectual pursuits, and not be corrupt and wearied by the 'real world'. I recommend you read this book most - because two of the persons I study most, Churchill, and there is a historian, you wouldn't know, studied the series very deeply. The history professor, I could see the way he analyzes history (he's very famous in my country), has a mind that's very deep and amusing, so insightful that most audiences are amazed how he deduces a historical fact so well. I saw him try to analyze this book on his youtube channel, and it's great. I guess Churchill loved the series because he saw himself like Sherlock Holmes. Basically, if you read history, Churchill was kind of like him since he defeated Nazi Germany single handedly when all governers were trying to slander him for standing up against the Nazis too preeminently. 4. Devils - Dostoevsky - I'm nearly finished with this book, and it's a drab in the beginning, but gets intriguing in the end. A book that speaks to you about ambitions of young people against the old. It is a book about politics, yes, but I don't see it that way. It's about how pursuits of the young, if it totally disrespects not the old, but what's fundamental about being a human being, no matter how it started as a noble one, it can create a consequence of horror. And the 'devils' shows us how important the old generation must be responsible of the young. It's not about the fight of the young and the old, it's about how both have to be cooperative. 5. Becoming Steve Jobs - I haven't finished this yet. The best biography of Steve Jobs. Anyway, Steve Jobs teaches something very fundamental about us. Science and the humanities have to be combined, and that was his main pursuit. He didn't see himself as an entrepreneur or a salesman, or a leader. I think he saw himself as an artist, that's why both subjects were so important to him. It happens to be that Jobs was not very good with technicalities, he was a more social person, a more political person, that was his talent. He gives us insights to how we can use our own talents for our own pursuits. He was not a logical person, nor a technical person. Ironically, that was the best part of him that drove him to help create the best inventions.

@Recursoinominado Why do you think so? I'm curious really. Maybe, because people put in too much trust in self-help initially, thinking that it will solve all of their problems, similar to how many stumble on religion? They should have known responsibilities of growth relies all on themselves, but they throw it externally. And when they get disappointed, they become atheists. Is this how people generally think? If so, discard the book 'Art of War'. Let's discard Maxim's book 'How To Get Rich'. Let's discard the book 'Influence' by Cialdini. Discard '7habits of highly effective people', let's discard 'The Analects', discard 'leadership' by John Wooden. It's all about personal conduct for success in war, games, business, money. Obviously, philosophy of success is a corrupt business and subject. Let's discard all of them that existed throughout history. I would love to discard any corrupt industries and movements out there. I assume people think I'm absurd for saying this, but I have to rebut this is basically what people are saying when they bash the word. It's intriguing and why wouldn't I want to understand them? I observe that people desparately need to not bash the category as a whole, therefore not seeing it at all, but simply categorize the category in itself, from a book of bad quality and good quality. Otherwise, there is no hope for real education on this Earth. Or maybe, I'm projecting my past own views of how self-help is on other people, and I'm trying to attack them, but still, I think my arguments here are right.

@Vrubel It stunts development. And when there is stagnation, of course one feels happy. That's why traditions exist, rituals exist, as a necessary part of society, otherwise people will go mad without them. It's like the salt is needed in any dish we eat, but with an excess amount, it tastes horrible. I question how they can truly be happy, when they resort themselves to stagnation. One might argue, 'no, I strive for growth, whilst communing with religious folks.' I agree, seekers tended to live with religious communities in the past more than even now, but if one knows there is a dysfunctional element, even something that harms society in existing religions, if one continues to participate in them, can one truly admit to oneself he is striving for growth, 'whilst communing with religious folks'? It's a difficult question, but I won't buy it. It may be possible, but something is not right about it. Many seek out religioius communities to find communion. The problem is many religions are established orders of organizations. To find communion inside an organization is a contradiction in terms. Organizations are supposed to be a communion itself, but if one is searching for communion in a communion is logically insane. One should make communion their own lives, proactively, not set out for institutionalized religions to make communities for the common layman. It will only exacerbate the problem most people have, to find out tribes and communities they can connect with. Religions tend to worsen one's ability to create truly good communities, and of course, destroys one's relationship to spirit.

@something_else Are we pretending fiction has not scummy people in there? Even history books?

Of course, Napoleon Hill is shallow. But that's where you should start. And if you can't appreciate the shallow waters, how can you appreciate the deep ones. It's as if you can't appreciate shakespeare if you can't appreciate K1 English reading books that were handed out to you. Judging any book, no matter how bad it is, no matter if it's 50 shades of grey, appreciating the grosseness is often important to learning the more difficult and higher ones of the same category. Like Boxing, if you can't do any side stepping, weaving and bobs, you can't truly go sparring with anybody can you. What you are trying to do is spar from the start. But I tell you, anyone who just practices punches, bobs and weaves, without sparring, can beat the hell out of somebody who does no practice in the boxing ring, but simply tries to spar, albeit unsuccessfully of course, because he practices nothing of the gross facors of boxing. Like Basketball, if you don't practice dribbling with the left hand, you will be incapable and impotent in the games. And if you are stubborn to only play in games, without appreciating the grossness of dribbling and shooting from the 3 point arc first with practice, before playing in games, you will be never able to appreciate the games more. You think this is different with books my dear @koyadr3??

Well... too bad. Reading self-help books is still better than masturbating.

@koyadr3 You should read Napoleon Hill. Anyway, too bad you don't read.

Both are needed. Leonardo Da Vinci had said, experience without theory is like a boat rider without any direction. And vice versa, I presume L Davinci would say the same. So, both are crucial. Rommel used to say (And I paraphrase) that he always felt peculiar of many generals that the great tacticians and strategists tend to be cowards, but generals with courage tend to be bad with tactics. He's summarizing the importance of warriors to be good at both strategy and physical courage.

@koyadr3 self-improvement doesn't ruin your life. It's one aspect of life. a philosophy of success. is self-improvement. And a philosophy of success does not ruin people's lives. Depends on the way you use that philosophy. Much like reading fiction. If you read weird fiction all day, without reading any classics, or any fiction that provokes critical thought, of course that genre will destroy you. What type of books or content of the philosophy of success have you been reading or watching? That's the question. Because the philosophy of success, or as you term it 'self improvement' as a genre had existed from the beginning of time. You're just not watching the best items that comprise the classics of self improvement. There were content of self-improvement 2000 years ago, it wasn't only written 80 years ago by Napoleon Hill. So many have written about the philosophy of success throughout history, Napeolone hill wasn't the only person who'd written about it in the span of 3000 years of human history.

I guess to develop the intellect, I think developing our logical brain, or the encoding brain is most important. Emotional intelligence/social intelligence, which basically sounds the same to me in their meaning, can't be developed by effort. I heard Daniel Goldman say the best way to train social intelligence is meditation, and meditation isn't something you 'practice' in order to get good. Meditation in itself means to discard any 'habit' or 'practice' in one's life, so to practice meditation is a contradictory statement in itself. I don't know why schools don't teach logic courses now. I heard law schools have to teach logic, though, because it helps for the students to make persuasive arguments in court, but it doesn't seem to me they care about anything else other than to just convince audiences. What's the best way to develop the logical brain? Study Epistemology? Reading that book, Leo recommended, 'Theory and Reality', I instantly saw results of the change in my way of thinking. I've watched some videos on Logic, but they never helped me to change my way of thinking, though. They just felt like rote learning "logic" not really changing the way I thought. Just reading a lot of scientific text, solving math problems, reading chemistry texts didn't help me change the way I thought. Again, it felt like rote learning. Actually, reading history and philosophy helped me most in my logical thinking. It's ironic to say, I know, but I can see how the things I studied in the humanities helped me in learning technological things. So, how did you learn logical thinking, encoding? Did you play a lot of poker, chess? Did that help?

Like, I read many of his books. I have to admit that I don't really understand what the man is trying to say. But, I do see many underlying themes in his books. I'm embarrassed to say what I have analyzed from his books so much that I have to ask you how you've come to understand his books. I guess, the question should really be if you can even understand him in the first place. Every sentence seems like it's rich with ideas, but because I can only take one thing at a time, and there are many references Nietzsche makes that I have not encountered in my knowledge of the world, so I struggle to comprehend any sentence of his. It's funny, I know, but it's simply the reality of my life.

That's interesting, I've never thought like this.

Basically, knowledge work is related to the brain only. It has nothing to do with physical reality. But knowledge work is different from spiritual work, like priests and monks. What makes Bach? What makes Mozart? What makes a Benjamin Franklin? Churchill? They were successful in using their brains. Maybe they weren't spiritually developed, but their work is admirable. What are their habits? What makes them, them? Any advice?

@Leo Gura What do you mean?

@Purple Man I agree with you. I just don't believe you having that certain belief in your mind will help you though.

What is the difference? Well, let's see. Music vs composition Spoken words vs writing (essays) Engineering vs math/physics concepts creative art vs creative idea physical vs knowledge/memory What's the difference between the physical and knowledge? Simply a duality. The physical isn't more real than the non-physical. Of course, 3rd symphony of Beethoven didn't start playing from an orchestra right away. It started from Beethoven wanting to dedicate a composition he had made to whom he had admired most, Napoleon Bonaparte. It started from his heart and to his mind. And he composed the 3rd symphony for Napoleon. https://youtu.be/ft9lJBXW5rg However, because Beethoven composed this music from his heart, to his mind, to his pen, to the paper, we are able to listen to such music in the physical world. So what is the difference between the idea of the 3rd symphony and the physical music we are able to hear today? Well, in this dual world, there is no difference between the idea in Beethoven, and the music of the 3rd symphony. They are exactly the same! Seeing and non seeing. Hearing (the 3rd symphony) vs non hearing (3rd symphony in Beethoven's mind) are basically two sides of the same coin. Therefore, an idea (knowledge) and the physical has no difference. Both are abstract. The first basketball game to be played ever (in Canada) is just as abstract as the person who had created the game of basketball first in his mind. Mind and physical has no difference. People love television above reading books People love talking in person above talking in the phone or the internet People tend to put superior importance to the physical than to the non-physical People tend to like sports rather than college lectures. But the problem is the physical isn't more superior than the non-physical. Television isn't superior to books. Sports isn't superior to lectures. And of - course it is also the case with the non physical not being superior to the physical. Books aren't superior to television. Sports isn't superior to lectures. They are simply the two sides of the same coin. Ideas are just as physical as any physical object. And any physical object is just the same as an idea as any idea

Spiritual circles enjoy bashing on intellectuals, but with right reason. But I can't help but think those people like OSHO, Krishnamurti, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, and other well-known individuals were great intellects themselves. For example, Lao Tzu himself was a librarian for the Zhou Kingdom before he went on the mountains. If one reads Chuang Tzu's parables, you can immediately see this man, though he likes writing comedic parables, was a genius in prose, truly. Compared to many Chinese ancient classics, Chuang Tzu's writing style is too creative for us lay-man to comprehend. Confucius wrote difficult texts. His Annals of history is one of those books that are the most hardest to understand, but its mostly head-work. Chuang Tzu's writings are differentiated from Confucius's writings because of how much emotional intelligence is required to understand. Even in Chuang Tzu's parables, he logically deconstructs Confucius' stupidity, his demand for traditionalism, and makes us understand how unwise Confucius really was, but he does this not with logical prose, but in a way anyone can understand. Yet, one still needs a high-degree of emotional intelligence to understand Chuang Tzu. But still, most people understands Chuang Tzu even if they don't have much intelligence. But that is the genius of Chuang Tzu. Without his intellect, how can we expect him to create such great parables? Chuang Tzu was famous for having a monster-like intellect, comparable to Confucius. Yet, he was one of the intellectuals who loved to bash on the intellect, and his predecessors like Confucius. Again, OSHO was famous for having a massive intellect. He was a philosophy professor in one of the best schools in India. It was said that he read more than thousands of books before his 60s, when he quit reading any text. The last and best example would be Pythagoras. What is the role of ideas, intellect, and logic for spirituality? To be honest, to me... at least, I don't see the difference between the intellect, heart, and the physical. I only see these three are intimately connected.

I'm not talking about how to get laid.... I mean the nature of the universe is relationship! Everything is sexual. The trees, the birds, the flowers are all sexual. Yes, flowers are sexual. It has a male and a female. Down to our very cells, there is a male and a female. Everything is dual. And its duality creates aloneness. Therefore, duality and aloneness has a relationship, a duality. I'd be grateful if you could share your insights into the nature of relationship of nature.

I don't know about knee pain. I do have ankle pains from 2 ankle injuries All I can say from experience is that you must have a right mind and heart to get your body right. I'm sorry because I know this sounds unscientific, but I'd like to paraphrase a quote from legendary basketball coach John Wooden. He said that if your mind is not right, your form is not right, your body is not right, your health is not right. Having a crooked mind, your body will naturally crook itself for you. When your mind is not clear, you won't be aware that you body is leaning to one side, possibly putting more weight into one knee more than the other. Possibly addictively holding stress, but the mind is so occupied with desires, and ambitions that it won't be aware how those poisonous stress is holding your health back. All in all, get the mind right.... you know, then you will be more clear, if you become more clear, the health naturally comes back. But it won't be so apparent, as many good things in the world aren't so apparent at first.