In my own experience, pop philosophy/psychology books were very helpful as a kid and made me curious about the direct sources. I see articles like the one in the OP similarly— the difference being I’m more “elitist” now, do I have to counter the instinct to look down my nose. — Mikie

In my experience, pop philosophy/psychology sources, and even serious secondary sources, often leave out important aspects of the primary authors ideas that people aren't aware of, examples - Einstein didn't prove the speed of light is a constant, he assumed it; Darwin included Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics) as one of the mechanisms of evolution; Heisenberg's justification for the uncertainty principle is no longer accepted by quantum physicists. Thinker's descriptions of their ideas are usually more detailed, more nuanced, and more interesting than someone else's.

But make no mistake: Your "job" -- the useful thing you do for other people -- is all you are.

Might be all I am to them, but it's not all I am.

The guys at Nuremburg made the mistake of identifying with their jobs. "I am a soldier. Soldiers do what they're told."

Humans can decide what and who they're going to be, how they're going to be useful. You're human first. The job is a choice.

Isn’t philosophy, at its best, distinguished from self-help by its deep and original insights, rather than, or as well as, by its arguments? — Jamal

I was thinking about this again. What you're saying should be true. And I think philosophy at its best is revelatory, inspiring, critical, creative and well argued. A philosophy book should force you to see the world differently, "relearning how to see". I think that's a major distinction between a philosophy book and a self help book. A self help book may change your perspective, a philosophy book may change how you form perspectives in the first place.

I couldn’t have put it better myself.

But does a self help book really change your perspective, or does it just give you one to try on for a while? That’s pedantic though.

Otherwise, this is an interesting thread because I find myself agreeing with what @T Clark and @Michael have said, which has never happened before.

Self-help often strikes me as dishonest, manipulative, boring, and essentially individualistic, — Jamal

That sounds right. Unhappy people often seem uninterested in the world beyond them. Self-help books ('You Are A Badass') often hold up yet another mirror for getting lost in. What's lacking (among other things) is wonder or curiosity about the vast world beyond the petty self.

Yep, and this is in line with the common sociological observations about our society of atomism, isolation, and individualism. Sometimes I feel like my interest in philosophy and politics is just an anachronism, like there’s no actual public sphere where any of it could matter. This is a feeling I resist, because I’m an optimist of sorts.

But does a self help book really change your perspective, or does it just give you one to try on for a while? That’s pedantic though. — Jamal

I imagine the latter, but I can't draw a strict line between that and philosophy. I read Heidegger, I don't lose the Cartesian goggles unless forcing myself to. Same with eliminative materialism/ "illusionism", with regard to how I treat other minds in social scenarios - like I can't see it otherwise in person. Unless, again, I focus a lot on turning the interaction into a cognitive exercise.

Though I'm sure some people are just "built different" and maintain constant Zen.

Though I'm sure some people are just "built different" and maintain constant Zen — fdrake

Dicks.

Speaking of Zen, one "pop" book (a novel actually) that spurred on a mini-industry was Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values. I'm just looking now that according to one source, Philosophy Now, it is the bestselling philosophy book of all time. I find that hard to believe, but if true, is a shame.

That a clear example of (in my opinion, of course) pretty bad "philosophizing", it was so pretentious and vacuous that I could get more than halfway through. Though I'm sure some swear by this book...

So the pop-thing is mixed. I do think there are quite interesting and unique "philosophical" aspects to some aspects of pop-culture, which should not be looked at derisively, as can happen.

But then there's the bad stuff we all know about...

Otherwise, this is an interesting thread because I find myself agreeing with what T Clark and @Michael have said, which has never happened before. — Jamal

That's silly; you, @Michael, and I agree on many things. Some examples:

• I'm really smart
• I'm really funny
• I'm kind of an asshole

I'm not suggesting that philosophy or Taoism be used as self-help, but I think there's an implicit suggestion in the concept of self-examination that suggests a telos of improvement. It doesn't have to be a willful and conscious striving at self-improvement, but the simple fact that someone has decided that self-examination would be a good thing suggests the telos to me. Like you're saying, philosophy can open one's eyes. To what and why? For what purpose?

As I see it, though the former implies the latter, the latter neither presupposes nor implies the former. — 180 Proof

If you mean improvement in the sense of pop self-help books, I agree and I'm not advocating for them. But see above in reply to Clarky.

philosophy can open one's eyes. To what and why? For what purpose? — Noble Dust

For no purpose. Because I'm curious. Because I have a drive for self-awareness. It's not a goal I'm striving for, it's a force that's pushing me, where I don't know and I don't really care. It's an engine, not a steering wheel.

Interesting. I think we have fundamentally different structures of experience. Then again, maybe you're just more well-adjusted while my neuroses dictate my philosophical thinking more than you.

Which is interesting, actually. I wonder to what extent people's interest in self-help correlates to their psychological states or conditions. And whether those interested in philosophy proper are in any better shape.

Might be all I am to them, but it's not all I am. — Michael

Good point. I assumed that's what he meant, but now I look at it and it isn't that clear even with the context put in.

I take him to mean something similar to Durant's take on Aristotle: "You are what you do." There's definitely something in that. Actions speak much louder than words, or in this case thoughts and feelings. "Job" in the sense of employment isn't what's meant, of course, but more in the sense of what you do with most of your time.

Or perhaps I'm giving this dude more credit than he deserves.

And whether those interested in philosophy proper are in any better shape. — Noble Dust

Many are disappointed with and turned off by philosophy because it is not what they expected it to be. What they find are concerns matters of language, concepts, and argument, and little or nothing about the self, or, more precisely, themselves. They regard it as abstract, lifeless, and sterile.

They are, to a large extent, right.

People need to be met where they are, with their limited abilities and resources. Pop philosophy has the virtue of addressing them at a level they can understand. It is true that a lot of it is garbage, but then again, so is a lot of traditional and academic philosophy.

Give me a guy who reads nothing but pop philosophy books and who is healthy, happy, creative and productive over one who has spent his time reading the complete works of Kant and endlessly examining his life any day. — Mikie

Give me the corrupt, the endlessly unsatisfied, the unproductive and miserable! The lay-abouts, the good-for-nothings, the hippies, and the rabble! :D

Like you're saying, philosophy can open one's eyes. To what and why? For what purpose? — Noble Dust

Good question.

For no purpose. Because I'm curious. Because I have a drive for self-awareness. It's not a goal I'm striving for, it's a force that's pushing me, where I don't know and I don't really care. It's an engine, not a steering wheel. — T Clark

Being curious is a reason, and the purpose is to learn something, or understand, or "see," etc. There's no way around wanting something -- even many Buddhists acknowledge that. You want to free yourself from suffering and attachment, for example. If you didn't, you wouldn't be meditating.

I never bought the claim that we do some things for no purpose whatsoever. We're pushing into a future, and while we may not consciously have a goal in mind, there's certainly a purpose to be found in everything we do. I don't see a way around it. Happy to have my mind changed though.

This isn't to suggest that "doing" philosophy (whatever that means exactly) has to be a means to some other conventional end, like making more money or learning how to be more confident (plenty of self-help books to that end) -- but to say there's no purpose in itself is contradictory.

One bit of pop philosophy that I still pretty much adore is Socrates' Cafe style meetings. I used to run those back in college, and I thought it was great.

Also, hey --- this website! Kind of. Maybe?

It is true that a lot of it is garbage, but then again, so is a lot of traditional and academic philosophy. — Fooloso4

:up:

When we started to professionalize and mathematicize philosophy, especially in the late 19th century, it was the beginning of the end. Which is why it's worth going back to the Greeks, over and over again.

An unpopular opinion of mine: you're not truly an educated Western citizen unless and until you know Greek and Latin.

Also, hey --- this website! Kind of. Maybe? — Moliere

You know what's funny? I hadn't even thought of this forum as being a kind of "pop philosophy" thing. But I guess there's a decent argument for that classification.

I can see the kind-of aspect, because a lot of us try to get back to the original texts and such -- so it's not quite at the same level of, say, Alain de Botton. Plus the conversational aspect, where we're not just reading but also able to converse -- that makes it a bit different from some of what's associated with popularizing.

I agree.

common sociological observations about our society of atomism, isolation, and individualism. — Jamal

Feuerbach was already pointing this out in his time, but I suspect it's worse than ever, the more we can hide behind screens. I'm lucky to have a nice riverside park that's always busy nearby. I don't talk to anyone, but it's nice to see all those real people mostly being nice, enjoying the weather.

Sometimes I feel like my interest in philosophy and politics is just an anachronism, like there’s no actual public sphere where any of it could matter. — Jamal

I can relate. Personally I think the world is an out of control game of Jenga. The incentive structure works against caution and moderation and eliminates that kind of player from the game. We 'must' burn those fossil fuels, build AI weapons, etc. David Pearce may have found the essence of it in Darwinian evolution. We are great at cooperating, but can we do it without an outgroup that suffers the external costs of our internal virtue ?

But there's something beautiful or noble or X about thinking seriously and trying to live a relatively decent life.

.

Speaking of Zen, one "pop" book (a novel actually) that spurred on a mini-industry was Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values. — Manuel

You are too harsh on this book, in my opinion. I think it's great at times. The guy slowly remembering his past electricallyerased crazy-brilliant self as he makes his way back to the scene of his mad heroics....good stuff !

When we started to professionalize and mathematicize philosophy, especially in the late 19th century, it was the beginning of the end. — Mikie

While I don't deny there have been some strong philosophers who earn their bread in schools, it does seem dangerous to make philosophy so respectable. The prototype was poor and eventually executed. Maybe the 'spiritual' function of philosophy moved into literature, art, politics.

A person who works for an institution has already answered yes to certain questions with their mode of existence. And how much can they get away with ? What will peers and students tolerate in terms of questioning ? Is safe philosophy an oxymoron ?

An unpopular opinion of mine: you're not truly an educated Western citizen unless and until you know Greek and Latin. — Mikie

At the risk of admitting I am not truly educated I am somewhat in agreement. But knowing the languages is not enough. One must know and read the literature in those languages.

Maybe the 'spiritual' function of philosophy moved into literature, art, politics. — green flag

Yes indeed.

Yes indeed. — Noble Dust

:up:

It's a mere problem of taste. Didn't do it for me at all.

But I can see why other people may think it's very good.