Philosophy is an activity of wander. It is not a remedy to constantly make you feel happy. It does not comfort every time one engages with it, or worse, sugar-coat the truth.

Without a doubt, this idea doesn’t sell in the self-help industry. On the contrary, self-help literature aims to help the reader. It motivates them with positive reinforcements and ‘resilience’. Nonetheless, that is not philosophy; that is instant gratification.

A proper act of philosophical inquiry is when you are objectively assessing a situation from your current state. Self-help ‘philosophy’ on the other hand, is a make-believe practice. It imagines that the world can always be improved with a flick of a finger. Alternatively, it suggests using “5 secrets how…”.

Philosophy won’t always end on a good note. It challenges you. It highlights patterns of thought. Most importantly, it transcends your way of perceiving the world. Self-help literature, on the other hand, presents a unified view of your future self. This future self can be a ‘bad ass’ when adversity hits the fan. It always knows what to do.

It is also repetitive. It constantly assures the reader (in different ways) that they can always find a way to transcend a problem or situation. The literature is written in a way that pleases the reader with positive encouragements, an illusion of reality.

In my view, self-help books are only valuable if they lead you to philosophy. This involves wandering about a particular thought or reality. It can trouble you in either a good or bad way.

The motivating factor in doing so should be the inquiry itself. It is the determination to seek answers that are unbiased. This is irrespective of whether they are bitter or sweet (or both). When reading a self-help book, people are motivated by delusional factors. They want to end up ‘feeling good’ about themselves after finishing the literature. It is not to help you realise that you are the problem with what you’re experiencing. For example, the author makes it clear, either in blurbs or in its marketing efforts, that upon completion the book will help you with:

• Feeling more resilient!
• Surpass people who mistreat you!
• Elevating your mindset!
• Loving yourself more!

These are all examples portrayed in this self-proclaimed philosophy. Thus, the reader is hooked on reading self-help to acquire the promised axioms. This is not the promise of philosophy though.

One doesn’t read philosophy over a set of presuppositions. One can disagree with the philosopher, criticise them, offer different arguments, or even be negatively influenced by their outlooks. The latter doesn’t appeal to many people. This is especially true since historical individuals have perpetuated malevolent philosophical ideas. Moreover, an individual without philosophical understanding will seek self-help. This is because self-help promises a happy ending, unlike academic philosophy.

It is a transaction. The customer (reader) has been sold the idea of instant gratification. This is achieved by reading a few sets of chapters. The reader feels encouraged to change aspects of life after reading self-help. They see the world differently in some areas. Yet, it is not a long-term investment and activity. The reader feels like a beginner again after some problems re-emerge, or when new ones occur. As for philosophy, it offers the search for truth. It provides a possibility to make a difference, whatever that means to the individual. A philosopher ought to speak the truth even if it is difficult to adhere. Authors in the self-help industry coat the truth. They make it appealing and tempting to read. It is even considered important if one seeks to emancipate themselves from their problems.

The self-help industry often goes hand in hand with popular psychology. The latter has popularised philosophical understandings like ‘resilience’ or ‘self-awareness’, intending to perceive such terms as definitive or absolute.

For example, one can read and inform oneself on resilience. This can be done by reading literature which proclaims the “7 tips to be more resilient in life”. This information makes the reader feel a sense of scarcity. They may worry about missing out on important life tricks. They may feel this way if they don’t read what the ‘informed’ author has to say. The ‘help’ promised in such literature is relatively ripe in context. The origin of ‘resilience’ is highlighted in this instance. Such buzzwords have their roots in philosophy and philosophical inquiries. Yet, they are portrayed as the be-all and end-all in popular psychology.

Jules Evans in Philosophy for Life and Other Dangerous Situations discusses how the understanding of “self-help” has evolved. He highlights its development from the ancient Greeks to the present. According to Evans, self-help:

…linked the psychological to the ethical, the political, and the cosmic. And it didn’t offer people short-term fixes to be practiced for a month or two until the next self-help fad arrived. It offered people an enduring way of life, something to be practiced each day for years, to radically transform the self — and perhaps to transform society.

The Stoics for instance talk extensively on how one ought to face adversity and suffering through ‘courage’. This concept has ranged from the 1st century up until modernity through neo and contemporary Stoicism. It has been converted into ‘resilience’ in pop-culture. This latter term appears to be ‘more digestible to the layperson’, or as it is sold.

The problem here is that one is very restricted when reading pop literature. Readers are often misled on a topic that has been significantly written and researched in primary and secondary philosophical texts. Ironically, some self-help authors claim to quote philosophical texts in their literature, aiming to solidify and credit their arguments. They quote, reinterpret, or even argue such works. Their goal is to please the reader, not to practise philosophy. It is a disservice to the philosopher to be monetised in such a manner.

If one’s goal is to read self-help or pop-psychology for comforting solutions, then go ahead. Do so. If one seeks to transcend from this point, aiming to philosophise, a challenge to his worldview awaits. Reading what philosophy has to offer will give the honest ‘help’ you ought to look for in literature.

---