L
Lebensmüder
Soon to be deleted account
★★★
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2018
- Posts
- 5,202
Self-improvement as defined by most of them is a sisyphean task.
If they admitted that consequences matter they would admit that it is useless because others will always be better and that when the trait becomes common it's worthless anyways. Basically if everyone does it there is nothing special about it and it won't give you any rational benefit. The same when you cannot compete with others due to various reasons, then it's also useless because nothing about the outcome is changed, an intelligent person that learns for an exam with the same time as a person with a lesser intelligence will always get the better grade, if a disabled man and an able-bodied man went to the gym for the same time the able-bodied man will always outcompete the disabled man in the end. From a teleological/rational point of view it's then worthless, because the outcome of the situation will only be influenced to a marginal/insignificant degree (which makes the effort obsolete/unproportional in the first place).
If they said that consequences don't matter they would admit that it is (as defined by them) a sisyphean task with no intellectual basis and that self-improvement is nothing more than an empty platitude that is repeated over and over again. Then their justification of self-improvement would be a tautology (e.g. "You should self-improve because you should self-improve!") with no rationality behind it. Something without a teleological reason/a defined goal, something unquantifiable by any objective standard because it's entirely subjective and because the results don't matter.
When they say that they get emotional benefits from it (from their own purely emotional/subjective standpoint) then I can say that I can get more emotional benefits for myself by not doing that, because it would be effort that diminishes my own life quality (again from my own personal/subjective point of view) - with subjectivism you cannot argue for/against something, because your point of view is not the point of view of others and others can simply refute your claims by saying "No, I don't see it that way!" - and when you don't have anything to force the person to do as you want there is nothing you can do to change that perspective. What some person likes another person can dislike, there is nothing universally enjoyable.
No matter what they say: They cannot argue logically/emotionally in favour of "self-improvement" (as defined by them), they just say "You should do X!" without giving you any clear reason why you should do X.
If they admitted that consequences matter they would admit that it is useless because others will always be better and that when the trait becomes common it's worthless anyways. Basically if everyone does it there is nothing special about it and it won't give you any rational benefit. The same when you cannot compete with others due to various reasons, then it's also useless because nothing about the outcome is changed, an intelligent person that learns for an exam with the same time as a person with a lesser intelligence will always get the better grade, if a disabled man and an able-bodied man went to the gym for the same time the able-bodied man will always outcompete the disabled man in the end. From a teleological/rational point of view it's then worthless, because the outcome of the situation will only be influenced to a marginal/insignificant degree (which makes the effort obsolete/unproportional in the first place).
If they said that consequences don't matter they would admit that it is (as defined by them) a sisyphean task with no intellectual basis and that self-improvement is nothing more than an empty platitude that is repeated over and over again. Then their justification of self-improvement would be a tautology (e.g. "You should self-improve because you should self-improve!") with no rationality behind it. Something without a teleological reason/a defined goal, something unquantifiable by any objective standard because it's entirely subjective and because the results don't matter.
When they say that they get emotional benefits from it (from their own purely emotional/subjective standpoint) then I can say that I can get more emotional benefits for myself by not doing that, because it would be effort that diminishes my own life quality (again from my own personal/subjective point of view) - with subjectivism you cannot argue for/against something, because your point of view is not the point of view of others and others can simply refute your claims by saying "No, I don't see it that way!" - and when you don't have anything to force the person to do as you want there is nothing you can do to change that perspective. What some person likes another person can dislike, there is nothing universally enjoyable.
No matter what they say: They cannot argue logically/emotionally in favour of "self-improvement" (as defined by them), they just say "You should do X!" without giving you any clear reason why you should do X.
Last edited: