Will this book change my life and make me a normie?
If not, what book will?
>>29393868
No book will do that dipshit
>>29393887
Why not?
yxcvm,byxm,cbvb
>>29393868
oh yeah this was on my reading list few years back but I never got to it. Might give it a try, but I doubt it has some revolutionary ideas I havent heard before.
sounds like some rogan tier shit.
>>29394142
>released June 28, 2015
>few years back
>>29394276
It is. It's the same old shit that self proclaimed 'intellectual' chads have been spewing for years.
Probably even a chapter in there about how fluoride suppresses your third eye
>>29394344
>doesn't read the book
>judges based on what he thinks the book contains
Why do that?
>>29393868
>reading self help books
>instead of studying philosophy
OP doesn't want to be happy.
>>29394513
What would I gain from reading philosophy? It's not like it would provide any solutions to my situation.
>>29394392
Shut up, Joe.
>>29394575
You are right, it will not provide quick solutions but tools to understand oneself to see what solutions are right for you.
>>29394619
It sounds very abstract, I doubt that it will actually happen like this.
But what philosopher should I read for my /r9k/ tier problems?
>>29393868
Some faggot on here recommended the book "Models" by some chad named Mark Manson.
If you enjoy a chad telling you how many women he fucked and kissed, and telling you to act like him: than this is the book for you.
I haven't read all of this book, but there is some decent advice. But the thing is that most of it I figured out myself after some time. Such as not using pick-up lines but just introducing yourself.
He also doesn't delve deeply on body language.
I imagine the "Gorilla Mindset" book is made by some chad who is succesful with women and loves to tell others what he achieved and how he did that.
I am sure there might be some stuff of interest. But at the end of the day it is some chad tryna sell you his shit. Skim through it, use what fits you and please make sure you read it without filling the chad pockets.
>>29394575
What would truth gain from you studying philosophy? It's not like you would provide any solutions to any inquiries.
>>29394847
I've seen his interview with le bold not an argument man and he didn't seem to be a chad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S23A46cMlWA
So, I wanted some feedback from people who read this book, maybe it does provide some interesting info.
>>29394931
>What would truth gain from you studying philosophy
What did he mean by that?
>>29394948
I took a look at Amazon. Seems more like the "Good psychopath" book I've read by Andy McNab and another sciency guy. Hasn't turned me into a good psychopath yet.
Give it a try. Just don't expect to much of it.
>>29394976
I am pointing out that his mentality for philosophy is not good. Wouldn't you say the same thing? Looking to philosophy for what you have to gain from it seems silly, I think a person would have more to gain from sophistry. But when you care about the truth then that is a love of wisdom which is the definition of philosophy.
>>29395230
> philosophy for what you have to gain from it seems silly
Why is that?
>>29395288
Because there is always a possibility of a conflict of interest between the truth and what you want to gain. And if you care more about what you have to gain from philosophy then you are not really a philosopher, a lover of wisdom.
>>29393868
>Will a book change my life
The answer is no. Self help books are fucking garbage timewasters.
>>29395412
There can't be a conflict of interest between Truth and anything else. The Truth is a concept, not an actor.
If this is the kind of philosophy you are reading, you should stop.
>>29395486
>There can't be a conflict of interest between Truth and anything else. The Truth is a concept, not an actor.
I can simply put it in other words and it is clarified. A conflict of your interest into the truth and your interest into what you have to gain.
>If this is the kind of philosophy you are reading, you should stop.
Do you think philosophy is only about reading other philosophy books?
>>29395575
I don't know if you fancy yourself a philosopher but you sound like a dude weed lmao type of person.
>>29396243
Anyone who loves wisdom can be considered a philosopher, that is the definition of the word. Anything more is pretentious nonsense.
When people do not understand philosophy and find themselves unable to follow inquiries then we see exactly what we are seeing from you.
What you have posted is empty and meaningless, you might as well have just called me an idiot or any other name. You didn't even address what I said so there would be no point in you continuing to reply to me. You are not interested in philosophy, you are not interested in inquiries like I am trying to have here. Just go watch football or something.
>>29396496
But I adressed, what you said.
I told you that truth doesn't have any "interest" because it is a concept and not a person, so there can't be any conflict of interest between me and the truth.
I mean, in a broad sense you are a philosopher, just like every child who learns about nature is a scientist.
But you seem to be pretty full of yourself if you get offended that your gibberish is not being taken seriously.
>>29393868
I have never read, but I read some posts of the same author's blog.
>>29394062
Because you are focusing on the outside, when outside is just a consequence of your inside. Just go do something out of your life, work a lot and naturally you will become good with people, women, and everything, follow your own thinking.
>>29396683
What am I supposed to do if people don't like me.
Every single time, I meet someone, I try to act naturally, talk to them, ask questions, but they don't respond well and don't really want to have anything to do with me.
>>29396676
>I mean, in a broad sense you are a philosopher, just like every child who learns about nature is a scientist.
Learning about science does not make you a scientist. Doing science makes you a scientist. Learning about philosophy does not make you a philosopher. Doing philosophy makes you a philosopher. You should learn before you attempt these things of course, but the learning of the subject and the history of it alone is not the same thing as actually participating in that subject. You can argue any particular point I am making, but you cannot argue that I am not participating in a philosophy. The point of an inquiry is to use multiple minds to find certain information. If someone is wrong about something it can be pointed out and corrected. Ad hominem attacks have no place in this and hopefully you can see that they get you no where if you are actually looking for information and the truth.
Now here is a quote from earlier:
>>29395575
>A conflict of your interest into the truth and your interest into what you have to gain.
Okay then lets inquire further into semantics. That is the conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is a conflict between two separate interests, right? Why are you assuming that these different interests have to come from different people? Interests are not concepts, nor are the people. A person could be interested in, say, both advancing his political career and he could also have an interest in philosophy. But where philosophy is a love of wisdom and a search for the truth, advancing your political career involves no such thing. In fact I think there would be a conflict if one of your principles was to uphold the truth before anything else, and at the same time you were willing to use sophistry to gain political power. A conflict of interests.
>>29393868
> humans are already animals
Once you realise this the pedestal crumbles, and talking to whores is easy
