In a message dated 4/29/99 1:03:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hrimke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> and what's the difference between the "enslavement" of engaging
> > with self-help texts and engaging with philosophy texts, anyway?),
>
> i would guess that there exists both differences AND similarities between
> these two types of texts (if you would permit me to categorize if only for
> analytic reasons...). Historically, (ie the Ancient world) there may not
> have been any distinct differences between these sorts of texts, but this
> is another sort of question i dont feel qualified in answering.
The self-help books for the most part are superficially pragmatic, that is,
these theories don't really work, and they are recipes, or how-to books.
Philosophy on the other hand does not really offer a step-by-step procedure
for solving problems (but then who does anyway!), but rather requires the
subject to engage in a thought process of reasoning, of information
integration and questioning (to mention one
aspect about understanding a philosophy text). When a philosophy can be
reified or concretized is indeed a rare event, not to mention that phenomena
can be adquately comprehended by several philosophies at the same time. The
arguments of philosophy are quite abstract and devolve upon the issue of the
more valid philosophy and therefore the better argument. When this
figurative background of our being
suddenly takes on a literal meaning in terms of events, we are inclined to
speak of
truth. OTOH, the self-help approaches are commonsense, or sensible solutions
to
simple problems. Their language is entirely concrete or reified and is
usually thought of as simplisitic, illusory, or ideological.
Fred Welfare
hrimke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> and what's the difference between the "enslavement" of engaging
> > with self-help texts and engaging with philosophy texts, anyway?),
>
> i would guess that there exists both differences AND similarities between
> these two types of texts (if you would permit me to categorize if only for
> analytic reasons...). Historically, (ie the Ancient world) there may not
> have been any distinct differences between these sorts of texts, but this
> is another sort of question i dont feel qualified in answering.
The self-help books for the most part are superficially pragmatic, that is,
these theories don't really work, and they are recipes, or how-to books.
Philosophy on the other hand does not really offer a step-by-step procedure
for solving problems (but then who does anyway!), but rather requires the
subject to engage in a thought process of reasoning, of information
integration and questioning (to mention one
aspect about understanding a philosophy text). When a philosophy can be
reified or concretized is indeed a rare event, not to mention that phenomena
can be adquately comprehended by several philosophies at the same time. The
arguments of philosophy are quite abstract and devolve upon the issue of the
more valid philosophy and therefore the better argument. When this
figurative background of our being
suddenly takes on a literal meaning in terms of events, we are inclined to
speak of
truth. OTOH, the self-help approaches are commonsense, or sensible solutions
to
simple problems. Their language is entirely concrete or reified and is
usually thought of as simplisitic, illusory, or ideological.
Fred Welfare