> I don't understand the urge to diminish individualism when it's the basis of our modern ethics and human rights.

Where did I diminish individualism? The point I made was that, perhaps, you don't need someone else telling you that you're not being yourself and not living up to your potential, and then offering you a path you weren't naturally inclined to take to get to where they tell you you're supposed to be.

> The article is basically just an argument for one method towards achieving self-actualizition, the process of fulfilling one's unique potential and becoming the most authentic version of oneself.

And this is a very Western concept that doesn't resonate with me. I don't believe that the average person needs to be obsessed with fulfilling their potential and becoming "authentic", especially to the point where they rely on the advice of random people who are eager to tell them they're not fulfilling their potential and being "authentic".

To quote George Carlin:

> If you're looking for self-help, why would you read a book written by somebody else? That's not self-help, that's help. There's no such thing as self-help. If you did it yourself you didn't need help.

▲

znnajdla 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> you don't need someone else telling you that you're not being yourself

When I read others works, I am still doing my own take on it. It is my interpretation and application of the ideas.

▲

slopinthebag 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> you don't need someone else telling you that you're not being yourself and not living up to your potential, and then offering you a path you weren't naturally inclined to take to get to where they tell you you're supposed to be

Who is doing that?

The average person probably doesn't need to be "obsessed" with self-actualisation or authenticity, but that doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile goal. People don't need to be "obsessed" with eating healthy, but they should at least consider it.

Carlin's quote is cute but just a debate about semantics. Who cares what they're called. People learn from books, they learn from other peoples experiences, and they can use that learning to help themselves. How is that not valid?

	▲	ElProlactin 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Who is doing that? The author of the post: > Your life’s goal should be to become the most improbable person you can be. Your path, your character, your life, should be the most unlikely, the most unexpected, the least predictable version you can make. Improbable lives have fewer competitors, more unique rewards, and are harder to replace with AIs, since AIs run on the predictable. > You can align yourself with this grand arc moving from the expected to the unexpected and aim to become the most improbable person you can be. And so on. From the very first sentence, the author is telling you what you should be and do. There is nothing in the post that asks the question of what the reader actually wants to be and do. What if I want to be a part of a community, meet someone I can build a life with, raise a family, and have a job that allows me to support my family and engage in simple activities I enjoy? How does someone telling me I should become "the most improbable person" I can be help me? How does minimizing my "competitors", obtaining "unique rewards" and trying to make myself AI-proof align to building community, finding a compatible partner, raising happy children, and finding work that supports the life I want to live? > People don't need to be "obsessed" with eating healthy, but they should at least consider it. Many people do eat healthy without buying a bookshelf full of books about how to eat a healthy diet. > People learn from books, they learn from other peoples experiences, and they can use that learning to help themselves. There is a difference between learning from other people's experiences where their experiences resonate with you and seeking out advice from people who are trying to sell you on a life they say you should have.