Religion was the original self-help

[Basman]

Whereas modern self-help is about getting what you want out of life, IE. "carrot" self-help, religion was about what not to do, IE. "stick" self-help. Religion always instills in you a sense a duty and belonging towards the straight and narrow whereas modern self-help doesn't necessarily instill any responsibility relative to excess. Pick-up devils or stock brokers would be good example of excess driven by modern self-help (and modern culture tends to reward excess). 

I think the reason why people in the past gravitated more towards "the stick" and why nothing like Tony Robbins existed back then is because life was much harder and more brutal. Religion set basic moral standards that probably didn't exist prior and equipped people to better deal with a hard life. One thing that characterizes modern self-help culture in my opinion is that it instill a sense of entitlement relative to getting what you want out of life. But sometimes life gives you things you don't want, such as war or chronic illness. People have no frame of reference when they suddenly end up in a situation that throws their life upside down.

You can kind of see this culture in action when people disparage drafts. Drafts are essentially a form of institutionalized servitude but are often necessary for collective survival in a lot of cases. People didn't have the luxury to feel entitled about their life back then. They where too busy just trying to survive and had to make do.

Religion as old self-help better equipped people to deal with death, as people died younger back then, something that modern self-help doesn't really deal with directly in my opinion. In general, modern culture doesn't really teach people to have a good relationship with death. People generally want to live forever then get disappointed with life when they die. Now, you could argue that believing your going to heaven when you die of tuberculosis at 41 isn't good either, but how far off is that really though?

Not that modern self-help is bad, but it's interesting to note the distinction in how modern self-help and religion differ philosophically. Just my 2 cents.

[Basman]

FIY this is not chud christianposting. This is more about the concept of having ethical standards and having a healthy relationship towards one's mortality.

Edited 16 hours ago by Basman

[Leo Gura]

Yes, that's right.

Religion is self-help pre-Orange.

[LordFall]

I agree but you're seeing it with rose tainted glasses. A lot of it is using a strict moral code as currency to judge others, establish a social hierarchy, and feel superior without actually having to produce real-world value. Basically an ideology in the box so people don't have to think for themselves about serious topics.

There is a lot of great wisdom in religion that I'm often awed by and I can see how throughout history it served a great purpose towards the advancement of our people but the flaws and critiques still stand. 

I also think self-help is too hard for most people and they just need an easy ideology to cope through life. Individualism in general to be fair is also sort of cope, it only goes so far. I've spend my 20s being a serial entrepreneurial and learning all things self-help and praising personal ownership and I'm currently broke staying at my dads house since my last cashflow venture dried up so I'm appreciating more today the benefits of community and family than in recent years. 

Edited 16 hours ago by LordFall

[Leo Gura]

Of course 2000 year old self-help is gonna be primitive by 21st century standards.

[Basman]

Thou shalt not eat chicken and lick thy fingers on a sunday afternoon lest thou go to hell. 

[Rishabh R]

@Basman In my opinion philosophies like Stoicism(non-religious material ), Socratic Questioning(non-religious material ) and meditation (which in turn is a popularized by religion )  are genuine self-help materials compared to the shallow self-help culture which we see today.

[Basman]

24 minutes ago, Rishabh R said:

@Basman In my opinion philosophies like Stoicism(non-religious material ), Socratic Questioning(non-religious material ) and meditation (which in turn is a popularized by religion )  are genuine self-help materials compared to the shallow self-help culture which we see today.

It's less about the specific belief in god than it's about how religion mirrors self-help but in a "stick" way, as opposed to the "Carrot" way that characterizes modern self-help, IE. what not to do in life as opposed to getting what you want out of life. It essentially boils down to ethics and having an adequate sense of one's mortality in my opinion. Buddhism I would characterize as religious self-help that doesn't center a belief in god.

Modern self-help has the advantage in that it's generally very clear and easy to follow, whereas antique material can be quiet obtuse. It's a mistake to compare apples to oranges though, as long as you are getting something out of the material. 

[Rishabh R]

@Basman No I am not talking about belief in God but rather using philosophy for reaching God by deconstructing beleifs ,assumptions ,thoughts. Since, God is experience as well tranquility is a closer state to God compared to emotional suffering. Even though not a person of spirituality by rather basic high quality self-help which includes things that maybe or may not be found in mainstream self-help.

[Basman]

12 minutes ago, Rishabh R said:

@Basman No I am not talking about belief in God but rather using philosophy for reaching God by deconstructing beleifs ,assumptions ,thoughts. Since, God is experience as well tranquility is a closer state to God compared to emotional suffering. Even though not a person of spirituality by rather basic high quality self-help which includes things that maybe or may not be found in mainstream self-help.

Obviously, most self-help is success oriented. But the average person needs more success before they can start thinking about god, arguably.

[Rishabh R]

@Basman Yup which includes me 😅.