/lit/ - Literature

>>16313862
I'm reading 7 habits of highly based people now and in the beginning something struck a chord with me. The author talks about how self help and shifted from INNER mastery (your personal character) to OUTER mastery (tips and tricks how to manipulate / talk to anyone, just smile! Say the persons name). Steven the author also touches on being proactive and working on changing YOU and the things you have control over. I've just only read the first habit but it's been refreshing.

>>16314007
Ah! Iv peaked at this book but never got around to buying it. Thats a nice point about building your character. I think that its a longer process which at least in my experience partly comes for free when you become more outspoken, and start acting confident.

Fake it until you make it basically.

>>16314101
As someone who is extremely good at everything I will say that you should just be innately talented and great from the start, and then just try to be polite and respectful to lesser people while ultimately asserting your dominance and taking what you want out of life

>>16313862
>Since not everyone is the biggest fan of philosophy
Its a shame, because all your questions are discussed in great depth in philosophy.
But since you don't like philosophy, I guess the best book I can recommend outside of it is pic related. It is the humanistic psychology of Carl Rogers applied to hostage negotiation. Its one of the best non-philosophy books I've read on persuasion

>>16313862
>>16314154
>No Taleb
Into the trash it goes

>>16314123
This works. I recommend it

>>16314154
All these books are complete shit (except for meditations)

>>16314170
nah

>>16314007
>>16314101
>>16314123
>>16314167
A part of me wants to completely destroy your arguments because they are retarded beyond belief, but if it helps it helps I guess

>>16314162
boy i'd sure like to read some but anon is being an unhelpful faggot

>>16314190
Feel free to completely destroy my friend im all ears.

>>16314187
Name one good book in there besides meditations and the art of war

>>16314211
How do you metaphysically even define "Self-Mastery"?
What does building your character mean, building towards what?
What criteria do you use to describe lesser people?

I'm not trying to be annoying, I'm just adding a bit of skepticism so you can solidify your logic better

>>16314156
I might just be to retarded for philo books, I like more tangilbe advice

>>16314229
Well since I wrote one of those I can only answer for that one.
Building or improving character in my opinion is where I find bad or non-optimal areas in my life where im the reason its bad. Then its all about figuring out how that can change with my effort alone.

Of course this is subjective to me, but it still is a starting point.

>>16313862
Bum0

>>16314007
I read that book. Its pretty based. I struggle with understanding the 6th habit though

>>16314229
Self-mastery is being unwilling to lie to yourself.
Building character is following the path of virtue.
Lesser people do neither of these.

>>16316700
>is following the path of virtue.
Good definition. What is the path of virtue? Have you created an Ethics system yet?

>>16313862
If you want this in novel form, read Laclos' Les Liaisons Dangereuses. The main characters are masters of manipulation and seduction, and they highlight their methods in their letters to each other.

>>16314229
You really think you're so smart asking questions that answer themselves.

>>16316709
There is no need for exhaustive system. I try to do what is right in the moment and if I make a mess then I apologize and clean it up.

>>16314229
You're being obtuse.

>>16316730
Thats really crappy. Intuition should be applied to a system, not considering intuition as system

>>16316719
How do they answer themselves

>>16313862
Pic related.
It will make all other books seem dull.

>>16316824
might is right mentality is just neurotic solipsism

>>16316829
No, then you didn't get it. It's not only about YOU, it's about you and your family and your friends.
He says it multiple times, even literally in the very first sentence of the book. You clearly didn't read it.

>>16316824
Any man hiding behind a fake name can't be trusted

>>16316950
It's always the same attacks against the book
>1. didn't even read it or misinterpret the message
>2. hurr his name ehh fake haha (ad hominem)
You fucktards even pull ad hominems when you don't even know who he was, so it was a wise choice to use a pseudonym because otherwise you would do nothing but talk about the person.

>>16316982
I don't know who he is. I also know nothing about the book. I googled, saw he is a weak man who doesn't stand behind his name, and moved on with my life.

>>16316782
Moral decisions are fairly easy to make unless you are someone in power actively making a decision that could affect the lives of many people. In those situations a system would be good. The other 99% of the time learned intuition is the tool for the job.