Alluded in the article: his stuff is categorized as “self-help”. As a social phenomenon, “self-help” is believers-only. Since de Botton’s academically inclined, it’s probably the best of a horrid torrid bunch?
It's certainly not the worst, but I take issue with how overconfident de Botton is, and consequently, how convincing his work can seem to many viewers who take it at face-value without more critical thinking. He's academically inclined but largely self-taught, and his hypotheses are not always as well thought-out as one might expect from an "academic".
> Alluded in the article: his stuff is categorized as “self-help”. As a social phenomenon, “self-help” is believers-only.
From the article:
> De Botton is careful to acknowledge that this line of inquiry might trigger the modern intellectual allergy to the genre of learning dismissively labeled self-help. And yet he reminds us that the quest for self-refinement has always accompanied the human experience and animated each civilization’s most respected intellects — it is there at the heart of the Stoics, and in the essays of Montaigne, and at the center of Zen Buddhism, and in the literary artistry of Proust (whom De Botton has especially embraced as a fount of existential consolation). He aims a spear of simple logic to the irrational and rather hubristic disdain for self-help:
> > To dismiss the idea that underpins self-help — that one might at points stand in urgent need of solace and emotional education — seems an austerely perverse prejudice.
> “The emotionally intelligent person knows that they will only ever be mentally healthy in a few areas and at certain moments, but is committed to fathoming their inadequacies and warning others of them in good time, with apology and charm.”
Is that "wise"? Who reads this and nods?
Self-help is rarely written by successful people. Napoleon Hill (a fraud) was no exception.
It focuses on superficial behavioral and cognitive changes, based on "wisdom" that half the audience will cringe at (see Twitter gurus). The more intellectual kinds of self-help (like De Botton, as opposed to Tony Robbins) essentially help people domesticate themselves, by becoming low energy, excessively self-reflective (which is what the word "neurotic" means) and permanently stuck in their head, as opposed to taking action in the real world.
The more you believe you are afflicted by various subjective, non-clinical, non-diagnosed emotional issues, the more they will consume you. You will be raising waves where there is no wind.
The most effective self-help is either the Lindy kind (reading the Bible; joining a Buddhist monastery), or just aligning your behavior with what you want out of life, without caring for the "childhood reasons" for your behavior. "Self-awareness" is a lie; you are just projecting meaning and patterns where none exists. The ultimate embodiment of this navel-gazing is Lacanian psychoanalysis, which has enormous suicide rates. Just reflect on whether your behavior is aligned with your goals, and choose to change your behavior accordingly, without imagining that you need to change an entire machinery within your mind beforehand.
