Can the self be improved? What is the self, anyway? Does the currently popular “self-help movement” really help us or is it a paradoxical diversion from our true self?
I hope that you will help me in addressing these questions that have been increasingly pervading my thoughts as the term, self-improvement, is now so widely used, and quite often misused, that its meaning seems diluted, almost to the point of becoming abstract.
In fact, the more I think of it, the more I doubt that “self-improvement” is possible…
“If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.” ~ Francis Bacon
The first logical step in a path from doubt to certainty is to remove all pre-conceived notions of self-improvement as put forth by social convention, media noise and language. We may then enable the formation (or confirmation) of our own idea of self-improvement.
The next logical step in our path is to define self; but perhaps, to be successful in our attempt, it would make more sense to define what the self is not:
The self is not a physical representation, such as your body: If you changed your hair color, gained 10 pounds or even lost an arm or leg, has your self changed? In these events, it seems to me that only the physical representation of the self, the self-image, or perhaps the image projected to others, have changed; but the self, itself, has not.
The self is not what you do: For example, you may “improve” your actions to achieve an objective, such as a job promotion or a faster time in the 7k run; but have you improved the self? Or could it be that the self is the source – not the beneficiary – of the “improvement?” It only makes logical sense to me that actions are a production of the self – and, therefore, that the self is not a production of actions.
The self is not willfully formed: Can the self create the self? Today’s idea of self-improvement suggests that the self can “improve” the self. If this were true, then the self would naturally continue to improve itself until it had achieved perfection, which, arguably, is not possible.
“The first observation I make at this point is that there is a great difference between the mind and the body, inasmuch as the body is by its very nature always divisible, while the mind is utterly indivisible.” ~ Rene Descartes
If it is not your body and if it is not what you do and if it cannot be willfully formed, then logic would follow that the self already exists and is already ideal in its form. The same logic would assume that the self must be something that is spiritual or intellectual – that the mind is a separate entity from the body…
“One’s only rival is one’s own potentialities. One’s only failure is failing to live up to one’s own possibilities.” ~ Abraham Maslow
So what, may we deduce, is the self?
Perhaps, if we were challenged to use another word that is a useful descriptor for the self, we could use the word potential. But can our potential be improved? I don’t think so – not if we are defining it correctly: potential represents that which is within the realm of possibility, which would imply that “a potential” is reachable but impossible to extend beyond…
Perhaps, for the sake of our logical exercise, we can agree that our potential is not infinite but that it is much greater than our understanding; therefore, the self is not something that can be improved but something that we should seek to understand or know…
“Nearly all mankind is more or less unhappy because nearly all do not know the true Self. Real happiness abides in self-knowledge alone. All else is fleeting. To know One’s Self is to be blissful always.” ~ Ramana Maharishi
Our logical path would not be complete without addressing a question that has challenged humankind, especially philosophers, for more than two millennia:
How do we know our self?
We can not simply ask our self, “Who am I?” and expect the answer. I will suggest, however, that self-knowledge may be pursued by virtue of self-awareness or, put another way, by the process of self-discovery. This process is no easy task because the self, from childhood to today, has increasingly become covered by physical world influences.
Since our potential or ideal self already exists, then our task is to discover it or, as I like to say, uncover it…
- To know our self, our self must be revealed;
- To reveal our self, our self must be uncovered;
- To uncover our self, we must remove what is covering it;
- What is covering our self is that which inhibits our potential;
- The most apparent inhibitors of our potential are social conventions, media noise and language;
- To remove these inhibitors, we must take care to select and follow our own path – not the path of others (social conventions); we must allocate our attention away from media sources (media noise) that would attempt to steal it; and we must define words (language) for our self, such as wealth, success and happiness… oh yes, and to define concepts such self-improvement…
“I went to a bookstore and asked the saleswoman, ‘Where’s the self-help section?’ She said if she told me, it would defeat the purpose.” ~ George Carlin
Now that we have come to a place where my thoughts should end and yours should begin, I offer my conclusion to our logical path:
I submit to you that there is no such thing as self-improvement – only varying degrees of self-discovery: This process of discovering who you are consists primarily of eliminating who you are not and, thereby, uncovering your true self…
What do you think?
Can the self be improved? Why or why not? What is it, really, that is being “improved” – our self or our actions? Could it be that the concept of self-improvement, and the broader “self-help movement,” is an oxymoron or a paradoxical pursuit that does more to distract us than to “help” us?
Should not the matters of the self originate from the self? Is this all just semantic nonsense or should we at least think differently now when we see the term self-improvement?
Written by Kent N. Thune, author of The Financial Philosopher.
Image by Sir Mervs
Very interesting article.
When we change our thoughts or our actions we are improving our quality of life, the way we see our self and the way others see us.
I do believe that self-improvement could be described as self-discovery and willingness to change in order to create the life we desire.
“Self” is You. I believe self-improvement is simply improving yourself. Now we all know there is nothing simple about improving yourself. Which “Self” do you start with? Mind, Body, or Soul. Once you pick one, how do you go about improving it, Soul is supposed to be perfect? Yes/No? Or can the soul be made into something else? Mind can change and the body can change but what is the “Self” that lead to the problem in the first place.
I see where you would come up with this question, I am going to stop now, it is a paradox. But I will simple have to take the literal meaning of Self-Improvement.
Cheers,
-Tabs
I find the question “Is There Really Such a Thing as ‘Self Improvement’?” really to general to be accurately answered.
One can improve himself at mathematics, he can improve at sports, there’s really much room for improving the self, in everything.
If a person wears the “improvement mask”, after some time the mask becomes him. I don’t think that this implies self-discovery, at least not at a conscious level.
Self improvement is based on the illusion that there is something you can improve. As long as a person has not discovered the ’self’ there is actually a game that can be played – we call it ’self improvement’.
It will lead to different experiences until a point where a person may realize that everything is actually an illusion. At that point the game comes to an end.
Cheers
Thomas Herold
CEO Dream Manifesto
http://www.dreammanifesto.com
This is a really interesting discussion. I love metaphysics.
Basically I would say that self improvement is improving the self.
To me, the self is an illusion, or more correctly: the notion that there is a part of us that is separate and distinct from our physical form, and which we call the self, is nothing more than an epiphenomena caused by various chemical and electrial stimuli on the brain. I seem to remember from my student days that there was once a lab experiment performed to show this effect.
Therefore to improve the body through exercise or one’s mental faculty through study is also to improve the self as there is no difference.
Very interesting article – but my simple piece of suggestion is, unless the wisdom of the east sinks in (that your self is already ripe and complete), it is better to be practical and try to improve the tangible faculties of your mind and body – That the soul is already perfect is not soemthing you realize yourself, but is a thought that you are inheriting from someone who in turn claims to have realized it…there is a saying in ancient Indian scriptures – Those who have realized (the self) never ever speak about it, and those who do speak (about the self), have actually not yet realized anything about it! So no harm working on your known self (mind, body) and let the unknown self (soul) blossom when it pleases to…
I prefer the term Personal Growth – Self-Improvement implies a negative to positive movement (a bad thing that needs improvement). I also don’t believe that people change. We basically stay who we are just more or less intensely.
With Personal Growth there is no judgment. Growth is a natural thing – everything does it in the universe, including the universe itself! And the word Personal means that we focus on ourselves – we don’t try to change others – we only look at how we can grow as individuals.
Cheers,
Alex
Thanks to Peter and PickTheBrain for publishing my post and to everyone for the thought provoking comments…
Overcoming: I like your idea that self-improvement is “improving the quality of our life.”
Tabs: Your division of mind, body and soul looks quite interesting. Where did you get that or did you simply “acquire” it sometime in your life? Personally, I believe that the self is made up of mind and soul, which are both spiritual (in the true definition of the word), and the body is simply an “extension” of the self. As you may deduct, much of my thinking on the self comes from Rene Descartes, who famously said, “I think — therefore, I am.”
Constantin, Thomas & Andrew: I agree that we often wear “masks” before others and to ourselves and that we often become the mask, which, in my humble opinion, is actually an illusion. The self is “covered,” as I stated in the post…
Vel: I love the ancient Indian thoughts on the self. Can you possibly let me know where to read more on that? I would be interested to read more. Thanks…
Alex: I agree with your idea that, as you say, “We basically stay who we are just more or less intensely.” I like that. Thanks…
Kent (The Financial Philosopher)
Don’t you consider the process of self discovery to be parallel to the idea of self-improvement?
I think the concept is being taken a bit too literally. We do not actually improve as a ‘person’. I believe self-improvement is the idea of continually trying to understand one’s self better.
However, I do not believe the self-discovery process does not eliminate who you are not. There is not one person who we are. We are an animal whose greatest trait is our ability to adapt. Adaptation is a constant process. It changes over time, as do we.
Can we really improve? I think in our own mind, yes. We can definitely improve by taking control of life and going after what WE want, and not what is available.
This is a process that continues forever. There is no point where you will be ‘improved’ and stop adapting. Change is inevitable, so therefore it is how you change that matters.
http://yinvsyang.com/
Pete:
First, I’ll reply to your question, “Don’t you consider the process of self discovery to be parallel to the idea of self-improvement?”
Yes. Only to the degree that both pursuits could be making the attempt at the same end. I’ll take my reply a bit farther and answer your question with a few more questions: Do you believe that something can be discovered by improving it? How can one “improve” something that is not known to them? I will agree that we can continue toward reaching our potential; but our “potential” is the discovery — it can not be improved because it represents the ultimate extent of possibilities. We can not improve our self but we can improve our actions, which will hopefully be designed to pursue our potential — our self.
I’ll also caveat my response, as well as my post, that only an individual can define what “self-improvement” is to them; therefore, I will not impose my ideas onto others.
Regarding your comment, “However, I do not believe the self-discovery process does not eliminate who you are not.” I partially agree, which is why I describe the process as “uncovering” our true self. Perhaps I should invent a new term — self-uncovery! I do believe that one can certainly “discover” something by uncovering it. Our self is covered with physical world inhibitors, such as social conventions. Uncovering our self is not different than digging up a treasure that has been slowly but surely buried over time (we are closest to our self at early childhood and the self is slowly covered as we “learn” social conventions)…
I will also partially disagree with your idea that “we are animals.” Of course, we are animals, but humans have the ability to reason — to think about our thinking. Other animals can certainly “think” but I do not believe they ponder “why” they think certain ways (fortunately for them).
As I stated in the post, I certainly will not tell anyone that what they believe is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong…
If I succeed at anything with this post, I hope to succeed at provoking others to form, or at least clarify, their own idea of self-improvement, as well as their own definition of words.
By the way, thoughts such as yours help me to clarify my own thoughts! My readers at The Financial Philosopher certainly have helped me to form my thoughts on self-improvement…
Thanks, Pete…
Kent (The Financial Philosopher)
@ Pete:
I agree completely with you, which is why I prefer growth to improvement – a tree never stops growing right up until it dies.
Alex:
I like your metaphor of the tree. The tree “never stops growing” because it is constantly moving toward its potential. Taken farther, I would say that the tree cannot make itself grow — it cannot “improve” itself — its design is ideal.
Thanks for adding to the discussion. I am certainly learning from everyone here…
Kent (The Financial Philosopher)
Kent, I use the word “self improvement” simply because the term is widely used — but on the whole I agree with you.
In Japan, we have this notion that each of us are born with our “cup.” The cup is the idea of what we are meant to be or what we are capable of — the fully realized self. But it’s not the same thing as how much of it we have filled.
Traditionally, we use the concept to describe the capacity of a person to bear big and/heavy responsibilities. As in, if someone’s been given a leadership role that’s clearly more than he/she feels comfortable to, we describe that situation as “that responsibility was too big for her cup.”
But I’d like to think more in terms of what we are meant to do and not, as opposed to big=better paradigm. As you point out, for example, the finding and pursuit of one’s passion is very much a discovery. You don’t make yourself have passion for something. You find out, by trial and error combined with self-analysis and intuition. In the above example, I would not describe the above as “his/her cup was not big enough” but rather, he/she wasn’t meant for that role.
Anyway, my 2 cents was that my tradition embraces the concept of self-discovery you are proposing here. We have a cup, and in life we’re trying to fill more and more of it.
ari
Ari:
Yours are outstanding thoughts. I especially like the idea, as you say, “We have a cup, and in life we’re trying to fill more and more of it.”
Thanks…
Kent
If you don’t call improving yourself ’self-improvement’, what do you call it?
“Today’s idea of self-improvement suggests that the self can “improve” the self. If this were true, then the self would naturally continue to improve itself until it had achieved perfection, which, arguably, is not possible.” This statement makes sense until perfection is viewed as something infinitely from where we are. We can spend our whole lives moving towards a goal infinitely ahead of us and never reach it. Paradoxically, one being can progress futher than another towards an infinitely far spot and yet they are both still an infinity away!
Pol:
As I stated in the post, I believe “our potential is not infinite but that it is much greater than our understanding; therefore, the self is not something that can be improved but something that we should seek to understand or know…”
Humans are finite creatures. As far as my mind can stretch, it seems only that an only infinite being could “understand” infinity or perfection.
I am not quick for an example, but I would imagine most people can think of a personal experience where they surpassed their own expectations. I believe this is a case where the individual surpassed their understanding of their potential (self) but not their true potential or true self.
As for your comment, “We can spend our whole lives moving towards a goal infinitely ahead of us and never reach it,” I would respectfully reply that there is nothing wrong with this pursuit, especially if your view is like mine — that the pursuit IS the goal or reward — it’s the journey, not the destination. Otherwise, we may continue chasing rewards, such as happiness, and never really reach them because we keep extending them… This is the proverbial “carrot” that we chase.
But I digress…
As von Goethe said, “What is important in life is life, not the result of life.”
Thanks for provoking thought…
Kent (The Financial Philosopher)
Jarrod:
The quick answer to your question is that I believe “the self” cannot be “improved;” therefore, “self-improvement,” as conventional wisdom will define it, is a misnomer…
What others call “self-improvement” I may call “self-discovery.” The means to the end is the same but the end to the respective means are different. Self-improvement suggests that the self needs improvement — Self-discovery suggests the self does not need improvement — it only needs to be discovered, uncovered, found, actualized or realized, however one wishes to describe it.
As I stated in the post, I believe that “the self” is best described as our potential, which is something that represents only possibilities — not impossibilities.
Ari’s comment (#12), from the perspective of Japanese philosophy, expresses this idea quite well…
Thanks for the thoughts…
Kent (The Financial Philosopher)
Thanks Kent I follow,
I agree that self discovery is a more accurate term. I guess after awhile I got used to considering discovering more about myself as an improvement. Which from one point of view is correct, from another not so correct.
What a fascinating discussion! I’ve been a big fan of “self-help” literature for years (albeit a closet one for the longest time, until I decided to come out and started my self-help blog).
However, I’m not a big fan of the term self-improvement, and prefer to look at it as self-growth and self-empowerment instead.
The idea, to me is to find tools that help me/us live a happier, more fulfilled, more self-actuated life. Also to grow in self-acceptance and, yes, self-love. That’s one of the toughest lessons for a lot of us to learn.
I always have to smile when they go through that routine on airplanes just before departure, where they demonstrate the safety equipment and then tell us very clearly to make sure our own oxygen masks are securely fastened before we assist other passengers! And I know you know why they tell us that.
And sure, there may be a few skills whose improvement will really help us get closer to and even reach our goals, dreams, better relationships, etc.
But it’s not so much that the “self” is faulty. We just grow. I’m with Alex here, and I LOVE his tree metaphor!
To add another metaphor: Toddlers are not defective when they cannot yet walk properly. It’s part of the growth process that they learn and get better with practice etc. Good thing they won’t need any self-help lit to learn to walk though…
Elisabeth
http://www.MyFavoriteSelfHelpStuff.com
Elisabeth:
Thanks for the comment! I especially agree with your implying that children are not lacking in their abilities.
In fact, I believe that children are closer to their “self” than most adults! In my humble opinion, especially as a father of two young boys, children are not obstructed by social conventions and have not “learned” how to live in the “real world,” which is a wonderful kind of profound wisdom. Because of this, they are not afraid to reveal their naked minds, naked bodies and naked feelings before world… until they are “taught” to be otherwise…
For most of us, it requires “unlearning” of what we have learned to get back to the “self” that we once were.
If you are interested in more of these thoughts, here is a link to a post called, “The Deconstruction of Social Convention and The Unlearning Process:”
http://financialphilosopher.typepad.com/thefinancialphilosopher/2008/06/the-process-of-unlearning.html
“All children are artists. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up.” ~ Pablo Picasso
Thanks again for your thoughts…
Kent (The Financial Philosopher)
I would recommend Robert Antony’s book ‘Beyond Positive Thinking’ for an interesting discussion of this point.
In a sense, the self cannot be improved, and yet we do need to keep moving forward – people clearly do succeed or fail. They are sill complete as human beings, but they have not actualized their goals. But then again, as soon as a goal is realized another one takes its place!
A great article!
Michael:
Thanks for the book recommendation! I also appreciate your observation that “as soon as a goal is realized another one takes its place!”
I believe the problem that most people have is that they confuse goals with rewards. Most of us are chasing rewards, which are short-term and quickly consumed. Our appetite for more, naturally, returns and will have us seeking the next reward. This is the rat-brain mentality — the rat race itself.
If we are careful to establish goals, which are typically long-term and longer-lasting in nature, we may remove ourselves from the rat race. Of course, self-awareness and contentment are also required in this endeavor but that is another conversation!
Thanks again for your thoughts…
Kent (The Financial Philosopher)
This is a thought provoking article. For me, I’ve never been too concerned about labeling and definitions, but you bring up some good points and have started my thinking about it. I guess I’m pretty basic but, regardless of the term or category, if the topic interests me and seems useful I seek more information. At the end of the day, I think it is, as you mention, self-discovery…and just the word “discovery” suggests a bit of a thrill as part of the journey. Thanks for the article.
Laurie:
Your observation that “discovery” connotes “a bit of thrill as part of the journey” is well-said. Part of my thought process leading to my idea of “self-discovery” was another thought process regarding the balance of “responsibility and adventure.”
Here’s a link to the post on these thoughts:
http://financialphilosopher.typepad.com/thefinancialphilosopher/2008/07/responsibility-accidents.html
“We have to recognize accident, i.e., the fact that there is no formula, no ‘principle’, which covers all things; that there is no totality or system of things. And this recognition at once supports a life of ‘responsibility and adventure’ and leads to scientific discovery.” ~ John Anderson
Thanks for your thoughts…
Kent (The Financial Philosopher)
Perhaps it is just a case of semantics. But I definitely see where you’re coming from. I like the idea that self-improvement is basically just self-discovery. It’s not so much that our ’self’ improves; it’s more about us becoming more conscious/aware of the self and consequently improving our perception of it. Great article!
Thanks, Eugene…
I believe you frame my case quite well (and quite concisely)! The issue here is at least partially semantics, but that could be the biggest problem: There are many who see ‘the self’ as something that is flawed and it is my opinion that social conventions, media noise and language are telling us this.
If we can become the master of language, we may take a significant step toward becoming the master of our self…
“Man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man.” ~ Martin Heidegger
Thanks again for your thoughts…
Kent (The Financial Philosopher)
7 months of self discovery. 3 months in I speak with a counsler for the first time. Due to some events in my childhood I never fully developed the inner child to a point where I was self aware of it. The 4 session I had were amazing.
THEN I read this and follow your steps, uncovering, uncovering and WHAMO! It hits me. It only took 3 minutes, but, I had 6 months of self discovery notes to refer to while doing this.
If I could give you a hug right now I would.
Marc:
Wow! What a powerful comment! Your “hug” has been received! I appreciate your personal experience of “uncovering.”
I am certainly no PhD but the study of philosophy has opened my mind to the ideas of self-awareness reflected in this post.
I wish you well in your recovery and “uncovery!” Please be my guest at my blog, The Financial Philosopher, which urges readers that the key to financial success is also the key to success in ALL areas of our lives — Self-awareness.
For an introduction, try this blog post that is related to the re-discovery of your inner child:
http://financialphilosopher.typepad.com/thefinancialphilosopher/2008/06/the-process-of-unlearning.html
“It is a pity that, as one gradually gains experience, one loses one’s youth.” ~ Vincent van Gogh
…but it does not need to be this way…
Thanks again for the comment. Consider yourself hugged in return…
Kent (The Financial Philosopher)
The self, IMO, is nothing more or less than a point of reference. For example, if I say, “I am a baker.” The identity baker does entirely describe “I”. Instead, it is a reference to the person and the activity of baking.
What I consider to be my self is a particular point of reference that I have repeated over and over. It is only through repetition that the self gains a sense of permanence or absolute-ness. I disagree entirely with you that the self is something static that exists prior to any change. Where does such a place exist? If that were so, people would have a complete sense of self when they are babies.
So, in regards to self-improvement, what we are improving is really from where we reference who we are. People generally seek information about self-improvement when their reference point sucks. The truth is that you can reference any point at any given time and, through repetition, it will become the self.
I think a lot of people get stuck in the seeking aspect of who they are. They keep looking for a guru, a book or a new program that has all the answers, but they never find the One. By doing so, their sense of self begins to evaporate. They become a self-improvement chameleon. They eventually give up and accept whatever they were to begin with.
In that sense, I commend you for looking at what is we are trying to improve. I think if more people considered what a self really is, improving it would become a more simple and natural process.
Ned:
Thanks for the comment. I agree that, as you say, “if more people considered what a self really is, improving it would become a more simple and natural process.”
If this post achieves this point as you describe for someone out there then I am quite satisfied…
I must reply also to your disagreement:
You disagree that “the self is something static that exists prior to any change” and you ask, “Where does such a place exist? If that were so, people would have a complete sense of self when they are babies.”
I believe if you look at the word, “potential,” which I used as a word that could describe “the self,” the answer to your question could be found:
The self certainly can be something static. If it is our potential, then the self could be something greater than our understanding, especially if we do not fully comprehend our potential, which I believe to be true for most people. This static point exists far away and all we have to set our course or direction is the “reference point” you speak of… We “aim” for a general direction and “fine-tune” our aim as we “miss” the target — we learn and grow and come closer to our self as time progresses…
Thanks for provoking thought…
Kent (The Financial Philosopher)
Thank you for the golden present to the world. This is a lesson of a life time to know you are complete and don’t need any thing to improve self.
Self as it is is not subject to improvement in my opinion. Every thing is perfect in nature and you are part of it and perfect.
Just take a moment now, go deep inside you, you will notice that everything is perfect and in harmony with nature. The happiness as hard currency in life is naturally there. All you have to do is give it out to the world. Waiting to read more from you.
First, thanks Kent for this great article which has sparked this interesting discussion.
I see the “self” as simply an abstract term that is used to collectively describe all aspects of a person (the mind, body, and soul)…such as the term outfit collectively describes the pants, shirt, shoes, etc. all at once. So when someone mentions self-improvement it encompasses all aspects of the self, albeit they may be working on a particular aspect more than another at the moment…but I also don’t believe each area is separate from the other, in that you can work on one without affecting the others. For example, physical exercise obviously works the body, but can help bring mental clarity, and better over-all well-being (soul).
Personally, I don’t like the term self-discovery. I don’t like the idea that the self is something already perfect within us that we must search to uncover…or a potential that we must strive to reach, although we never will.
Instead I do like the term self-improvement. I don’t feel it implies that something is wrong and needs to be fixed. Only that one desires a change, that they happen to see as better than the previous/current state. Take the term home-improvement for example, it doesn’t necessarily mean that your home is bad, only that you feel it can be improved upon. Someone may want to remodel their kitchen; it doesn’t mean that their current cabinets are falling apart or that the stove no longer works. They could just want to “upgrade” and make it better – in their eyes. So a new stove wouldn’t be a necessity, but because of that innate human drive to always be better, we go to the store for a better one.
So again, just because something’s better, it doesn’t make the old one bad. It’s just that there’s always someone/something better. If someone holds an Olympic world record, but then someone breaks it, it doesn’t make the original person bad, just that someone has become better – which may drive them to be better than they were before in an effort to get the record back.
So I see self-improvement as a continuous cycle, an ongoing process of making one better today than they were yesterday, and then to be better tomorrow than today.
Self-discovery seems to imply striving towards a goal/potential that one can never reach…which to me sounds a bit defeating. But self-improvement can be seen as setting a goal to be better (even if only a little bit), reaching that goal, then setting another, and so on. So one is constantly setting and reaching goals, which makes one successful every step of the way, and in turn the journey and the destination merge in a wonderful way.
It’s no suprise to see that differnt people have defferent explanation of the word “Self”. To me Self is something that a word cannot fit. Each one of us can experience Self in a deferent way just like God.
To me Self is a powerful creator who creates the dody, the mind, the soul and so on, so it could experience it self, as God create the world and what is in it in order to experience itself. Do you notice that people take most of the creation of God as God. They are not 100% wrong because there is part of the creator in his creation. Self is intact and whole but improving what self has created is just like improving something that part of self occupies. I’m also listening to you.Talk back.
To me, the answer to the question, “Is There Really Such a Thing as ‘Self Improvement’?” will depend on 1) What the person believes the word self to define as, 2)what the person believes the word improvement to define as 3)if the person believes that self improvement is a means to and end. To be more specific, what can I improve about myself that can help me create “this” in my life? “This” I believe is a state change (of mind).
When a person utilizes the word self, I hallucinate that they are referring to the sum total of thoughts that they believe create the whole of who they are. We are what we believe, whether this belief is an illusion or not, we make it up by the way of our thoughts. The self is only as real as we think it to be. I believe that we are thoughts.
When utilizing the word improvement, we are evaluating the beliefs of what we think we need to improve to create a state of mind that we desire in that moment.
To get to the point, since we are thoughts, then what we really should be calling the subject is “thought improvement.” However, we as humans need to put a face on “it.” We need something tangible to visualize. So we call “it” self. Self is me. I need improvement. I need to change what I am doing to feel the way I think I want to feel. But, we cannot escape the essence of self, which I believe is thought.
So to answer the initial question, yes! Since we are thoughts, and the law of cause and effect does exist, thoughts are causes and our conditions or circumstances are the effect. So to improve your surrounding circumstances, which we create by the way of our thoughts, we must improve our thoughts.
Hope this helps!
Geroge