What's so bad about self-improvement as a motto? Is it bad

File: Karikatur_Liszt.jpg (28KB, 469x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 469x300px

What's so bad about self-improvement as a motto? Is it bad because it's cliche, too popular, hollowed out and reduced to vanity? But "real" self-improvement still exists, right? What are the moral implications of using the same label for what can be both a vain and humble life philosophy? Would it be moral for the "real" self-improvement people to start using a different label?

What's the deal with cliches in general? They aren't in themselves intellectually toxic, it just seems like our minds, even or especially those of highly intelligent folks, mostly care about novelty instead of wisdom and living a moral life. I see it all the time on here, highly abstract ethical discussions rather than say how to achieve serenity or not worshipping mammon/pornography or seeking cheap thrills/glory or fighting Internet addiction or how to not care about other's uneducated opinion. Tell me /lit/ isn't this the poison making us suffer, diminishing our self-esteem, robbing us of time etc.? Shouldn't these get the most attention?

But it seems only the former is discussed by /lit/ whereas the latter is discussed by /adv/ and /pol/ and /fit/ etc. Why is it that well-read people abstain from the latter? Is it that they don't care or that they don't want to care? It seems to me like it's exactly the well-read people who have the most trouble with mastering themselves and fixing their lives and whatnot.

Just imagine if it were these moral illnesses which are discussed on lit and what could be achieved in just a short period of time. Instead we just get the next iteration of free will x determinism and shitty political theory. Don't get me wrong, I understand the format, but you can't deny that there is serious discussion going on here as well and that it's being squandered. S q u a n d e r e d.

Can you explain to me why things are the way they are? I'm a dummy.