Does reading make you a superior person? I've been thinking

Superior in what sense?
To be academically successful you have to read a lot, so there's that.

>>9786173
However you define superior. I'm thinking wealth, status, and happiness.

>>9786181

Since we usually measure success insofar as we have X more than everyone else does, I'd say anything you do with compulsion makes you superior to others in that category of what you're doing, but that does not come without problems. What I'm getting it as, there is no success without a dark side, so is it really the same superiority you're thinking of?

>>9786181
I don't think reading would inherently make you more superior, I wish that was the case though.
Being well read is absolutely a positive trait, but many people have found success without it.

First you have to set up a principle which some humans, being closer to this principle, are superior to those who fail to even try to attain it and are measured by it.

>>9786197
The question I'm asking isn't whether study gives you superior knowledge in that particular area of interest, but whether people who read more broadly have a general knowledge that's useful in a variety of situations.

Let's say all other qualities being equal, does a person who reads philosophy and literature have better leadership skills than someone who doesn't? Is he better able to deal with problems?

>>9786225
Don't you think that studying philosophy would help you answer this question for yourself without turning to a minoan embroidery forum? Either it would or it wouldn't. And that's your answer.

>>9786306
I don't study philosophy. I mostly just read classic novels and pop psychology books.

>>9786158
the thing is, plenty of people read (more women read than men, but look at what they read - publishing stats, not anti-feminist meme shit) it's all romance and crap. That should tell you something.

It's not just about reading, it's about being driven to know shit and finding it out, then thinking about it and applying your knowledge. That's what.

Happiness and contentedness in life are arguably the only worthwhile measures of ""superiority"" in life (especially since they tend to lead to good things in wealth, status, etc.).
With that in mind, I definitely think reading cultivates those qualities. I would also consider that the mark of an inferior--and thus, sad/depressed--person is most likely to just let life happen to them in all facets: they never seem to be in control, and they're always just letting external things or their base desires lead the way.
Reading is one of the few forms of media that requires the consumer to put a lot of their "background" -- their prior knowledge of literature, their imagination to build faces/architecture/landscapes, their skill at reading between the lines, their ability to deduce conclusions, etc. -- into the piece of media in order to gain enjoyment from it (assuming it's a worthwhile piece of literature). Many/most other forms of media are spectacle-based, in comparison.

All of this is to say that since the reader must necessarily be an active participant in his activity -- and must, even in a halfway ideal scenario, build/shape/arrange the things and the concepts within their mind so as to make sense of what they're reading -- therefore, the reader has one leg up on the non-reader.

Of course, a non-reader can build up much of these traits without being a reader, and a reader's life can be in shambles in every way except via their reading. But I'd argue that on average, the skills and takeaways carry over at least to the point where readers might be more content with their lives.

Here's how I see it.

People set arbitrary goals for themselves. Using your picture as an example, you might want to run a race in under x seconds, or be able to bench press y kilograms and so on.

Reaching these goals brings you temporary happiness, but they are almost always inherently worthless goals because their purpose is self-reassurance in some sense narcissistic. Does it really matter if you improved some stat about yourself when it changes nothing in the world? No, these achievements are sociologically motivated. You look at yourself in the mirror and see that big bicep and you feel better about yourself in the most superficial way possible.

The same can be said of most hobbies, unless you somehow make a career out of them. However, when it comes to reading, even if you don't create anything, you're advancing civilisation simply through educating yourself. You're not a hermit, you engage with others, and by having educated opinions and interacting with others, you're causing progress to take place.

It also, in general, improves whatever else you're doing. Reading will bring a new perspective that can be applied to whatever other pursuits you follow.

>>9786352
I understand your argument for the social utility of knowledge, but you don't see any value in cultivating strength? To me strength is no different from beauty (and are often intertwined); they're valuable in and of themselves regardless of utility.

File: 1498404659362.jpg (27KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x375px

>>9786158
no, what makes you superior is lifting and eating pussy bro

>>9786440
>eating pussy
>cares about a woman's orgasm
>claims to be superior

>>9786158
Source on that thing?

>>9786951
Julie Foucher

>>9786947
yeah this eating pussy / ride my face guy that's always posting around here is so fucking beta, i mean it's fun to have a chick ride your face assuming she's slim and hot, but let's be real that's not anything an alpha guy is going to do, he's going to fuck her face and then bend her over and hammer until he nuts, his tongue is not going near a vag