So yeah just finished "میں انمول", this is my just second book from the author, the first one was "جنت کے پتے" which I read long ago, I really liked her writing style. Main Anmol, honestly it's pretty great book for someone who's just been on the journey of self-help. It covered lot of nuances of inter personal relationships, interaction with society, parents and with own. Though it's not for someone who has been taking self-help for years (like myself) but simply cannot act out any action, practical vise I always feel paralyzed ;) and I think it simply corresponds to someone's personality that whether they are high in conscientiousness or not, not that someone has no boundaries or lack value systems, and listening to same-ass advice felt very repitative to me.
I'll first critically analyze the book from my own point of view, it's gonna be lot of criticism but it's only my opinion, it's purely subjective and I am for-giving the disclaimer that it shouldn't be true from your lens or anyone else. (I'm sure many has benefited from this, and that make me really appreciative of the book too) then I'll come again to the point that why I almost stopped reading self-help. Okay so first thing I felt like she has written the book from a very self-centered stance rather than self-help (doesn't apply to all the chapters but applies to many of the chapters). Self-centered (it's different from being selfish) in a sense that she makes us think that the self is the center of how we understand the world, but practically it's not the truth. Secondly, she writes it from a religious perspective, in every other chapter she vaguely tries to give hope of god and Quran, this made me feel I am not the right audience here, as someone who don't strictly practice religion. Thirdly she uses herself as an example everywhere, I mean yes, sure but a mind cannot conceive everything from her perspective which made most of the example totally irrelevant and unrelatable to me, I cannot relate to toxic people (honestly I think the only toxic person is one own self everyone else is the shadow we project ;) but I get her, she has wrote from a practical stance rather than theoretical, in theory there's no rulebook for life. My fourth point is that I felt like the book is indictive of this culture that pushes the rhetoric of "life rewards people who prioritize themselves" or "how people act is totally in their control, how you react us totally in your control", rather than thinking community and structure. it's not demonizing individual for systemic problems and ideas. It just gives self-help-hyper-individualistic vibes which isn't realistic. Politeness must be upheld, we all owe each other basic decency and manners at face value. The amount of people think honesty trumps everything and that me being polite and considering people's feeling is me being "fake" or "trying to people pleasing" and thinks that being honest and give your straightforward opinion is more important, see, being honest doesn't exempt you from being a bad person. Honesty has its time and place and cannot be used as a justification to say hurtful stuff. If we think about ethics as an inherent responsibility to others and as a top priority then it's not "fake" or "hypersensitive" to be nice for the sake of being nice, to want to consider other people's feeling even if they don't benefit us. So when I try to please a person it could be that I genuinely want to make them happy without wanting anything in return. However I really acknowledge that lot of self care sentiments come from people getting hurt and being taken advantage of when they were nice and kind to others. I get it, I had moments like that. I'm no way advocate for us to be people-pleasers or to tolerate unfair treatment. I know how much that sucks from personal experience. I can't ignore the fact that pressure to be nice disproportionately weighs on women, as a result of this, I've seen more women advocates for women "to stop being nice", "speak up for yourself". It's a common thought that assertiveness is outside the concept of womanhood that's why they feel oppressed. I completely support the fight to speak when you're being disrespected and to have feelings of frustration taken seriously. So it's totally relevant in these stances,how can anyone think of anything when they are fighting for themselves. ( That's why this self-help book is very audience specific, not everyone relate to it) and I am also very appreciative of the fact that she has brought up certain topics that are very universal and aren't audience specific one of them is "trauma", "work ethics", "self catharsis (through writing)", "being finance conscious" like I already said it's a great book from a practical stance but not from a narrative stance.
From a general point of view, one must look out to the world with a responsible mindset so that we can cultivate a mindset of care and kindness like "I hope I can be kind to you. I hope I don't hurt you and I want to be responsible for your well being." And this, "being responsible for someone else well being", it is the reason I have stopped consuming main stream self-help material cuz it's doesn't highlight and stress upon this point enough.
When I started reading philosophy, in the beginning I stumbled upon existentialism, those who read it probably know that this school of thought while give so much food for thought eventually unconsciously promotes the ideas such as "free individual", "protecting and maximizing the good use of "self-freedom", "individualistic thoughts" or "self as a starting point that moral choices are relied on individual rationality", "moral people have self-control over instincts" but as I delve deep into philosophy, I get introduced to another school id thought "phenomenology", I personally learn a lot and appreciate this one. basically what it implies is that anytime two conscious subjects come into contact, there's fundamental feeling of opposition to the other consciousness because they threaten your own ability to act totally free hence there always exists a desire to differentiate oneself from other conscious subjects, both subject struggle to impose one's will onto the other, to kind of capture the other under their control, thus the subject is treated to the world with a possessive mindset, the language we use to refer to the other things and other people becomes possessive and this all is instinctive and what's being moral in phenomenological sense is that when we face a human, the raw experience is extreme exposure, defenselessness, and vulnerability and we have free will to hurt the other at any moment. "We have ability to hurt comes first before getting hurt". Being responsible for others doesn't happen only when we owe people something. That responsibility is always there simply because we exist alongside others. Ethics isn't about autonomous individual acting out of obligation to each other, rather it flows out of experiencing the radical vulnerability and dependence of the other. It's "the other" that calls our being into question. People today talk about that you shouldn't become too dependent on others because you should be your own person, self-care and caring about others as seen as distinct acts, individual aren't isolated self-selves. Facing vulnerability, the mortality of the other is what individuates you, we aren't fundamentally free, we are fundamentally responsible (I am glad she actually pointed this out several times in the book, but sadly never made this a dominant narrative), one thing I want to make clear is that caring too much about groups turns us into flock of sheep ;) (so lookout for that one).
Let's also acknowledge that everyone wants and need validation, and recognition as social beings. With no external recognition, we will start to question "who we really are", we shouldn't rely totally on external validation but it's more than okay to deeply care what others think of you. After all we are human, not an unfinished project and we have to stay in the though seemingly meaningless loophole