I read a bunch, and of what I read, the stuff that has the most marked impact upon my perspective is generally nonfiction (i.e. science books, what I can understand of philosophy books and memoirs of people who have lived or currently live lives far different from mine).

Fiction absolutely has the ability to change one’s perspective, but I think it happens more subtly and encourages minor shifts in thinking, or enhances one’s current understanding of topics vague, vast and universal such as, say, love.

Nonfiction more drastically adds to one’s world view, informs more than fiction whose goal more often seems to be to primarily entertain.

Since I have graduated from school, I have had much more time and energy to devote to both fiction and nonfiction. Of these, it seems that nonfiction takes more time and concentration, perhaps because it is so informative and impactful.

The common thread in the nonfiction I have been reading since I have gained more free time is that of considering what the ideal life looks like as well as current societal obstacles in place.

One memoir concludes that the best kind of life is one free from the use of money.

Another maintains that a life completely away from other people is best.

A more densely philosophical book I am currently reading which does not directly answer the question of what an ideal life would be but is nonetheless related concludes that the issue is, well, a matter of perspective first and foremost.

The book is a critique of Humanism.

A paraphrased definition of Humanism is that it is a belief centered on the ability of humans to be moral without the aid of "theism or other supernatural beliefs."

I am not thoroughly informed on Humanism, but it seems that it is largely interested in the quality of human life, which seems laudable enough.

However, this book I speak of ("Straw Dogs") argues that it is egotistical to put humans first and for us to consider ourselves to be special or particularly different from other animals.

While the book is a bit extremist, it makes good points and forces one to consider certain previously unquestioned assumptions.

In particular, it invites one to step outside of the perspective that one adopts on a day-to-day basis.

By that, I mean that sometimes I find that I can get caught up in thinking about mundane things like work and money and plans for the future and, well, a number of self-centered things frankly.

But then I read things which do not have necessarily direct relevance to me and my life, but yet hold relevance in the grand scheme of things, which takes me out of my self-involved perspective for a bit.

And it is honestly refreshing.

Carl Sagan once described astronomy as a "humbling and character-building experience," and I can understand what he means by that, I think.

In examining such magnificent and enormous objects, one focuses on something outside of oneself while simultaneously realizing that humans aren't necessarily the most amazing creatures or things in existence.

It seems that especially in certain realms of science, like astronomy, humans matter little.

Some unpleasant event that seemed to eclipse all else in your life, some embarrassing moment or not getting a job you wanted or making a social faux pas, it dissolves into meaninglessness when you take a step back and realize that in relation to the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter.

Amongst all the other miraculous creatures and organisms on earth, sure, humans have their worth and their place, but it isn't on top of the food chain or some such nonsense. We are a part of life on this planet, perhaps this universe, not the rulers of it.

This was a bit of a ramble but what I am trying to say is don't take yourself too seriously and try to get out of your head a bit every now and then.

In our modern self-obsessed society, I think it does a world of good for one's peace of mind and sense of well-being to step back and consider the larger picture.