Many books believe they know how you should live. But each book disagrees with the next. In "How to Live", each chapter believes it knows how you should live. And each chapter disagrees with the next.

One chapter makes a compelling argument for why you should be completely independent, keeping all options open. The next chapter argues why you should commit to one career, one place, and one person.

One chapter persuades you to be fully present, and experience each moment. The next, to delay gratification and invest for the future.

Which one is right? Which does the author believe? All of them. It's a philosophy of conflicting philosophies.

A very unique and thought-provoking book. Meant for reflection as much as instruction.

113 incredibly succinct pages of profound insights. No philosophers are quoted. No -isms are named. Only actionable directives. The end result feels more like poetry than prose.