Philosophy as Self Help?

In this essay (really a book review), Costica Bradatan makes this qualified claim:

A QUIET REVOLUTION may have taken place over the last three decades in our understanding of the history of Western philosophy ... {a revolution that has brought forth} {t}he realization that some of the most influential Western philosophers (primarily the ancient philosophers, but also Montaigne, Rousseau, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and others) intended their philosophy to be not just a body of doctrines, of pure intellectual content, but to be above all an “art of living.”

It's been 40 years since I last studied Philosophy in an academic setting, but I got into it expecting to learn exactly about how to live, or at least how to approach the question, and left it dissappointed to have been learning something else. I keep poking my head in the door, though, and I haven't seen any evidence that philosophy is being taught as "an art of living" any more now than it was then.

I'm sort of hoping someone will tell me I'm wrong about that.

I cannot speak to the way it is in Academia, but it is my understanding that these books by Foucault and Hadot have had a profound effect on the contemporary understanding:

The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: The Will to Knowledge
The History of Sexuality, Volume 2: The Use of Pleasure
The History of Sexuality, Volume 3: The Care of the Self
What Is Ancient Philosophy?

Perhaps Plato's Alcibiades I & II and the Meditations of Macus Aurelius would still be the best place for a young student to start his or her study. In antiquity, I believe it became customary in the schools of the Empire to begin a students philosophical study with Alcibiades. (Possibly not both of them; - I no longer recall.) And then the contemporary student could turn to Montaigne and Rousseau (as mentioned in the quote above) before tackling Hadot and Foucault.

I will leave aside the question of academia and add two more recommendations:

The Consolations of Philosophy

Fun little romp through some of the figures mentioned in the quote above. Each chapter covers the thoughts of one philosopher concerning a particular matter that requires consolation. For example, the third chapter is Consolation for Inadequacy and covers Montaigne. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and some ancient philosophers also have chapters.

Philosophy as a Way of Life

Also by Hadot. Separate essays, mostly covering Marcus Aurelius. There is, if I recall correctly, one essay on Foucault and a couple others on Goethe.

Thought of two more:

Foucault, His Thought, His Character

Philosopher as gadfly.

The Foucault Reader

Take a look at the essay "What is Enlightenment?"

I took a university philosophy class a couple of years ago that seemed more interested in reducing philosophy to a series of mathematical formulae of reasoning then actually taking an interest in how to reason or how to live a worthwhile life. But I do agree that a kind of quiet revolution is happening in the way philosophy is being interpreted by the average person.

In the early 20th century, philosophers were afraid that philosophy was losing its place in society due to the leaps and bounds that science was making. So, in a attempt to stay relevant, philosophers tried to make philosophy more "scientific". It was called the "logical positivism" school of philosophy, and it has held sway in the western world for the lion's share of the 20th century: hence the "mathematical" philosophy class I endured 2 years ago. Unfortunately, all this school of thought really did was marginalize philosophy into a eccentric specialization that contributed nothing to society, and only served to feed the perception that philosophy was a "dead" discipline.

By the late 20th century atheism was at its height, and we were experiencing all the intellectual freedoms that liberalism had promised. But a lot of people began to feel like something was missing from their lives and began to "shop for religion". Interest in eastern religions was on the rise, and others returned full force to the religion of their youth: hence the rise in fundamentalism. The trouble with re-embracing religion is that religion limits the possibility of spiritual growth by insisting that there is only one way to live a worthwhile life, and condemns ethical solutions that didn't originate within it's own history. Enter holy war: stage right.

People are beginning to realize that philosophy may be the only way to avoid both spiritual bankruptcy and radical fundamentalism. Religious philosophy is a branch of philosophy, so spiritual concerns don't go ignored, but philosophy also teaches that there is more than one way to live a worthwhile life, and encourages people to explore both religious and secular ideas (as well as spiritual and sensual philosophies), preaching tolerance of all view points and ideas at the same time.

Now the real question is: "how long is it going to take academia to catch up?".

>4 Gail.C.Bull:

You say "People are beginning to realize that philosophy may be the only way to avoid both spiritual bankruptcy and radical fundamentalism."

I don’t think this is altogether accurate. Most people are ignorant of philosophy and its history. Most people don’t care about it. I suspect that most people simply act and react to situations, and the beliefs they hold do not cover the multitude of contingencies and dilemmas thrown their way. However, I do think that people are guided by values that have their basis more in emotion, upbringing and personal temperament to a far greater degree than many of us would allow.

I think Jonathon Haidt in his recent book The Righteous Mind: Why Good people are Divided by Politics and Religion hits the nail on the head in arguing that people are guided more by their emotions in decision making. Reason, for the overwhelming majority if not for all of us, is something that usually comes after the emotional fact implicit in our judgements. It rationalises our love, disgust, hatred etc., often turning them into beliefs about the way the world is. This is why many religions and political ideologies have things that are held in contempt, such as notions of impurity, political incorrectness or desecration. These things have their origins in something more primal and visceral. When such beliefs become institutionalised as orthodox, there can be severe consequences for those who may express a different emotional response. They become the dissenters and reformers, or the heretics. They have been the persecuted ones, the outsiders, the "others".

It seems to me that a richer, gentler, more diverse approach to living and appreciating life can be found among artists rather than philosophers. They are people who rely on imagination and creativity to find meaning and purpose in their lives. There has been a long-standing rivalry between philosophy and the arts in Western culture. The distrust of poetry and music within the philosophy camp goes back to Plato’s (or Socrates’) teachings. However, the idea that art can teach wisdom also has its roots in classical culture, such as Longinus’ On the Sublime. Looking forward in time we see that very old ideas about poetry were revived in the Renaissance, namely, that poetry could both delight and teach its readers, as Horace put it.

Think of all the great secular wisdom literature produced in the Western tradition. We have George Eliot’s Middlemarch, the novels of Jane Austen, the essays of Montaigne, the works of Shakespeare. Think also of someone like Franz Kafka whose stories, parables and aphorisms which, according to the critic Harold Bloom, "go beyond Proust and Joyce in arming us with a spirituality in no way dependent on belief or ideology". And I invoke Emerson's praise of Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass as "the greatest piece of wit and wisdom yet composed by an American". You could probably compose your own list. The point is that philosophy is not the only way.

I admire the discipline of philosophy in its disposition toward playing devil's advocate. It tries to consider as many refutations to a proposition as possible in order to have those refutations defeated and the proposition validated. That's great! But I also think that philosophy attracts people who are looking for singular answers to many of the questions and exigencies they face in life. This can be a benefit to them, but also a huge danger and temptation. The danger is in settling for a story, theology or ideology that offers a single, prescribed solution in one neat little package, so all the thinking is done for us and we can close our minds to contradictory ideas.

The lesson we can learn from the arts is not to panic and not reach for some ready-made, formulaic explanation or ideology, like some drowning person clutching at a piece of driftwood. Poets each in their own way offer something that comes before polemics: a sense of direction, a place to stand where we won’t be overwhelmed by the pressure of reality limiting our imagination. In this way we can think of new possibilities, solutions and perspectives.

I really like the advice of Adrienne Rich: “If the imagination is to transcend and transform experience it has to question, to challenge, to conceive of alternatives, perhaps to the very life you are living at that moment. You have to be free to play around with the notion that day might be night, love might be hate; nothing can be too sacred for the imagination to turn into its opposite or to call experimentally by another name. For writing is renaming”.

This is why I prefer literature to philosophy, although I concede that some philosophies can also be read in the same way as powerful fiction, even if that was never the philosopher's original intention.

I leave it to others -- who may actually have seen been there -- to supply the exact wording, but I have heard that the inscription on the grave of Dr Karl Marx it says something like "Philosophers have explained the world. It is up to us to change it." May my computer not be stricken with lightning at the mention of that worthy PhD. Perhaps some will prefer -- not that I consider it contradictory at-all -- Samuel Johnson's remark that in his youth he had considered a career as a philosopher, but cheerfulness kept breaking in. Merry Christmas to all! -- Goddard

>5 GoodKnight:: I whole-heartedly agree with your argument in favour of the arts, and especially literature. But almost all of the works you mention are written by people who had a classical education: an education which would've included a study of philosophy.

If an artist creates a work based entirely on emotion, without a use or knowledge of reasoning, then what you end up with is art that has the same emotional knee-jerk reaction that plagues religion and politics. I mean, can you honestly imagine speaking of E.L. James in the same way you talk of Jane Austen? James wrote 50 Shades of Grey because she met someone who told her he practiced s & m and she was so confused as to why someone would engage willing in that lifestyle that she wrote a book declaring that all s & m practitioners must be psychologically damaged: a purely emotional response with no reasoning skills is the only thing that could've produced that book.

Ultimately, it is the combination of arts and philosophy that produces the best and most humane ideas and works of literature. I suppose you could say that the best works of literature are produced by those who are fully-developed both morally and intellectually. People with both an average or high E.Q and average or high I.Q. and the education (either formal or self-directed) to make the most of those natural gifts.

In Mastering Yang Style Taijiquan, the translator says:
“Another Neo-Confucian sentiment is expressed in the "Classical" phrase about the need for "an exertion of effort over time" (yong li zhi jiu). "Yongli," ironically, means literally to "use strength" and is the same compound as that in the famous Taiji aphorism, "Use mind, not strength (yongyi, buyong li)." The meaning here, though, is to exert effort in self-examinination and study. Zhu Xi used the phrase in a moral sense. Metzger quotes the Neo-Confucian philosopher Wang Yangming, who said that to grasp the distinction between "heavenly principle and selfish desire," one "must constantly exert oneself (yong li) to examine oneself, overcome egotism, and master one's feelings; only then can one gradually gain some moral understanding." It is significant that in an art that stresses non-exertion, we find a similarly strong exhortation to exert oneself in the cultivation of one's self.”

This sounds very much like one definition of jihad that the Prophet favored.

A very young Mao Zedong once urged the Chinese people to “civilize the mind and make savage the body.” This is what tens of millions of Chinese are doing in their spare time while Americans sit on their asses, drinking beer and downing hot dogs and chips.

Philosophy is self help. It is all about thinking how the world works and it is a good way at resolving issues. I personally have found philosophy a good way at making sense of myself, other people and events that have happened in my life

I applaud steve.clason for raising the issue about the task of philosophy. Please do not let this essential topic die. "How to live, or at least how to approach the question," as he put it, are some of the most prominent questions humans have - and often fail to answer to their satisfaction. These questions are part of a more general question about purpose. All other issues and their resolution, as important as they may be, seem to be mere tools subordinated to their use for such purpose.

I believe academic philosophy carries essential responsibility in helping humans and humanity find purpose and conforming practices and requires a great deal of constructive criticism to make it relevant. And I also believe that such relevance is sorely needed in a world with continuing error and consequential horror. Philosophy that found its way into popular convictions, or only the convictions of popular leaders, certainly can be blamed for some of that error and horror. But its failures must not obstruct the insight that it is the only means we have to elevate ourselves and humankind in the long run.

I recently founded a publishing label, Palioxis Publishing, whose declared mission is the advancement of practically relevant philosophy. On its website, you can find an excerpt of circa 10 pages about the state and responsibility of academic philosophy and suggestions of how to give it the necessary relevance in human pursuits (http://www.palioxis.com/philosophy.html). I also have spent over six years of intense philosophical examination "how to live, or at least how to approach the question." The result is a recently published book called Philosophy of Happiness (http:/www.philosophyofhappiness.com). The book breaks with philosophical tradition and constitutes a complete reexamination from the ground up. It may therefore not meet with much approval from authorities that make their living reveling in philosophical tradition without developing beyond. My imprint may be similarly viewed by them. I suspect change to render academic philosophy more relevant - if it should ever be accomplished - would have to be mainly pursued by people not vested in its status quo. The welfare if not the survival of many humans and humanity may depend on such change. Groups like this may take on an important function in that context.

Please let me know what you think. - Martin Janello

For those among us acknowledging that or wondering whether academic philosophy is lacking in providing practical guidance, I would like to refer you to a scathing self-criticism of academic philosophy by a philosophy professor (!). In a truly remarkable comment (COMMENT #4) that I think hits the nail on the head, Daniel A. Kaufman of Missouri State gives a succinct summary of the state of philosophy: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2012/10/why-the-new-york-review-of-each-ot...

A must-read for anybody interested in the state of philosophy.

Thanks for the link.

I think the best kind of philosophy has always been self help. I remember reading Jungian theories and found them very helpful in helping define who I was as a person. In recent years I have found certain self help books like The Jetstream of Success and The Alchemist have used philosophy to explain their central tenets

I would caution, though, not to confuse the "philosophy" someone applies as a justifying adjunct to sell you on an idea that was otherwise derived with a philosophical approach that declares its premises and goes where scientific philosophical exploration takes it. That can be a difficult distinction to admit if we like the claims and justifications proffered to us as philosophy.