One of the aims of this weblog is to help people become aware of philosophy and its benefits, especially the benefits of having a philosophy of living, especially a religious philosophy, especially one centered on truth, beauty, and goodness. But there are dangers of philosophy, too. Here are some of them.
Bad philosophy can lead people into serious blunders. In my own case, I have seen this during my infatuation with Nietzsche. I lost my religion, then my moral compass, then my sanity. And I have seen others come to grief by embracing philosophies lacking any sturdy moral and spiritual anchor. Hard lessons.
Philosophy leads beyond itself—to wisdom, and wisdom is (as Socrates understood) a quality of God. The qualities of divinity lead to Deity. Truth, beauty, and goodness are not Deity, and when pursued abstractly they can fail to maintain their life.
Philosophy can encourage a tendency to think, talk, and write too much. That this was true in my own case came as a huge insight the first time I visited the Toronto Zen Center and sat zazen. The realization came with a touch of humor: “I am a windbag.” I have recently faced some personal growth challenges that cannot be resolved by the philosophy I have built up over the years: they can only be dissolved by following.
One danger is to expect too much of philosophy. Within the realm of discourse, philosophy has remarkable power; but in life, religion is more powerful by far. One day decades ago when our family were privileged to spend two years in Toronto, my beloved wife told me that she was pregnant. I was in my forties, out of work, with a wife and young son to support, spending a lot of our savings in order to study at the University of Toronto in hopes of a successful return to the academic job market. What should we do? Obviously that was a question that Hagiko and I needed to discuss and decide together, but I needed to prepare my contribution to that conversation. For three days I spun around, lost in confusion. I had previously taught a brief unit on the abortion debate a couple of times in applied ethics courses, and I had clarified my own policy on the matter, a policy that was not identical to that of the Pope, but pretty close. My present situation was nowhere near any of the extreme cases in which I thought abortion might responsibly be considered. But all of a sudden, my theory did not hold me; it was flapping around in tatters in the wind of the existential situation in which I found myself. On the third day I made my decision. I knew what I wanted my life to count for: the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man—the family of God. And it was intuitively inconsistent with that supreme commitment to propose an abortion. As it turned out, no pregnancy materialized, but I had learned an important truth. Intellectual philosophy was comparatively powerless compared to spiritual religion.
I will mention one more danger of philosophy. In my studies I have seen the tendency of philosophers to formulate intellectual systems that take the life out of truth. Here are seven features of this emerging philosophy of living that reduce that danger.
Truth itself is alive, and so are beauty and goodness. The most elusive goal to be met in a philosophy of living is the need for life. Religion recognizes the human need for abundant life; but what can a text do? Insofar as it is a formulation of an intellectual system, it is a dying artifact. Philosophy and theology have indeed tended to formulate systems whose animating insights get encrusted in static concepts interesting only to specialists. Nevertheless, the greatest systems are still studied because the authors embraced tensions, kept reformulating their positions, cared more for fidelity to the real than for easy consistency, and, in some cases, wrote dialogues instead of expositions. To be sure, life is not found in a human product, but it is found in persons. In several ways a philosophy of living may hope to be more true to life.
First, a philosophy supports life by featuring concepts in the fullest and richest sense of the term, including spiritual value as well as intellectual meaning. One can acquire ideas as fast as one can read a page with understanding, but to acquire a concept may take years of struggle. Concepts are formed through experience, and persons with different experiences will form different concepts. Ingredient in a concept are also the virtues acquired in coping with the challenges along the path to forming that concept. And concepts have a spiritual dimension as well as an intellectual dimension.
Second, a philosophy retains vitality by honoring the mystery of personality. For all that we may ever comprehend of truth and beauty and goodness, personality remains beyond our grasp. Personality is unique. It is recognizable, but it exceeds our ability to wrap our mind around it. Who could define a friend, let alone a stranger? Uniqueness cannot be subjected to a formula. The body can be known, the mind can be understood, but the personality transcends these.
Third, a philosophy keeps vital by recalling that experience does not arrive in neat packages, for life is not systematic. Our basic distinctions—truth, beauty, goodness—indicate themes that are interrelated. Life blends what the intellect distinguishes.
Fourth, there is something to learn from the history of applied ethics beginning in the 1960s. Initially it seemed to be a subdiscipline of ethics that would take ethical theories, such as Kantian or utilitarian theory, and apply them to cases in business, medicine, and the like. Given confidence in the theory to be applied, the work should have been straightforward. However, the tangles of particular problems prompted further refinement of theory. Thus theory and practice were seen to inform each other, which kept theory alive and prepared a revival of Aristotelian virtue ethics. A cardinal virtue is practical wisdom. In Aristotle’s ethics, practical wisdom encompasses all manner of fine discrimination pertaining to a host of matters. To feel the right emotion at the right time to the right degree, to execute a decision with cleverness and a sense of timing, to exercise a seasoned sense of when enough is enough—all these come within the legitimate realm of the practical, how-to-do-things side of wisdom. Thus, what Kant called counsels of skill have a place here. In short, philosophy of living stays alive by being faithful to its nature, reflecting on the experience of life itself.
Fifth, the new philosophy stays vital by engagement with emerging developments in other fields. Science, theology, the arts, progressive reform projects—and the many branches of philosophy itself! Who can keep up with all these developments? The very impossibility of doing systematic philosophy in an ideal way makes the need for an integrated philosophy more urgent, makes teamwork more important, and obliges those of us to play this game to retain a good-humored humility about our ignorance of helpful developments going on all around us.
Sixth, the new philosophy serves life by being forward-looking. Although philosophy draws on ideas from the past, its quest can become real only in the future. Conferences of Chinese philosophy have recognized the tendency to focus too much on the classics, and have called for the reconstruction of Chinese philosophy. And what tradition does not need reconstruction, does not reconstruct itself, especially in a world which brings traditions so readily into interaction? The cultural examples used here can be replaced by others, or the thoughts can be stated without referring to monuments of culture. The better world to be exemplified by our lives may not be evident in a few decades or centuries, but looking forward helps one avoid the mistake of nailing loyalty to outmoded aspects of tradition.
Seventh, the new philosophy stays vital by honoring God, whom we can increasingly discover as the way, the truth, and the life.
These structural features of this new philosophy do not protect individuals from falling into dead theories; but they help us recognize when we do and where to turn for help.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nietzsche1882.jpg/800px-Nietzsche1882.jpg
Thanks for sharing the dangers of philosophy. It requires a lot of courage to admit when something is not working, especially when we have invested a lot of time and effort in it. I too, remember the time when I presumed to reject my faith. This was a colossal error.
When we reject our faith, we destroy the very mechanism that God had given us to see what our material eyes are unable to see. Spiritual insight allows us to see the true meanings of our experiences. It is true that often times we don’t like what that insight shows us, but that is not reason to reject faith because we don’t like what we are seeing.
For those of us who believe in God, we recognize that he has a moral obligation to us since he is our creator, our spiritual Father. And it is true that since we are little spiritual children, we can not comprehend his ways, therefore the need for faith and trust in his goodness. we are not left here alone to flounder in darkness. There is a light that is given to us if we only desire it. And this light is living faith.
In order for us to make significant progress in this life, we must be brutally honest with ourselves. The true values of life do not open to our grasp unless we are honest with ourselves. We can deceive others, even deceive ourselves, but we can not deceive life (God). Life is not amenable to deception. Reality unfolds according to its inherent structure whether we like it or not. Therefore it is wise to adjust ourselves to its way. This life contains problems that can only be solved by spiritual means, and this same life has concealed within it a plan for our lives. And we realize this plan by being honest with ourselves and acting accordingly. Again thanks for sharing those wonderful insights.
Dr. Perry
I find writing, revising, and living to be a process of growing in honesty. A couple times in college I had an experience of extraordinary, spiritual sincerity. I suppose that I was in conventional terms a sincere person, but those experiences convinced me that there was a level of sincerity way beyond anything I had established as a habit, beyond anything I could turn on, or even access voluntarily.
I was 64 when I first recognized self-deception. It’s realizing something but keeping it at the margin so it never comes into focus. Once I discovered it, I began to notice it more often. Long live the quest for truth, which carries us way beyond introspection on the way to God.
Thanks for sharing the dangers of philosophy. It requires a lot of courage to admit when something is not working, especially when we have invested a lot of time and effort in it. I too, remember the time when I presumed to reject my faith. This was a colossal error.
When we reject our faith, we destroy the very mechanism that God had given us to see what our material eyes are unable to see. Spiritual insight allows us to see the true meanings of our experiences. It is true that often times we don’t like what that insight shows us, but that is not reason to reject faith because we don’t like what we are seeing.
For those of us who believe in God, we recognize that he has a moral obligation to us since he is our creator, our spiritual Father. And it is true that since we are little spiritual children, we can not comprehend his ways, therefore the need for faith and trust in his goodness. we are not left here alone to flounder in darkness. There is a light that is given to us if we only desire it. And this light is living faith.
In order for us to make significant progress in this life, we must be brutally honest with ourselves. The true values of life do not open to our grasp unless we are honest with ourselves. We can deceive others, even deceive ourselves, but we can not deceive life (God). Life is not amenable to deception. Reality unfolds according to its inherent structure whether we like it or not. Therefore it is wise to adjust ourselves to its way. This life contains problems that can only be solved by spiritual means, and this same life has concealed within it a plan for our lives. And we realize this plan by being honest with ourselves and acting accordingly. Again thanks for sharing those wonderful insights.
Dr. Perry
I find writing, revising, and living to be a process of growing in honesty. A couple times in college I had an experience of extraordinary, spiritual sincerity. I suppose that I was in conventional terms a sincere person, but those experiences convinced me that there was a level of sincerity way beyond anything I had established as a habit, beyond anything I could turn on, or even access voluntarily.
I was 64 when I first recognized self-deception. It’s realizing something but keeping it at the margin so it never comes into focus. Once I discovered it, I began to notice it more often. Long live the quest for truth, which carries us way beyond introspection on the way to God.
Hello and thank you for this article. I have a friend who is going through exactly what you described. He has an infatuation with Nietzsche, his moral compass is all over the place, he is losing his mind and everything I have done so far to stop it has backfired in my face. At this point I am hands off and have left him to his own devices. What advice can you give to anyone trying to maintain a relationship with someone going through this madness?
Dear Sivad Ytsur,
Thank you for writing to me. This is the first time anyone has ever asked me this question. In my work with students, I have often been able to be helpful with certain kinds of case, but never have I had the problem that you are facing. I can only imagine that the ideas that might occur to me you have already tried or considered or are using now.
What occurs to me at the moment is this. If you are able to understand his present philosophy enough to inhabit it as a visitor, you may gain access to his attention. If you can speak his language, he is more likely to listen. And then you can use that language gently to suggest slightly differing angles on his situation. The moral compass mediates between the realm of fact and the realm of value, and your friend is in very poor touch with both those.
Since morality is often thought of in a way that is isolated from a rich understanding of factual and spiritual reality, it becomes moralism and is open to some aspects of Nietzsche’s critique. While I would not attempt to refute his present chaotic perspective, I might try–as you undoubtedly have–to do a very gentle and partial stabilizing of certain aspects of reality as he is currently able to recognize it.
Sooner or later, this person may cause himself or others enough trouble to get himself institutionalized. I believe that these things work out for good in the end. Your friendship, mostly at a distance, will be an important factor in his eventual (I hope) recovery. But it sounds as though he is, sadly, very resistant to the help he needs. Not everyone who needs it is so resistant.
But as I write this word of hope, there comes to mind a friend of mine who has been mentally ill for the last 40 years, although he has made real progress during that time.
One more thing occurs to me. There is a book of Nietzsche that I never read, but I have heard others speak of it during the past decade, and I have taken time to look at that book just a little. It appears to me to have a distinctly better perspective on spirituality than his other work–and this is what some other acquaintances have said.
You might describe his symptoms in more detail to a psychologist, who can give you much better advice than I can.
Well there. That’s what I can come up with for a reply now.
I give thanks for your efforts at constructive friendship. I believe that nothing good is ever lost.
Jeff
Hello and thank you for this article. I have a friend who is going through exactly what you described. He has an infatuation with Nietzsche, his moral compass is all over the place, he is losing his mind and everything I have done so far to stop it has backfired in my face. At this point I am hands off and have left him to his own devices. What advice can you give to anyone trying to maintain a relationship with someone going through this madness?
Dear Sivad Ytsur,
Thank you for writing to me. This is the first time anyone has ever asked me this question. In my work with students, I have often been able to be helpful with certain kinds of case, but never have I had the problem that you are facing. I can only imagine that the ideas that might occur to me you have already tried or considered or are using now.
What occurs to me at the moment is this. If you are able to understand his present philosophy enough to inhabit it as a visitor, you may gain access to his attention. If you can speak his language, he is more likely to listen. And then you can use that language gently to suggest slightly differing angles on his situation. The moral compass mediates between the realm of fact and the realm of value, and your friend is in very poor touch with both those.
Since morality is often thought of in a way that is isolated from a rich understanding of factual and spiritual reality, it becomes moralism and is open to some aspects of Nietzsche’s critique. While I would not attempt to refute his present chaotic perspective, I might try–as you undoubtedly have–to do a very gentle and partial stabilizing of certain aspects of reality as he is currently able to recognize it.
Sooner or later, this person may cause himself or others enough trouble to get himself institutionalized. I believe that these things work out for good in the end. Your friendship, mostly at a distance, will be an important factor in his eventual (I hope) recovery. But it sounds as though he is, sadly, very resistant to the help he needs. Not everyone who needs it is so resistant.
But as I write this word of hope, there comes to mind a friend of mine who has been mentally ill for the last 40 years, although he has made real progress during that time.
One more thing occurs to me. There is a book of Nietzsche that I never read, but I have heard others speak of it during the past decade, and I have taken time to look at that book just a little. It appears to me to have a distinctly better perspective on spirituality than his other work–and this is what some other acquaintances have said.
You might describe his symptoms in more detail to a psychologist, who can give you much better advice than I can.
Well there. That’s what I can come up with for a reply now.
I give thanks for your efforts at constructive friendship. I believe that nothing good is ever lost.
Jeff