A Practical Guide to Philosophy for Everyday Life E-Book

Trevor Curnow

• Herausgeber: Icon Books
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Serie: Practical Guide Series
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 221

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2012

Beschreibung

How can we apply philosophy to our everyday lives? Can philosophy affect the way we live? This book will show how philosophy can help to improve your thinking about everyday life. And how, by improving the quality of your thinking, you can improve the quality of your life. It will make you more aware of what you think and why, and how knowing this can help you can change the way you think about your life. Full of practical examples and straightforward advice, and written by an expert in the field, this guide can help you become calmer and happier, and make better decisions.

Leseprobe

First published in the UK in 2012 by Icon Books Ltd, Omnibus Business Centre, 39–41 North Road, London N7 9DP email: [email protected]

This electronic edition published in the UK in 2012 by Icon Books Ltd

ISBN: 978-1-84831-357-6 (ePub format) ISBN: 978-1-84831-358-3 (Adobe eBook format)

Printed edition sold in the UK, Europe, South Africa and Asia by Faber & Faber Ltd, Bloomsbury House, 74–77 Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3DA or their agents

Printed edition distributed in the UK, Europe, South Africa and Asia by TBS Ltd, TBS Distribution Centre, Colchester Road, Frating Green, Colchester CO7 7DW

Printed edition published in Australia in 2012 by Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd, PO Box 8500, 83 Alexander Street, Crows Nest, NSW 2065

Printed edition distributed in Canada by Penguin Books Canada, 90 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 700, Toronto, Ontario M4P 2Y3

Printed edition published in the USA in 2012 by Icon Books Inquiries to: Icon Books Ltd, Omnibus Business Centre, 39–41 North Road, London N7 9DP, UK

Printed edition distributed to the trade in the USA by Consortium Book Sales and Distribution The Keg House, 34 Thirteenth Avenue NE, Suite 101, Minneapolis, MN 55413-1007

Text copyright © 2012 Trevor Curnow

The author has asserted his moral rights.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, or by any means, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.

Typeset in Avenir by Marie Doherty

About the author

Trevor Curnow comes from Cornwall and is presently professor of philosophy at the University of Cumbria. At one time or another he has taught philosophy at every level, from absolute beginners up to PhD students. He gave up his first teaching job to hop on a bus to Kathmandu and go backpacking around Asia for a year or two, eventually returning via the Trans-Siberian Railway. He then taught philosophy at the University of Khartoum in the Sudan until a coup intervened. He has worked outside the academic world at various times as a journalist, researcher and paperboy. He has published a number of books on philosophy, including Ancient Philosophy and Everyday Life. He is also an internationally recognized authority on oracles and the study of wisdom.

For Nicky For everything, but especially the fun

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Katie Roden for bringing me this project, to Duncan Heath and Harry Scoble of Icon Books for their editorial support, and to Nicky Metcalfe Meer for being my muse.

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright

About the author

Dedication

Acknowledgements

Introduction

1. The examined life

2. I don’t believe it!

3. Would I lie to you?

4. Thinking straight

5. What’s the difference?

6. Getting personal

7. I have my principles

8. What happens next?

9. You can’t do that!

10. I had no choice!

11. Is that the time?

12. How was it for you?

13. There’s more to life than shopping!

14. What does it mean?

15. Who are you?

16. So what?

17. It’s just not fair!

18. I’ve got rights!

19. Anything goes?

20. You and me

21. Truth and consequences

22. Mind your language!

23. A matter of life and death

24. Who says?

25. The examined life revisited

Further reading

Index

Introduction

What is the use of studying philosophy if it does not improve your thinking about the important questions of everyday life?

Ludwig Wittgenstein

What does philosophy have to do with everyday life? Everything! In fact, everyday life is precisely what philosophy is for. Centuries before the first ‘self-help’ book ever appeared, people were turning to philosophy for guidance on how to live. This book will show you how philosophy can help to improve your thinking about everyday life. And by improving the quality of your thinking about it, you can in turn improve the quality of your life. That may sound like a bold claim, but it is one that is based on a very simple idea – how you think influences how you act. If you think that a road leads to where you want to go, you will take it. If you think it leads in the opposite direction, you will not. If what you think is right, you will get to where you want to go. If what you think is wrong, you will not. Thinking one way leads to success, thinking the other way leads to failure. So improving your thinking leads to making better decisions, and making better decisions leads to a better life.

However, we can get things wrong for a variety of reasons and unfortunately philosophy is not going to solve all of life’s problems. It will not help you win the lottery or become irresistibly attractive to other people. What it will do is make you more aware of what you think and why. Once you become aware of what you think, you can challenge it and change it.

But surely we are already aware of what we think and why? We are, but only up to a point. We spend much of our lives on mental autopilot and carry around large quantities of baggage that we have forgotten we ever took on board. If our minds were libraries, a lot of the books on the shelves would have acquired a thick layer of dust. Many would probably be out of date or shelved in the wrong place, and the librarian would have gone home ages ago, leaving nobody in charge. But if no one is running things, then things may be running us; if you are not in control of your thoughts and beliefs, then they may be controlling you. Philosophy helps you to take back control of your thinking. Philosophy helps you to think for yourself.

Far from being the kind of abstract and pointless theoretical exercise that some people seem to assume it is, philosophy has a long history of being both relevant and radical. That is why philosophers have sometimes found themselves the victims of persecution. Between the execution of Socrates in 399 BC and the death under interrogation of Jan Patočka in 1977, many philosophers suffered in one way or another for their beliefs. Philosophy can be a risky business, especially if thinking for yourself leads you to hold unpopular views.

This book is not a course in philosophy, but by working through it you will become more aware of what you think about various things and why. As a result you may change the way that you approach some of life’s questions. Even if your thinking does not change, you should arrive at a better understanding of why you think what you do.

Each chapter gives you something different to think about and something to do. There are many different topics to choose from and it does not particularly matter which order you take them in, although I recommend you look at Chapter 1 first and Chapter 25 last. Otherwise, feel free to dip into any topic that interests you. You will often see this sign → followed by a number. It directs you to another chapter of the book that has something to say about a related topic. You can use these arrows to construct your own route through the book.

Some of the problems you will encounter have been exercising philosophers for centuries, so take your time. Often there is no definite or agreed answer, but you will always be given guidelines to help you approach the problem in a constructive way. At the end of most chapters you are given something to think about, but do not just do it once and forget about it – do it over and over again until it becomes second nature.

This book is not a history of philosophy. However, because that history contains a lot of interesting characters you will find thumbnail sketches of some of the most interesting ones scattered throughout the text. They will be with you on your journey, so you will be in good company.

Now it is time for you to take the first step.

The job to be done in philosophy is really more a job on oneself.

On one’s own viewpoint. On how one sees things.

Ludwig Wittgenstein.

1. The examined life

The unexamined life is not worth living.

Socrates

Philosophy invites us to examine our lives, and offers us the means of doing so. By becoming more aware of what we believe, we can challenge our beliefs and, if we wish, change them.

Socrates was one of the most famous philosophers of all time and he spent a lot of his own time going around annoying people. Philosophers, and philosophy, can be annoying. It’s easy to become comfortable with the ideas and opinions we have, whether they are right or wrong. If they are challenged, we may begin to feel very uncomfortable. What Socrates discovered was that if you persistently question people about things they think they know, even if they are supposed to be experts on the subject, they often find it difficult to come up with satisfactory explanations or justifications. Unsurprisingly, few people in Athens thanked him for his troubles and he became very unpopular amongst certain sections of Athenian society. Although he was by no means the first philosopher, he seems to have been the first to make constant questioning the basis of his approach. It was through constant questioning that Socrates examined both his own life and the lives of others.

Socrates (469–399 BC)

Most important works: he wrote nothing himself, but his pupil Plato wrote a lot about him.

Socrates became a hero to his followers, but his enemies managed to get him condemned to death in Athens for ‘corrupting the minds of the young’. He died by drinking hemlock. The name of his wife, Xanthippe, has since become a word that means a bad-tempered woman!

Philosophy helps us to examine our lives by questioning what we think, what we believe and what we claim to know. By challenging our ideas and beliefs, demanding that we reflect on them, philosophy makes us more aware of why we have them. It is very easy to express an opinion, much harder to justify it. We pick up a lot of ideas and beliefs on our way though life and, like habits, we can acquire bad ones as well as good ones. It can become all too easy to forget how or why we picked them up, and some may have been with us for so long that we forget we ever actually acquired them at all. It may feel as if they have always been with us.

Once we begin to reflect on our beliefs, we may find it difficult to justify some of them even to ourselves! For example, most people who vote in elections tend to vote for the same party each time. The number of people who switch their votes from one party to another is quite small. When we voted for the first time we may have gone through a lengthy process of deliberation, but by the tenth time it may have become more a matter of habit. But what seemed like a good reason to vote for a particular party when we were twenty might not seem like such a good one when we are 60. When we think about it, we may find that we can no longer remember, or, if we can remember, no longer agree with, the reasons why we hold various views. As we go through life we may change the way we look, but we often forget to change the way we think.

Once we realize that we have acquired something we also realize that we might not have done so. Once we realize that something is optional, we also realize that we are free to accept or reject it. In this sense, philosophy is liberating because through giving us greater awareness of our ideas and beliefs it also gives us greater control over them. You do not have to be a prisoner of your own past. Once you become aware that you have made a decision, you also become aware that you can change your mind, just as you can change the way you look.

By challenging the ideas and beliefs we know we have, we may also bring to the surface others that have long lurked below the threshold of our awareness. Our lives are routinely shaped by a whole raft of assumptions we may never have consciously even thought about. Many of these will have been acquired when we were children. Until we become fully aware of them we cannot begin to examine them, and until we examine them we cannot decide whether or not we really agree with them. Philosophy is not like psychoanalysis. I am not talking about ideas that we have repressed because we feel guilty about them. What I am talking about is ideas that we seem to have always had. These ideas shape our view of what is ‘natural’ and ‘normal’. (→ 15)

Once we have examined what we think, what we believe and what we claim to know, we may come to see the world, and perhaps ourselves as well, quite differently. If we have removed errors and inconsistencies, if we have discarded ideas that we have come to see as unjustifiable, we should see the world not only differently but also better. Socrates saw the examined life as not just an option, but also as an improvement. If we have a better grasp of things then we should live better lives. A basic principle that underlies the approach I am taking in this book is that our beliefs shape our perceptions and our perceptions shape our actions. Few people need persuading that it is a good idea to get out of a house that is on fire. Once we can see that it is on fire there is not much to think about in terms of what to do. If we see things differently, we will respond to them differently. In honour of Socrates, your first exercise is a famous philosophical puzzle associated with him.

The Euthyphro dilemma is named after someone who is interrogated by Socrates in Plato’s dialogue of the same name. The problem Socrates confronts Euthyphro with is this: do the gods love what is good because it is good, or is it the fact that they love it that makes something good?

The initial implications of the dilemma are quite straightforward. If (a) the gods love what is good because it is good, then whatever is good is good independently of what the gods feel about it. If, on the other hand, (b) something is good because the gods love it, then they could equally well love something else instead.

If (a) is the case, then the gods have no role to play in establishing the foundations of moral values. If (b) is the case, they have a role to play, but what is good turns out to be nothing more than what they happen to love. If (a) is the case, morality is independent of religion. If (b) is the case, morality is highly unstable (the ancient Greek gods were notoriously fickle!).

Dilemmas are only problematic if neither outcome is attractive. Atheists would not be troubled by this one because they could happily accept the implications of (a) and not care about (b). However, the dilemma is highly problematic for those who want to base moral values on religion, because neither half of the dilemma feels comfortable.

At the end of Plato’s dialogue, Euthyphro simply makes his excuses and leaves. He has had quite enough of the examined life for one day. However, the Euthyphro dilemma is still relevant, and relevant to everyday life. For example, many people say that morality is in decline because religion is in decline, and that a revival of the one would lead to a revival of the other. The Euthyphro dilemma poses a serious challenge to that view. Is something morally good because a particular religion approves of it, or does a particular religion approve of it because it is morally good? The dilemma also has a wider application. For example, is a work of art good because people like it, or do they like it because it is good? Is a style of clothing fashionable because a lot of people wear it, or do a lot of people wear it because it is fashionable?

See if you can think of other examples of the Euthyphro dilemma. Are there things you approve of because other people approve of them?

Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we would wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of life.

Bertrand Russell

2. I don’t believe it!

Never believe what you cannot doubt.

Robin Skelton

If you believe everything you hear, you are a mug – sooner or later every con artist in the area will beat a path to your door. But how do you decide what to believe and what not to believe? That is the problem. And philosophers have been trying to solve it for centuries.

There is no point in asking questions if we are simply going to believe any answer that we are given. Equally, there is no point in asking questions if we are simply going to disbelieve any answer that we are given. How do we strike the right balance in everyday life between gullibility and incredulity? Although this is a problem that has to be faced by all philosophers, the experts in the area of doubt are the Sceptics.

Scepticism has a long history. There is a theory that it originated in India and was brought to Europe by Pyrrho of Elis (c.360–c.270 BC). Whether or not this is true, Pyrrho is usually regarded as the founder of Western Scepticism, and so ancient Scepticism is sometimes called Pyrrhonism in his honour. The Greek word ‘sceptic’ originally simply meant an enquirer. Pyrrhonism is sometimes distinguished from what is called modern Scepticism, which is usually taken to begin with Descartes. There are important differences between the two, and both of them will be looked at in this chapter.

René Descartes (1596–1650)

Most important works: Discourse on Method, Meditations on the First Philosophy

Descartes served in the army for several years. He died in Sweden, having been invited there to be tutor to Queen Christina. He liked to stay in bed all morning but she insisted on starting their lessons at 5 am!

The form of Scepticism associated with Descartes is sometimes called ‘systematic doubt’. He invented a thought-experiment to find out whether there were any limits to what he could doubt. Here is the same experiment for you to try …

Descartes set out to discover whether he could doubt absolutely everything. He imagined that there was an evil demon whose only role and pleasure in life was deceiving him. This would mean that however certain something seemed, it might just be a case of the demon deceiving him. In the end, however, Descartes discovered something that he could not doubt, however powerful or cunning the demon might be. Do you think there is anything that you could not possibly doubt?

Descartes famously discovered that the one thing he could not doubt was his ability to think. He expressed this discovery in Latin as ‘Cogito ergo sum’, meaning ‘I think therefore I am!’ He could not doubt his own existence, because he had to exist in order to be able to doubt it! However, it was not just doubting that confirmed his own existence. Any kind of thinking had the same result, because he had to exist in order to think. Even if he believed something that was completely wrong, he had to exist in order to believe it.

Descartes’ experiment was just that, an experiment. For Descartes, the experiment ended not in doubt but in certainty. Having convinced himself that he existed, he then managed to convince himself that God existed too, and that gave him all the foundations for knowledge that he needed. Others have been less convinced; far from putting the matter to bed, many who came after Descartes felt he had demonstrated the power of doubt without discovering the antidote for it.

Descartes raised the issue of when it is possible to doubt, and the fact is that it is almost always possible. However, modern critics of Scepticism have tended to focus on a different question: when is it reasonable to doubt? Just because I can do something does not mean that it is reasonable for me to do so. Just because I can drive a van quickly through a busy pedestrian precinct does not make it a good idea, in fact I can think of a number of compelling reasons why I should not do it.

Where are you reading this? Can you think of a good reason to doubt that you are actually there? If so, what is it? If not, can you think of what a good reason might be?

I shall assume that most readers do not seriously doubt where they are at this moment and so I shall focus on the last part of the question. Why might I doubt that I really am where I think I am? One obvious possibility is that I might be dreaming. In that case I would actually be in my bed, but the location of my dream, where I seem to be when I am reading this, would be somewhere else. However, it does not normally take me very long to establish whether I am awake or not, so my doubt, even if reasonable, is unlikely to last very long either.

It is fairly easy to think of circumstances in which doubt is unreasonable. It is more difficult to say how much doubt is reasonable. Ancient Sceptics like Pyrrho took a rather different line that avoided having to confront this problem. To them it seemed obvious that we tend to believe things on the basis of inadequate evidence and that this is a bad habit. They believed that if we cannot be sure about something, then the only rational response is to refrain from forming an opinion about it. They were not so much concerned that we might be wrong, but that we might be unhappy. Forming an opinion that may turn out to be incorrect is setting yourself up to be disappointed. Because we do not need to form opinions, we can avoid being disappointed. Forming opinions is a potential source of unnecessary suffering because we become attached to the opinions we form. The ancient Sceptic way of putting this was that we should ‘suspend judgement’ on things. The story was told that Pyrrho had to be followed around by his friends just in case he ‘suspended his judgement’ concerning whether he was on the edge of a cliff or not and fell off it! Since Pyrrho lived to a ripe old age, the story is either totally untrue or else Pyrrho had a lot of friends with a lot of time on their hands.

Pyrrho of Elis (c.360–c.270 BC)

Most important works: he is not known to have written anything.

Pyrrho spent most of his life in southern Greece, and may have been a painter for a while. He travelled to Persia and India with the army of Alexander the Great.

However, that story about Pyrrho reflects a basic problem with Scepticism: the suspension of judgement makes everyday life look almost impossible. If there is no reason for doing this rather than that, how are we to decide anything? We seem to be in the position of Buridan’s ass. (→ 10) Fortunately, the Sceptics were sensible enough to see both the problem and a solution to it. Where we cannot be certain we go with the most likely option, and the most likely option is the one most people subscribe to. So if most people think that something is a cliff, then for practical purposes that is the option to go with. Consequently, and perhaps a little surprisingly, although their philosophical position was a radical one, the Sceptics were generally conformists, because they would tend to side with the majority.

What the ancient Sceptics latched onto was the fact that we habitually create problems for ourselves, so the solution to those problems is simply to stop creating them. If there is no need to take a strong position on something where the evidence at best supports a weak one, then there is no point in doing so. The Sceptics did not argue that we can never know anything, only that we should demand incontrovertible evidence before we give our agreement to something. In their view, this was unlikely ever to happen, but they could not rule it out. For practical purposes this did not matter because we do not need incontrovertible evidence in order to live. If everyone is eating the same food and no one is showing any signs of being poisoned, that is good enough for me. If I wait for incontrovertible evidence that the food in front of me is not poisoned before I eat it, the most likely outcome is that I shall die of starvation. For the ancient Sceptics, suspending judgement did not make life impossible, it just made it much less stressful.

Scepticism should not be confused with uncertainty as such. For example, the uncertainty principle in physics, as developed by Werner Heisenberg, states that some things cannot be known, even in theory. That view belongs neither to ancient Scepticism, with its suspension of judgement, nor to modern Scepticism, with its systematic doubt. It belongs to dogmatism, because it makes a categorical claim that something is the case. What Scepticism does is invite us to challenge; it does not require us to deny. Not believing everything we hear (or read) is always good advice.

The next time you read a story in the newspaper, ask yourself ‘Should I believe it, or have I good reason to doubt it?’ And then ‘Does it really matter whether I believe it or not?’ The ancient Sceptics thought that the suspension of judgement made life less stressful. Try it out for yourself and see if it works.

Life is doubt.

Miguel de Unamuno