I do not and will not ever consider myself to be a political philosopher, but perhaps one which analogizes politics from the outside-in, and notes how political pursuits complement or detract from overall human well-being. To that issue, I might defer to the structures of thought underlying what are often shallow “issues” motivated by the least sophisticated parts of human nature, pitted against those of the other. What is needed to clear the air is a practical philosophy, accessible to anyone when one’s intention to reach genuine understanding is the primary driver of the expansion of the one’s attempt at something resembling coherent thought. The “thought” underlying those more shallow issues tends to reveal that the political level of analysis is a construction in itself in which its participants are led into the intellectual slaughterhouse – i.e. to miss the point entirely, therefore tricking both sides into disagreement. Take the issue of abortion as one of the most obvious examples: all talk on “the left” is about “freedom of choice” which, under the guise of liberty and justice sounds like a worthy ideal, but it leaves out of the conversation entirely the choice that was already made to create the circumstances in the first place; no political effort is ever taken to systematically improve individual decision-making regarding character assessment, partner choice, and the divine standards for intimate relations overall, and so the problem, and the emotionally-charged argumentation which results, persists. The right side of that argument, although the priors are established through religion, simply misses the point that just because something is morally wrong (which abortion irrefutably is), that it should not necessarily be illegal, and by aborters continuing to abort, natural corrective consequences on the individual and collective levels will follow, but not before reaching some catastrophic rock bottom which we might be karmically indebted to accept.
Obviously in this example, a practical philosophy would focus on the root of the issue – how we can prevent the argument about the legality of something that is so clearly wrong having to happen at all, because at least then the majority of individuals are attempting to make all of the right choices by default, and despite the fact that we will all sometimes fail by the temptations of the flesh, merely holding in mind “good for its own sake, for that alone is worth it” and realizing everyone else holds that in mind too, will naturally, exponentially improve our conditions through interconnected accountability.
There are many books that I could point to for a practical philosophy, all of which contain varying levels of intellectual nuance – yet that is never what holds one back from the attempt. Who am I to say that any of them, despite their breadth of truth, would be of interest to you? That these books are mostly not being read, and that reading itself is a dying competency, points us more firmly in the direction of why a practical philosophy is needed to begin with – one which addresses the values that have been relinquished in everyday life, by the everyday person, and the false values which have taken their place – one which is coherent with the nuance of classical works yet also does not entirely sacrifice the sentiment of our current culture’s idiocracy. The new field of “Wigarthan Studies” is a solid start.
What are some of these books and authors, in case one does want to make that effort? If one merely seeks validation for one’s begrudgingly accurate understanding collective human nature within modern society, Schopenhauer will do nicely. If one prefers a historical context of the philosophical underpinnings from the Enlightenment period to arguably the last philosopher of any profound significance, Wittgenstein, there is perhaps no better book than “Explaining Postmodernism” by Professor Stephen R. C. Hicks. For those who claim to be “scientifically-minded” but have found themselves trapped in the no-man’s land between scientific facts and real meaning, Rupert Sheldrake’s early work is vital, and so generally are the works of Jung, Frankl and Alan Watts. A deep and thorough philosophical takedown of current political fashion comes indubitably in the form Sir Roger Scruton’s “Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands”, and any of his other 60 or so books on aesthetics and human nature. How do you cultivate order in your disorderly life, both physically and metaphysically? Look no further than Jordan Peterson’s “10 Rules (and “10 More Rules…) For Life”. If one prefers a timeless, though nearly idealistic, moral rationale, Kant’s “Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals” will be your jam – and although it is by far the book listed here with the fewest pages, it may take the most time to read – 10/10 will or will not recommend, depending on how you are.
There really is something for everyone and anyone who seeks deep understanding of the underpinnings of popular cultural beliefs. There are many angles that can get you to the same truths – in a classical “Perennial Philosophy” fashion. For that majority who are infected by culture and therefore subject themselves often unknowingly to the effects of these trends full force, there is still a desperate yearning for something greater, more meaningful and profound, than the ironically similar mechanisms for both survival and complacency that their primitive, neurological reward systems reach for most hours of the day out of sheer boredom. Since reading a book is such a slow endeavor which delays and never promises gratification, that statistical majority who failed or would have failed the “marshmallow test” as a child hardly even have access to it. They lack the patience and discipline, and probably the innate reading comprehension anyway given the decline of qualitative IQ levels, to extract truth from words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and to allow those intricate patterns to fall into place over the course of a book as a new message, a valuable perspective on life and reality, that could inform action and decision-making, serving themselves, their families (where families still exist), and the greater good in this life and beyond. Those essential, lost mechanisms of learning become our handicaps for functioning so that thriving becomes an ideal reserved for fantasy – a fantasy whose sentiments socialists/communists have weaponized into the unattainable “Utopia” toward which their genocidally infantile philosophies aim. It is so uncanny, in fact, that the rapid technological takeover as a replacement for reading, thinking, and everything else that empowers individual authority, resulting in mass decline of life satisfaction across the globe, might somehow be connected to those oppressive systems of thought. Marx did, of course, describe his own thought as “scientific” and advancing of technology toward greater efficiency. Not that he had the best interest of factory workers in mind to begin with, but most who come to agree with Marxist ideals do so from a place of empathy, whereas technological advancement and efficiency as the greatest good is dehumanizing by default and calls for the politicization of labor unions rather than the seeking of authentic justice. Unsurprisingly, Marx’s blindspot can be emphasized from his privileged, upper-class, free-of-any-labor-experience-whatsoever place in the socioeconomic hierarchy of his day – the very oppressive, puppeteering class that he still convinces the average leftist today to detest.. not to mention his skin color! Dang whitey!
I am not interested in providing a takedown of Marxist thought, mind you, for Sir Scruton and others have already achieved sufficient success in that realm. I am only acknowledging what is so that we can move on from false thought, rather than giving it the attention that it demands to continue to spread like the intellectual virus that it is. I seek only to observe the broader, metaphysical conditions for a practical philosophy to thrive, of, by, and for the soul, without having to filter through a Kantian nerd brain such such as my own. Unfortunately, this requires plenty of clearing away the conditions which prevent such a philosophy from “catching on” within a West which was once founded on ancient, spiritual principles but has been distracted by new-scientific atheism and such ilk, in worship of its own intellect and, even worse, inventions. For us to make way for truth, we must expel the clutter of falsehood and be keenly aware of what to avoid going forward in work, education, and life.
More essential than referencing some systematic set of principles thought up by smart people would be an embodied way of life that in fact creates and supports life when at its absolute best. A practical philosophy is an embodied one; it lives by example in the home which presupposes that life was already created under conscious and willing conditions by people who aim toward the good, and outside of the home all the same in support of the freedom that healthy home life grants us. We are to do what is good not because some system of government or dogma tells them to, but because treating all words, actions, and decisions as ends unto themselves, and not merely as means of material gain, means that everything we are already inclined to do, from creation to cultivation to preservation, is of itself worth doing. This is what the US Constitution affords us, in fact: the freedom to rebel against the very system that governs us at the fallible human hand, as long as it aligns with God’s will. Even Kant himself, whose book “Practical Philosophy” attempts to merge the pragmatic with the metaphysical in this way, but his attempt is less precise as he heavily favored pure principle over pragmatism; he didn’t leave his house much to put his own thoughts into action, nor did he often explain how his process of thinking accounts for its content in the real world. Since stagnation has risen with life expectancies, our movement out in the world will be more vital in its breadth of application than in Kant’s day, so may it be as practical as it is principled, potent while perhaps a bit proud.
While we do have to face falsehood and fight evil from time to time for a practical philosophy to work, the even-better news is that we really do not have to change who we are. Finding the courage within ourselves to align with and do good despite cultural or familial circumstances only requires self-honesty. When we take an objective look into the mirror of the subjective, we realize that we are just subjects in that we each may have unique takes on serving the same roles that the greater of humanity has needed for its flourishing since long before utopian ideals were constructed by the elite class. So, as the great mythicist Jonathan Pageau asked in a recent talk on AI and the loss of individual human authority, “what do you serve?”
This is our mantra – our attention-orienting question to ask ourselves when faced with any dilemma or choice – that needs no referencing from others or from culture, for those can be swayed by the technologies and systematic patterns of thought and governance that we have created. Who is to say that just because we created them, that we control them as mere tools when those very tools are taking not only our jobs but our decision-making responsibilities via preference algorithms (as if our preferences must be so narrow) and therefore the consciousness out of engaging with work, research, and everyday life. The patience and presence to read a book, sit with the ideas, and assess them qualitatively, rather than to consume an AI-generated synopsis like fast food for the end of dopaminergic gratification, is a universal skill, not only applicable to information, but to discover for yourself and for good what is true, what works, and what is worth passing down as wisdom to whomever comes under your wing. You can repeat that process in any experience, any job, or any conversation, and you’ll only improve your life by maintaining that coherence of thought and experience as your center… but you’ll never improve your life by outsourcing your authority in all of these ways, no matter how trivial it may seem. This authority in fact is the foundation of a not-so-New Practical Philosophy I would like us to pursue, and one need not be a philosopher to pursue it because it is not about “more” thought, but a moral framework of self, others, and all, within which the better we think, the better we can do.
Overthought Consulting 