In a recent essay, I described the importance of a practical philosophy – one which is not purely intellectual but applicable, and which holds the standard of what constitutes good philosophy as one which can be integrated into life, thereby enhancing it. I did not, however, provide much detail about what such a philosophy might entail, although it does seem that “supporting life” somehow is the standard of all good philosophy anyway. My thesis here is to construct an outline for that practical philosophy by putting forth a simple explanation of the different levels of knowledge to which we have access, and a means of prioritizing them as to cure the value crisis epidemic current to the western world. This is certainly the premise for a book or three, but for now my aim is to be so concise that the reader may find a way to apply this outline as to ascend from that collective delusion ever so slightly. As it has been said by many sages of the past, enlightenment happens one-by-one, and although we may not be not seeking full, spiritual enlightenment here, we should note that the truth of that idea permeates every graduation from one level of awareness to another.
Our problems in the west are spiritual in nature at their core – of the adoption and over-prioritization of various false values – and every individual creates their own narrative. The freedom formalized by the First Amendment but really granted to us by God, to think and say whatever we choose, creates potential for the persistence on a path toward or away from Truth and Goodness that the rest of the Constitution, and indeed all of spiritual mysticism, aims to protect. It is, after all, not the choice to think and say just anything – i.e. “self expression” – that should rest atop our individual value structures, but more so the being and becoming that is inherent to our nature, both to exist in a maximally purposeful way for others and within ourselves. This cultural obsession with self-expression is indeed a symptom of our collective reluctance to realize that the content of the First Amendment is only the starting point of that being-becoming journey, never an end goal of its own, for if we did not have access to that right, we could perhaps never come close to discovering who we are and what our real duty entails. Unfortunately, it is more than clear that most countries other than the United States struggle with that collective, existential reality, and there seems to be no lawful way to publicly break free of it out of legitimate fear of persecution.
Even in ancient Greek times, during the founding of the philosophies that give a foundation to our current political and social systems, they too had to learn the lessons of freedom the hard way. Socrates was seen as a heretic simply for challenging people in the streets of Athens to think critically on the most basic level, and he was executed for it. Ironically, his asking Euthyphro “what do you mean by piety” still seems a specific concern in today’s politically correct, post-truth social climate in which progressive atheists seek the moral high ground by glorifying victimhood and therefore deifying the alleged oppressors they claim to have created it. This indicates strongly that, despite the abundance of hard lessons, great literature, and technological advancements in the last two thousand years, the evolution of intellectual thought has not penetrated the culture at all. Mind the last two thousand years; we have witnessed numerous “Socratic figures” be executed just in the last two decades, in perfect parallel with the communication technologies that have advanced in that time, whether that be covertly through online censorship or being framed for suicide in the midst of revealing some of the darkest and most disturbing efforts of the elite class’s quest to remain elite. The examples of our collective inability to integrate the ancient wisdom about our nature, as expressed in the Upanishads and in scriptures cross-culturally, seem endless, and perhaps that points to the flaws in democratic collectivism itself: that when responsibility is placed on the consensus to course-correct, social compromise is valued over truth, and we just dig ourselves deeper. Freedom indeed is not free.
In a recent presentation by the prolific mythicist Jonathan Pageau on the rise of AI as a widely (and wrongly) perceived replacement for independent research and thought, a distinctly AI-proof, reorienting question for life was raised: “What do you serve?” This is a question that can be approached in many ways, depending on the context from which it is interpreted. There are of course the individual duties of one serving one’s own family, job, and country. There are also the institutional issues of industries and governments serving the greater good of the people or other interests of their choosing. For the spiritual person, we can ask of any subject or entity “does this serve God?”, from which questions about that God might also arise. Regardless, there are underlying patterns and principles that apply to these contexts and all others, and a universal outline of how we should structure our values and priorities across these knowledge-realms, so that the false dichotomies between them no longer cause conflict, is what I am aiming for today. My hypothetical outline of this “support chain for knowing and living” goes like this:
Of knowledge:
Spirituality informs philosophy, philosophy informs science, science informs the practical.
Therefore, in action…
The practical serves science, science serves philosophy, philosophy serves spirituality.
It is that simple.
Now, for my fellow philosophers… Not to belittle the body of epistemological literature that has come before us, but it is imperative that some degree of faith inform our ontology before we have such discussions. Otherwise, we delve into intellectual masturbation, and the fact that we confine that sort of activity to the mind (or to private academic circles) makes it no less a crime. That faith, however you want to view it, is that which has been described by all of the legitimate spiritual thought that preceded academic philosophy and still to this day looks down upon it with significant pity. This is the first support I’ll give as to why the “spiritual knowledge”, whether we are to categorize it as knowledge or something a bit different in kind, serves as the container for all else.
Let’s track back and begin with the ground level of this “support chain” I seek to devise, which is to commit our practical day-to-day pursuits to the totality of scientific pursuits. Before you take me to confuse science with scientism, what I mean by the “totality of science” is simply the endeavor of well-meaning, curious people to impartially collect empirical data, observe emergent patterns as potential, practical truths rather than certain, universal ones, and with respect to a higher metaphysical authority, apply that knowledge in a way that is pragmatically useful and in accordance with that higher authority (the scientific method intrinsically possesses no such authority, for it is not that kind of thing). Even in the mundane cases of how we go about daily tasks, relate to one another, get from one place to another, etc. there are patterns that can be recognized which, if understood from a certain viewpoint, can improve our lives exponentially. There are flaws that we can realize and improve upon in those and all other areas: how not to overcook an egg, how to effectively resolve conflict with your spouse, the best route to take to or from work. While we may be tempted to aim for the most efficient means through any of these tasks, there are unlimited, unforeseeable variables that might affect the outcome on any given day, and under any set of conditions. The smart person simply looks for these patterns and tries to perfect them, regardless of the conditions that may arise. When things don’t work out in accordance to that plan, the rule can actually hold you back, causing frustration and further delay. Theawareperson (not all smart people are aware, and that’s a bigger problem!), knows that this rule we’re attempting to formulate (e.g. route B is faster than route A) is simply aimed toward efficiency, and that adaptation to current conditions, no matter how far it might deviate from the norm, is required to achieve what by any standard is the best result. The amount of time you leave your egg in the hot pan will vary based on the size of the egg, the heat of the burner, the type of pan, etc. The approach to smoothing things over with your wife will vary depending on the time of the month, what else might be influencing both of you in the moment, and the time of your dinner reservation this evening. The quickest route to work might be determined by whether it is raining and how you drive; maybe the route that is usually by far the quickest will take twice as long if the wash that runs through it will have traffic backed up for miles (Arizonans will get this one). There is no one-size-fits-all answer to any problem that is rooted in the question “how?”, the not-so-simple question that science at its best is equipped to answer. Qualification (those bodies of knowledge beyond science) must inform quantification, for mathematical precision alone, the ultimate tool of science, is neither practical nor possible.
So, there are two types of questions that we should consider in our practical decisions, and scientific thinking can be of great benefit even if it isn’t exact. The first is: “How do we get from A to B, given all of the observable conditions right now?” Whether we are actively doing science or just living life, if we stay impartially observant of those conditions, regardless of what rules and expectations we have set up for ourselves for the sake of efficiency and survival, all things being equal, we remain present with the world as it is right now and can come to the most precise empirical conclusion for grounding our next action. We are not disregarding the totality of our experience and knowledge from the past, but considering that totality as a category of input data that can inform our larger perspective, allowing us to make the best choices in this physical life, by the physical standards that the physical part of our nature demands. That is to say that such input data is not the ultimate determinate of our decisions. Just to make these sorts of observations often takes a tremendous amount of emotional control, for our egos want to cling onto these patterns we have formulated in our minds whether they correspond to objective reality or not. We do tend to make emotional decisions, but by considering that the emotions that arise in us in the face of change are important factors for consideration too, we begin to see the crucial distinction between mere emotional reaction and truth-oriented intuition, the latter which is something objective science cannot account for. In accepting all of these and other factors as patterns unto themselves, we may see that the practical serves the scientific, even if we aren’t scientists ourselves, and insofar as the scientific endeavor takes legitimate inspiration from the fact that there is so much beyond it to which we are connected. For this reason, it is crucial that the scientific establishment keep in mind that they are meant to serve the well-being of humanity, and that any data gathered which does not consider both individual and collective human nature, might be useless and in fact harmful. We should demand that scientific inquiry be humble and relevant to our lives which are governed by value structures which are beyond the capability of quantifiable, empirical investigation. Science is done by us, so it should be for us as well – for all of us – otherwise that powerful tool becomes a weapon by those who possess it.
This leads us to the second question in our practical affairs, and this one rises above the physical variables to which scientific inquiry is inherently limited, confirming that we are more than just “lumbering robots” in Richard Dawkins’ materialistic terms, but emergent of a greater conscious reality: “Why?” Here we approach a need for a “philosophy of life” that accounts for the unforeseeable, incalculable events and phenomena of the broader metaphysical realm that gives us a higher level of awareness and understanding, albeit still in some systematic way. What do I mean by ‘why’? It is reason beyond the ‘how’! At the end of the day, who cares how things work? That is a matter of personal interest or not (most people just want things to work), efficiency and expediency over understanding and authentic experience. What gives our minds peace is knowing the why: why I like my egg cooked that way to begin with, why my wife needs a certain kind of communication given certain environmental conditions, why it matters that I find a way to get to work on time regardless of the road conditions. These are questions of values, and they point to the necessity of science to be oriented toward serving philosophy in the human pursuit to understand the world while still having to live in it. Why-answers, after all, involve highly variable degrees of objectivity, as in the very different examples I have given above. Whereas science treats its subject matter as objective stuff, why you like your egg cooked a certain way might be “just because”, and that is an aesthetic issue about which an eloquent poem, that could serve some other purpose in a reader’s life, could be written. Why your wife needs a certain kind of communication could have to do with her association with the objective category women as well as her individual, subjective needs and desires that deviate from the norms of that category – primary of which is to keep the relationship together. Getting to work on time has more to do with upholding the principles of good character that are mutually understood by all people of integrity and success, for what those social norms are worth.
Philosophy contains an abundance of thought-data – various ways of making sense of the phenomena we observe and experience – supported by various value structures that are implicit to them, among which discerning qualifications can be made. Philosophy is perhaps the only academic subject (not all of it, by everyone everywhere, mind you) which makes full use of both left and right brain processes. The penetrating, linear, left-brained logic that forms the backbone of “valid” philosophical argument means that only those philosophies which “make sense” and can be defended in linguistic (and even mathematical) terms pass the test of genuine philosophical scrutiny. The near-infinite breadth of the right brain’s capability to see coherence and associate phenomena across disciplines, no matter how chaotic things might seem at first glance, also allows the philosopher to raise attention to what is invisible from the ground level where most others would get taken by the current while not realizing they were floating down a river to begin with. And this error of the ego-mind can happen in philosophical circles too, not just in the case of the mad scientist and the rabbit hole of the layperson.
Given the influence of left-brained logic on this type of inquiry, philosophy is to some degree limited to a linear pursuit of seeking sense in things, as if making-sense is a quality inherent to the objects of that inquiry. It isn’t, neither in physical reality when physicists fail to reduce their understanding of light to the subatomic level (or the cosmic one), or in conceptual form when Bertrand Russell failed to formally reduce mathematics to symbolic logic. What we find in such endeavors is not more order and precision, but unfathomable chaos, raising the broader question about why it matters that we must have knowledge to begin with. And no, personal satiation is not a legitimate excuse, much to the chagrin of the Marx-Foucault lineage of the twentieth century philosophers (mostly French) who took sick pleasure from others’ seeking sense in their own maliciously disruptive philosophies that in fact said absolutely nothing.
I could, and would love to, go on for much longer about good philosophy vs bad, as well as good science vs bad (which is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one), but we must move on to the higher level of awareness – that one which shall dispose of bad philosophy and science with laughable ease and give true meaning and even usefulness to that little which remains. Within the spiritual realm that philosophy serves are values which are simply not subject to debate. For as broad and overarching as this realm is by nature, and despite all the “faith” that is required to access it, it is strangely the one level on which certain knowledge exists, and all else we consider to be knowledge must be founded on or aimed toward it in some way. Only then can we fathom unity among all people, regardless of creed. One of those invaluable virtues is “sacrifice/letting go” – there is great reason why this virtue shows up in all legitimate, mystical traditions, so let’s examine it.
The idea that we can truly own anything leads to possession – not merely of a physical sort, but of clingyness to delusions or comforts which keep our minds stagnant. Otherwise, we take credit for everything, become righteous, and then toward what do we aim our gratitude if we have any left? More intellectually speaking, acceptance of things as they are whether we understand them or not is actually the first step toward understanding anything, and this requires us to “let go” of baggage in the mind. The peace that one can experience in this practice is far more powerful than the “gotcha” sensation of grasping intellectual concepts, as if victorious. While understanding can be adjacent to competition, for you can understand something while others do not, making you seem “smarter” and eliciting a feeling of pride, the peace of letting go is far beyond that dopaminergic stimulus. It is not about sensation at all, but relief from the restraint of sensation, whether good or bad. Peace, therefore, is nothing to attain but rather a disposition that is found when you let go of the need to attain things. Allowing nature to take course while not imposing your own goals onto it, you can then observe phenomena with clarity and see how your gifts might align with and serve that broader spectrum of processes.
This returns us to Jonathan Pageau’s question about what we are in service to, and the answer, it seems to me, is the infinite breadth of life that encompasses the environment around us. When our goals are too self-contained (personal desire) or too far beyond our influence (saving the planet), we literally lose touch with reality, become depressed or intellectually deranged, and we lose grip on the problems that are not only within our reach but which demand of us that we solve them in the unique ways that only we are gifted to (you’re special – get over it).
This spiritual principle of letting go is infinitely useful in informing philosophy about our purpose (a concern many are drawn toward philosophy to answer, but almost always come up empty): When we let go of what we cannot control, what we should control – our purpose – reveals itself through no effort or seeking of our own. Because of the non-linear ways in which these life lessons reveal themselves, the philosophical mind still may be prone to clinging onto their precious logic where things “make sense” to them, but this is only an assumption, and spiritually-speaking, it is a regressive one. Clinging onto the idea that things must make sense is itself a violation of the letting-go principle, and it will enslave you to purposelessness caused by your erroneous, unaccepting thinking, until you correct that. The key is to let go of your own left-brain, reserving its capacities for linear reasoning as a tool once clear observation is already in place. As Iain McGilchrist puts it, the right brain – our ability to see things as they are, in their infinite complexity and chaos – is indeed the masterful mode of perception, whereas left brain logic is the helpful emissary – the organizing tool – which assists us toward pragmatic ends when they’re needed. It takes spiritual discernment to qualify when it’s needed to begin with, hence why the spiritual and the practical are on either end of this chain I’ve described.
To conclude in a manner which aligns with what I see as my place on the chain, I’ll loop this back to the disclaimer that I made earlier: that we must have some baseline faith about ontology/metaphysics to ensure our inquiry is Truth-directed before waxing in epistemological circles. The letting-go principle, which is not the only inarguable virtue available to us, is a spiritually-informed way of trusting Nature, allowing those matters which are worth philosophical discussion to reveal themselves to us. Of course, this approach will discredit most work being done by tenured professors across the western world, but what good have they done for us on the whole when most of them fanboy the French? Once faith is engaged, philosophy, the meaning-seeking discipline, no longer needs to seek; it can just take what it is given and make real headway in people’s real lives, which is what the gift of the intellect is burdened to serve, as with any other type of gift, whether it be motherhood, athletics, music, art, technical expertise, or physical labor. At that point, philosophy has an accurate foundation to guide science’s pursuit of precision, inspiring all of our “how” questions with a valuable “why”, gracing an ease of flow in even the most mundane pursuits of our day-to-day, practical lives.
