PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE, POPULAR AND ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHY
Many college students come into their first philosophy class expecting that they will study and discuss varieties of what is called a philosophy of life.[1] They hope that they might find compelling advice about how they or others should live their life. They are disappointed when they find out that the question, “What are the best philosophies of life?” is not on the professor’s syllabus.
Instead of studying Kant’s categorical imperative, John Stuart Mill’s defense of the principle of utility, or John Locke’s argument for natural rights, these students would gladly prefer classroom discussions about short but intriguing philosophy of life proposals. Here are a few examples from a single author.[2]
· "Make improvements, not excuses. Seek respect, not attention.”
· “Do not fear failure but rather fear not trying.”
· “Count your blessings, not your problems. Count your own blessings, not someone else's. Remember that jealousy is when you count someone else's blessings instead of your own.”
· “The outer world is a reflection of the inner world. Other people’s perception of you is a reflection of them; your response to them is an awareness of you.”
· “Be the reason someone smiles. Be the reason someone feels loved and believes in the goodness in people.”
Philosophy of life proposals (recipes, advice, recommendations) such as these are usually not discussed in university philosophy classes -- probably because they do not come with supporting arguments. Most philosophy professors require that legitimate philosophical questions are those that are answered by critical reflection and discussion of the arguments that come with the proposed 'philosophy' of life. Unfortunately, most of the philosophies of life I have seen in books and around the internet are not supported at all.
Philosophy of life proposals are best classified as popular philosophy. What goes on in the classroom is academic philosophy. If the classroom professor is doing academic philosophy, she understands that philosophy is "critical reflection on the justification of basic human beliefs analysis of basic concepts in terms of which such beliefs are expressed." [3] Hence, she will use methods that are unique to the academic philosophical investigation, starting with concept analysis.
Popular philosophy does not appear to require a method. You can say what you want, sit back, and hope that heads will nod in appreciation of your wit and wisdom. One would hope that those who make philosophy of life proposals would make some attempt to justify what they are proposing. This would involve an analysis of the concepts in terms of which the proposal is made. For example, the first of the italicized quotes says, “Make improvements, not excuses. Seek respect, not attention.” The academic philosopher would test the justification of this belief by analyzing the concepts 'make,' ‘improvement,’ ‘excuse,’ 'respect,' and 'attention,' as a first step to finding out if the quoted belief is true or false.
But analysis of concepts is not sufficient support for the quoted proposal because there is nothing in the meaning of the aforementioned concepts telling us that we ought "to make improvements, not excuses." In other words, concept analysis alone does not prove that the recommended behavior is something one ought or ought not to do.
Academic philosophers employ a distinction between analytic and synthetic (empirical) propositions. An analytic proposition is one in which the truth of the proposition can be found in the meaning of the concepts in which it is expressed. A synthetic proposition is one in which its truth can be determined not by concept analysis but only by observation and experience. For example, the propositon "Bachelors are lonely" is true only if there is empirical evidence that bachelors are lonely. But loneliness is not an attribute that can be discovered by an analysis of the concept 'bachelor'.
What kind of proposition is a typical philosophy of life proposal? Here is an example. Suppose a friend tells us that "the best life is to quit college and live the life of a hermit." Like the previous example, this is not a proposal that can be proved through conceptual analysis. If asked to prove it, we would expect to see evidence gathered through observation and experience relevant to the life of a hermit. But this expectation takes the question out of the realm of academic philosophy and into the realm of popular philosophy and social science. "The best life is the life of the hermit" is a synthetic (empirical) not an analytic proposition.
A recent example of a popular ‘philosophy of life’ recommendation is Rufat Rassulov’s essay about life in Sweden. He writes in his newsletter [4] that “Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world. Thanks to a brilliant framework -- a philosophy that keeps everything in harmony for the society.” Although Rassulov appears to accept the theory that happiness is the summum bonum (the greatest good), he writes that “the key to Sweden’s happiness is Lagom. The word means “not too little, not too much, just perfect”.
Sound familiar? This is what the ancient Greeks said.2,500 years ago when they promoted the Doctrine of the Mean (also known as The Golden Mean): The doctrine tells us that the best life can only be achieved by adherence to the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency.[5]
This prompts an obvious question: “Not too little, not too much -- of what?” Assulov proposes work or labor as an answer. He writes that “work in Sweden cannot interfere with the worker’s personal life, it’s a big part of being more productive and happier. The average workweek there is 30 hours, which leaves a lot of free time to enjoy with friends and family.”
This is not academic philosophy. A life that meets the Swedish standard of Lagom is not proved through analytic reasoning. Assulov’s evidence is clearly empirical. His reasoning is inductive and his conclusions are probable, not certain. Assulov is doing social science, not philosophy.
Assulov’s argument begins with the suppressed premise that happiness is the end or goal of life. He adds the unproved empirical premise that Lagom (probably) brings about more happiness to workers in civil society than other social frameworks. He concludes that Lagom is (probably) the best philosophy of life for any civil society. Notice that no data is offered to support the crucial second premise.
One more example. In 1861, the English philosopher John Stuart Mill defined “a life of happiness” as “an existence made up of few and transitory pains, many and various pleasures, with a decided dominance of the active over the passive and having as the foundation of the whole not to expect more from life than it is capable of bestowing” (Utilitarianism, ch. 2).
Mill was not doing academic philosophy when he wrote this. His proposal for a life of happiness is empirical. But Mill gives no data gleaned from careful observation and experience to support it.
Notice also that Mill says nothing about The Golden Mean. As long as our active pleasures dominate over the passive, it does not matter to Mill whether we pursue an excessive amount of active pleasures. Suppose that there are Swedish workers who love the work they are doing. Their active pleasures are best satisfied by their work, not by social events with friends and family. They do not want their pleasure constrained by a law that says citizens can only work 30 hours per week.
I should point out that when Socrates told the Athenian jury that “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Apology, 38a5–6) he did not caution the jurists not to examine their life "too much." He did not say, “Don’t go overboard with this life-examination stuff. It will make you unhappy.”
Nor did Socrates give any evidence to support what is obviously an empirical judgment about the consequence of leading a particular kind of life. If it is true that Socrates actively pursued a life of philosophic study and put other active pleasures aside, he may be violating the Golden Mean, but he was also leading a life that he believed was worth living. Whether everyone else should mimic Socrates’ life has yet to be proved.
So what so-called ‘philosophy of life’ should we choose? The life recommended by Rufat Rassulov, Socrates or J.S. Mill? Do not turn to the analytic philosopher to answer this question. Instead, ask a social scientist if they have empirical data to support any of the preceding proposals.
And by the way, let’s not confuse our students by referring to each of the italicized quotes as 'philosophy.' Tell them that the word 'philosophy' is ambiguous. Popular philosophy might be fun to think and talk about even though it is usually promulgated without any empirical evidence for support. This is certainly not what academic philosophers mean when they teach beginning students and make frequent reference to the work of the great philosophers.
______________________
[1] Helena de Bras, What’s Your Philosophy of Life? | The Point Magazine
[2] Roy T. Bennett. The Light in the Heart. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/life-philosophy
[3] Edwards and Papp. 1957. A Modern Introduction to Philosophy, New York: Free Press.
[4] Rufat Rassulov, 2021, “The Swedish Key to Happiness,” That’s Philosophical, #9.
[5]. The Doctrine of the Mean appeared in Greek thought at least as early as the Delphic maxim "nothing in excess.” It was discussed in Plato's Philebus, and Aristotle analyzed the golden mean in the Nicomachean Ethics Book II: Virtues of character can be described as means, for example the virtue of courage is the mean between the vices of cowardice and recklessness (For more history, see” Golden mean—Philosophy” on Wikipedia).
