Author: Chris Krause

Looking back on the course it is difficult to pin down any great revelations other than one which I am wary of discussing. It seems to me as I become older that the way the common man behaves is so much at odds to how I do, and I find myself increasingly isolated from my peers, not attracted to their entertainments, their culture or their supposed values. I think that this is the burden of practicing philosophy, i.e. a mind which has become rational and left the allegorical cave, so to speak; while the philosopher is aware of the case, he must live amongst those who commonly are not, and remind himself that he is not going insane on a daily basis, so fatigued by the systematic falsity surrounding him. One quote from a certain depressed German romantic strikes me at the heart: ‘Sometimes I speak to men and women just as a little girl speaks to her doll. She knows, of course, that the doll does not understand her, but she creates for herself the joy of communication through a pleasant and conscious self-deception.’ The words of Schopenhauer could very well be those of a more cynical Socrates, who after spending his life as a catalyst of virtue, was executed for pulling the wool from the eyes of the people.

And I suppose that it is this sentiment renewed that I am left with when parting from the class, as I can’t help but be stunned over and over by the willful ignorance of my peers, who shamelessly repeat the answers of others in the discussions you attempted to initiate (how many more times much we suffer the answer “I agree with what he said”), and seem entirely indifferent, or at least disengaged from, how their lives are piloted. It is perhaps for this reason that while philosophy is my primary vocation, I would never be able to teach it, at least not at the survey level, for the best philosophy is a practice rather than a knowledge, and practice must be predicated upon willful inclination, many of the conscripted students of philosophy present in our class of no such persuasion. I believe the root cause of their disinterest in philosophy to be the way it is oft presented, as a discipline of theory rather than of practical application, and of fanciful words but lacking guidance in everyday matters. This is perhaps more true of modern and contemporary philosophy than of the ancient Greek tradition, the former of which seem focused on the technical use of language and of abstract meanings, but the latter offers a great treasure to those who pursue after it, offering fortitude and consolation in times of injustice and disaster. When I think of good philosophy the moral aphorisms of Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Seneca immediately come to mind, as they wrote plainly and offered succinct advice in matters of befuddlement, focused on relieving the human race of suffering and of misdirection by preaching the skillfulness of rational principles and a cultivation of the virtues. It is this tradition which I believe can be of most use to the average student, as it is always ready at hand, and improves the character of the practitioner by compelling him or her to seek excellence.

This is not to say that the more intellectual philosophies are of no use, but they require a close esoteric reading to be of optimal service, a sort of understanding and patience which most people simply cannot exercise, even if they will it. Rousseau spoke succinctly of and elucidated this matter in Discourse on the Arts and Sciences:

As for us, common men to whom heaven has not allotted such great talents [i.e. a great intelligence] and destined for so much glory, let us remain in our obscurity.  Let us not run after a reputation which would elude us and which, in the present state of things, would never give back to us what it would cost, even if we had all the qualifications to obtain it.  What good is it looking for our happiness in the opinion of others if we can find it in ourselves?  Let us leave to others the care of instructing people about their duties, and limit ourselves to carrying out our own well.  We do not need to know any more than this.

While The Republic might be a work of great contemplative guidance, it is not useful as a handbook, for its wisdom derives from a serious and perennial study; one cannot rightfully open Plato’s manuscript and find guidance, and perhaps may not attain a greater measure of prudence until several or more readings and deep meditations have been completed. While this sort of deep intellectual awakening is a product of consistent philosophical practice, it should not be expected at the outset, or even more ineffectually and wastefully, offered as a form of mental masturbation and trivia. We must then submit to novice students of philosophy a more austere and aphoristic primer in the style of the Discourses of Epictetus or the Meditations, so as to start them upon a path of rational virtue which rather than be known for regurgitation on a test instead becomes a way of life, a lifestyle which may hopefully in the future bring about the coveted esoteric understandings.

So it was under Socrates, who was more concerned with establishing authenticity and flourishing in the lives of his novice students rather than expecting them to gain a transcendental knowledge of the Forms or of how to constitute the ideal state. In modern philosophy I believe that there is a disconcerting trend to essentially pursue formulations of the latter type and to reject ethics as being marginal at best, and at worst, of no importance. Descartes for instance, in Discourse on the Method calls for a “provisional moral code,” in essence a faithful following of the unexamined common religious and cultural dispositions, a matter of nearly irrelevant importance, his mental efforts dedicated to the abstractions of ontology. Herein is the cause of the typical survey student’s consternation with philosophy: the citizen is more concerned with how to survive a broken heart, feelings of doubt, injustice and cruelty, and the science of living well, rather than the analytical logic chopping and abstract theorizing of the modern and contemporary philosophy culture. And while I must contend that from time to time a reading of a modern philosophical manuscript will offer an insight into the operation of my life, it is profoundly malnourished stock in contrast to the eternal wisdom of the ancient Greeks and Romans, who wrote primarily to offer such wisdom and to bring about a realized life in their students.

As far as this relates to your class, I believe that you made an admirable effort to apply the philosophies we discussed to the lives of the students, inasmuch as I think the pre-lecture discussion and questioning segments were designed to initiate a chain of self-examination and exploration, but I do think that the philosophies could be perhaps presented with more immediacy. I am of the opinion that an individual who is ignorant to rational principles is feeble; capable of being corrupted by sophistry and demagoguery, and who often is controlled as a puppet by ill-tempered desires, faulty judgments and the capricious winds of fortune. In this fashion I think philosophy can be presented as a toolbox, medicine and an aegis, immediate to the psychological wellbeing of the individual.

The moral value of Matthew’s depiction of Sermon on the Mount has stood as a timeless testament to the teachings of Jesus, offering profoundly helpful and inspiring guidance in terms of living the good life. I have found Matthew’s rendition to be a majestic but rightfully austere primer on what it means to live in the world as a righteous citizen of a greater community; Jesus’ moral teachings offering a universal and cosmopolitan message for the redemption of man over folly and vice. Verily, it would be a tall order to speak of entirely how the Sermon has influenced my thought process, the breadth of its impact exceeding this assignment’s parameters, thus I must contend to speak of one particular aphorism which has served my conscience the most in steering me toward a moral life.

Matthew 5:33-37 serves as a warning against false oath taking, warning us against vowing by the power of heaven (“for it is God’s throne”), the structures of earth (“for it is [God’s] footstool”), by Jerusalem (“for it is the city of [Solomon]”), or by your own mind’s conviction (“for you cannot make even one hair white or black”). I believe that this aphorism offers succinct advice in terms of staying on the path of truth, for the mortal man cannot know the future (James 4:14), or the mind of God (Romans 8:28), and if he ventures to make vows may find ego and vanity (“this comes from the evil one”) instead of covenant with the divine. It is enough, suggests Jesus, to “Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’.” In this manner a man can speak the simple truth while not positing knowledge of things within the mind of God or His schema of fate. Man is prone to make vows without a true understanding of the consequences, as he lacks divine foresight and prudence, thus to guard the soul he must contend to wield humility instead of arrogance, sparing himself from the sinful transgressions of dishonest speech, content to speak truthfully of his heart in the moment but to refrain from judging the future. This to me is a crucial realization of the divine mystery and a core moral belief, responsible for safeguarding my soul from the seductions of evil.

On seeking advice…

Should not the guide be of a wiser and more virtuous sort than the troubled?

Friendship is the only good connected to external objects, as the other goods are virtues and reside in the spirit. Yet friendship is not severed from the internal goods, as a bond of loyalty and compassion is necessarily predicated on the sublime virtues, lest it decay and implode. In this fashion friendship can become a shared good between persons, a pact as resolute as conviction in the cardinal goods, transcendent of the caprice and destruction of fortune. This companionship is the only bond worth pursuing, as all other relationships are worthless and fall to the wayside in the face of misfortune or change of circumstance. Of these latter delusions which fade and are now as they never were, it is ideal to rather devote our labors to great projects, so as to not waste time and patience. But how can friendships based upon the altar of virtue and fealty be constituted? By offering it to all, and holding a high scrutiny of the character of others, albeit a silent scrutiny. In this manner the wise enrich the world with acts of kindness, magnanimity and heroic generosity while expecting nothing back, only content to offer their loyalty to those who value, and more importantly live, in the nature of the camp-bed and cloak, the Greek lifestyle. When we do encounter those tempered of forming a virtuous friendship, we must seize upon it, for that sort of companionship is rare as it is precious. Until then, keep this maxim constantly in mind:

Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. – George Washington

Gather all we cynics and outcasts-
Bastard line of the insensate kindred.
Monolithic, we are what won’t sway in the wind.
We do not fall.

As we feel deeply and think long,
We give rise to compassion-
This is how we trouble ourselves.
In the mockery of flesh this is dissimilar.

Here malcontents are made,
Wrought forth in the hammering of the human spirit.
A rising of iconoclasts to disunite those bonded in apathy.
Here malcontents are made,
Skeptical of the ascension of man.

All embattled we cynics and outcasts,
Raze and reshape the accepted social ordered for total rehumanization.

–

I am a cynic and an outcast,
A human affront to inhuman beings.

The study of virtue is the study of living well, for a virtuous person cultivates ideal human characteristics with heroic duty in order to establish a constancy of excellent behavior; the virtues are selected cornerstones of goodness, serving as a foundation for proper and exceptional human behavior, qualities which we must strive toward achieving and in the process embody the good life. Rather than live by following mere rules or commands the virtuous person strives to enrich his character, punishing himself more severely than a judge ever could in the face of failure or infraction, looking past laws to focus on greater goods, basing his life on the practice of those ends. Virtue can both be reflected in personal conviction as well as in the aspirations of a larger community; but in both cases must be practiced by individuals in order to come to fruition. In this manner virtue is an exercise rather than a framework, requiring constant embodiment and labor. The classical virtues defined by the ancient Greeks as ideal qualities of a good man include temperance (self-control), prudence (wisdom), fortitude (courage) and justice (honesty, magnanimity). A man practicing the virtue ethic would ask of every thought, action, decision and judgment: am I behaving with restraint, insight, bravery and fairness, am I behaving in an excellent rather than a merely satisfactory way? In this way the vices and moral corruption are avoided: intemperance, imprudence, cowardice (dispiritedness) and injustice. Where personal behaviors fail to adhere to these standards of conduct, self-scrutiny is exercised, contingent on the virtue of justice, as no other man may judge the quality of another, in adherence to the doctrine of things in and outside of our control (ref: Epictetus).

The virtue ethic is in great contrast to most modern ethical systems which judge the good of their actions dependant on legality or the net attainment of happiness. This grubby mode of life leads to civic and communal atrophy, as the nature of people degenerates to mediocrity and a self-centered existence in which desires and indulgences remain untempered in the face of social decay. What makes us obviously happy may not be the wisest choice, and this notion is lost on the contemporary society, which has no knowledge of how to live well or how to judge the justice of a situation, and instead has become reliant upon the opinions of others in guiding their behavior, dangerously corrupted by government and media demagoguery. It must at least be said that the guardians of our society must behave with virtue, as their offices require a more demanding character and greatness of spirit than the common citizen’s pursuits, in that their service impacts the whole of the community. If this latter behavior is governed by desires and a bare and wavering adherence to mediocre laws rather than inspiring ideals, the state disserves the people, more interested in serving its own ends rather than securing the wellbeing and flourishing of its people. A cultivation of virtues breeds exemplary character and behavior, traits most deserving of high offices. In this manner the public servant must embody the virtues so as to fulfill his duty properly.

Yet virtue is not simply a vessel to bring about proper conduct in government, as a virtuous doctor remains steadfast in his labors and treats the grieving with magnanimity and fairness, while a virtuous teacher grades indifferently, treats the misbehaving student with tempered justice and has the courage to defend “controversial” papers against the administration. Virtue is synonymous with behavior consistent with an exceptional human, an aspiration rejected by modern cynics with hollow and meaningless phrases such as “we’re only human,” degrading the human spirit to nothing but a shadow of its true potential. The sole good in life is living well through virtuous conduct and treating fellow humans with love and justice, as nothing else deemed “good” (money, sex, drugs) by the popular society survives destruction or cannot be taken away from us. The “goods” of the common people are transitory and in flux, destroyed in an instant, capricious and at the whims of fortune, while the virtues brand in the spirit. Ultimately, society will not stop decaying until the TV is turned off and serious effort is put toward educating the children in how to behave with prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance.

Grasping happiness has been the eternal quest for a great measure of humanity. Governments have risen and fallen out of a demand for a reprieve from suffering and a return to social justice and fairness, the “pursuit of happiness.” In truth it is neither governments nor religions which can ensure the happiness of an individual but rather the prudent exercise of his reason and will. At the root of unhappiness is the common behavior of attempting to control, expect of or rely upon things which are not surely in our control. Things surely in our control are our own actions, decisions, judgments, aversions, inclinations and beliefs. Nothing else, including our bodies, our fortunes, the opinions of others, the perceptions people hold of us, esteem, prestige, wealth or family are in our control. We must therefore be capable of enduring their destruction as well as events which afflict us in an undesirable way. The wise man desires little outside of expectations of his own virtue and learns to temper his thoughts with this realization of the state of affairs. Failure to adopt this maxim results in an ignorant perception of reality and relationship and opens the door for grief and despondency in the face of the misfortunes of the world.

One can surely go mad in matters of love, for instance, in which he is rejected and finds no fault in his actions. If he believes that the perceptions and judgments of others are the direct result of his own behavior, he would be able to temper his pain with wisdom and fortitude, but if he forsakes himself for being a failure in matters which he had no ability to control, he will be reduced to turmoil and rage. It is the same, in lesser or greater degrees, with all other things which cause us discomfort and pain: we fail to acknowledge that a certain aspect of reality is utterly and completely out of our grasp, and that we are powerless in manipulating it. This is the behavior of most people, who curse the sky when it rains, are shocked when gas prices rise or fall, or become enraged when their material things (outside of their control) are damaged or stolen by others, as if they transcend death.

This misbehavior is a product of an ignorant perception of reality, and in becoming wiser, the individual finds himself less and less torn by circumstances indifferent to him, and is capable of enduring misfortune with character and grace. If he chooses to cultivate virtues, he can take comfort in knowing that no matter what happens to him, he has acted within the limits of his ability, according to his bond, no less, no more, acting with justice and excellence. There is indeed a sense of contentment in focusing on what is within one’s control and attempting to cultivate goodness and magnanimity, remaining strict with the behaviors of self and tolerant of others. It is this system of perception which has founded the basis of modern Cognitive Therapy and Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy[i].

Another element in unhappiness is the desire-based cultures of Western countries. The classical wisdom of the Buddhist and the Stoic philosophers that to desire less is to be happy more has fallen on ill repute in our modern days of vast consumption and ill-tempered buying extravaganzas. As we live in a culture where our socialization process does not commonly seek to define the good of life, it is branded into us through constant media exposure, indoctrination in a cult of material, that the pursuit of property is the ultimate good. While we pursue property we are never content to fill a function but instead extrapolate grade into purchasing and base our identify upon the quality of what we own, forever seeking a “better” item, inspiring a self-destructive chain of needless consumption in quest for the end-of-the-line and non-existent best.

This endless pursuit, in which people work just to fill invented desires, and rest simply to work more, has exhausted our people into lifeless and constantly fatigued shades who find reprieve from their misery in pills and escapism. Rather than seek these self-destructive pleasures we should instead resign to indulge in more modest ones: good company, simple food, learning and self-cultivation, while searing through our other desires with a flame of reason to discover their absurd foundation. With a little bit of self-esteem and clear perception the illusory desires which once filled our lives evaporate as nothing but corporate slogans poured as poison into our ears. It is possible to feel content once again, arriving at happiness by simply breathing one more second than the dead, assaulted by no sense of turmoil when we hear seductions of the newest model iPod being released, instead satisfied to gather some faithful friends to make music through self-determined labors.

---

[i] Jules Evans, “Founder of Cognitive Therapy reveals Stoic inspiration,” Registry Report 12 (November 2008): 2-3.

Beneath me, this awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children. New York. Somebody knows why. Down there… somebody knows. The dusk reeks of fornication and bad consciences. I believe I shall take my exercise.

Heraclitus was the first philosopher, at least in my mind, who offered an intelligible and insightful perception of the world as a constantly shifting and unstable flux, to which all things will eventually be reclaimed by, with none escaping transformation and destruction. This latter state of affairs also introduces the concept of strife as justice, as while there are no gods to dispense equity, all who are unjust, will eventually be “judged” by the destruction of change, they will not live forever, even if they do manage to kill off the righteous first. The universe as perpetually changing and ultimately out of our control would also inspire the Stoic notion of dividing the mind into things out of our control, and within our control. An individual, who practices this discipline, judging things which are the product of the world’s movements against those which are the product of his own devices, will enjoy wisdom and clarity of perception capable of bringing about true tranquility of spirit, as he will not be afflicted by things which cannot rightly affect him.

It is in this fashion that Heraclitus was perhaps the first philosopher to emphasize practice and an ascetic life rather than philosophy as a science, a tradition which continued up until the time of Descartes, and was especially emphasized by Socrates, the Stoics and Cynics. It is philosophy as a way of life (as Hadot calls it) which is the only good use of philosophy: used as a vessel to temper our misfortunes, to develop good wisdom and virtue and to enable just and excellent action toward other human beings. This calling of philosophy as a lifestyle rather than as a sophist’s payday, is a notion which Heraclitus seems to have introduced, and to whom Socrates, who codified its calling, as well as all of us who bare the fruits of both labors, must be eternally grateful for.

Truth relates to the presentation or knowledge of the actual state of affairs; we can interpret truth as being a realization of the state as is and the particular relation of ideas and entities. Following the Stoic doctrine of differentiation between things in and outside of personal control we can argue that a man who realizes that he cannot lay claim over external things is more aware of the truth as opposed to a man who attempts to manipulate his fortune.  A man who curses the gods or others when he is overcome by misfortune is ignorant to the true state of affairs: that he is only in control of his own actions, decisions and judgments, and that anything else, including weather, the stock market or the reckless driving of others, must remain indifferent to us, as we have and can gain no control over it.

Appropriate to this frame of reference is the notion of treating people justly on the basis of responsibility. If for example a friend happens to lose control over another’s car during a snow storm and the vehicle is destroyed, the owner can find no fault in the friend, and must not judge him harshly or rebuke his ties of fellowship, but must accept the state of affairs as indifferent to him. Furthermore, if that same man is deceived by his mate he cannot blame himself for the actions of another – for he had no control in that regard. A man who is thrown into a rage upon learning that his car had been scratched is not behaving justly; he has yet to grasp the true nature of ownership over his car (which is none) and is acting out of ignorance. Yet justice is not limited in simply tempering the spirit against what the world afflicts against us but also guides how we act toward others. If this same man were to come across a wounded stranger on the side of the road, he must realize that it is truthfully within his power to act in his aid and that indecision or indifference will result in the death of the man. We might argue the criteria for an ethical or unethical resolution in his matter, but we must agree that responding will be measured in justice, as individual actions fall within the realm of personal control.

As with all other more esoteric contemplations of truth: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.