How does a philosopher handle everyday problems with other people?

[baker]

Greetings.


This topic is something Terrapin Station and myself have been discussing tangentially throughout several threads, so you might have seen it there. I want to give it special attention, though. It's about how a philosopher or someone with some interest in philosophy (but we'll just use "philosopher" for the sake of brevity) handles everyday problems with other people.

We live interdependently with other people, and not rarely, we are at their mercy.

How does a philosopher handle everyday problems with other people, esp. when they hold a position of more power than he?

Externally, he probably handles them similarly as anyone who doesn't want to get into trouble -- by adapting, pretending, witholding his true opinions.

But I'm more interested in the internal, psychological aspect of doing this. When one thinks differently than others, and it's in important matters, and this difference could cause trouble for one if it became known: How does a philosopher manage this difference? How does he explain it to himself, how does he manage it, internally?


Giordano Bruno, for example, surely knew full well what fate awaited him for what he taught. Yet he did it anyway. Did he do it because he thought it was worth it anyway?
But why did Galileo recant?
What went on inside the minds of such men? What were their motivations for recanting, or refusing to recant what they believed to be true? And how come they believed it to be true, even though it was so different from what most other people believed at the time?
(I mention these two only as examples to illustrate my topic.)



Thank you for the discussion.

[Papus79]

To whatever degree possible - 'not my circus, not my monkeys'.

To whatever degree that's not possible - conduct yourself in as saintly a manner as would inspire you toward higher horizons of thought if you saw that degree of self-collection and fundamental integrity in another person.

[chewybrian]

(quotes are from Epictetus) The condition and characteristic of a vulgar person, is, that he never expects either benefit or hurt from himself, but from externals. The condition and characteristic of a philosopher is, that he expects all hurt and benefit from himself.

Stoicism has a lot to say here. If your desires are only to be good, to do good, to cultivate a grateful disposition, then these things are yours alone to control. If your desire is to avoid doing evil, then again you are at the controls.

If the world upsets me, then I take this as notice that my goals were not correct. There is no point in being upset at a thunderstorm or a flat tire or my boss being a jerk. In fact, I should lose the idea that he is a jerk and replace it with the idea that he may be ignorant, or that I might be. Socrates said that nobody acts immorally except out of ignorance. If someone is upsetting me, either I am wrong, or they are wrong because they don't understand the full impact of their choices (not because they set out to be evil). Either way, it should not be a reason for getting upset.

When any person harms you, or speaks badly of you, remember that he acts or speaks from a supposition of its being his duty. Now, it is not possible that he should follow what appears right to you, but what appears so to himself. Therefore, if he judges from a wrong appearance, he is the person hurt, since he too is the person deceived. For if anyone should suppose a true proposition to be false, the proposition is not hurt, but he who is deceived about it. Setting out, then, from these principles, you will meekly bear a person who reviles you, for you will say upon every occasion, "It seemed so to him."

If the situation is difficult enough, negative visualization can help.

Let death and exile, and all other things which appear terrible be daily before your eyes, but chiefly death, and you win never entertain any abject thought, nor too eagerly covet anything.

Imagine the worst so that you can be reminded that what you got is not the worst. Work to form a grateful disposition at all times and make the best of the situation...

With every accident, ask yourself what abilities you have for making a proper use of it.

So, that is the take from Epictetus, and there is no mandate from him to change the world, but just to change yourself into something better.

Where I struggle is with existential ideas, particularly authenticity. I think it is a worthy goal to be who you seem to be. When you see a problem with doing so, this is a warning that you are not doing what you should be, could be doing with your life. Ideally, your work and family life and social life should be enriching and rewarding. Good, true friends should accept you for who you are if you are genuine and making a fair effort. A job is not very rewarding if you can't do it and be yourself in the process, or if you have to sell out your beliefs to get along. Well, good luck finding the right family, friends, job, society... to make all that possible, but it still seems like something worth working toward.

[impermanence]

When one thinks differently than others, and it's in important matters, and this difference could cause trouble for one if it became known: How does a philosopher manage this difference? How does he explain it to himself, how does he manage it, internally?

The secret to all things lies in extinguishing the ego [whereby your dilemma disappears].

[LuckyR]

Greetings.


This topic is something Terrapin Station and myself have been discussing tangentially throughout several threads, so you might have seen it there. I want to give it special attention, though. It's about how a philosopher or someone with some interest in philosophy (but we'll just use "philosopher" for the sake of brevity) handles everyday problems with other people.

We live interdependently with other people, and not rarely, we are at their mercy.

How does a philosopher handle everyday problems with other people, esp. when they hold a position of more power than he?

Externally, he probably handles them similarly as anyone who doesn't want to get into trouble -- by adapting, pretending, witholding his true opinions.

But I'm more interested in the internal, psychological aspect of doing this. When one thinks differently than others, and it's in important matters, and this difference could cause trouble for one if it became known: How does a philosopher manage this difference? How does he explain it to himself, how does he manage it, internally?


Giordano Bruno, for example, surely knew full well what fate awaited him for what he taught. Yet he did it anyway. Did he do it because he thought it was worth it anyway?
But why did Galileo recant?
What went on inside the minds of such men? What were their motivations for recanting, or refusing to recant what they believed to be true? And how come they believed it to be true, even though it was so different from what most other people believed at the time?
(I mention these two only as examples to illustrate my topic.)



Thank you for the discussion.

I would look at it the exact opposite way. Rather than label an individual as a philosopher then observe their technique for handling other people, I would observe how individuals handle other people then label then as stoics, or existentialists or relativists etc

[baker]

I would look at it the exact opposite way. Rather than label an individual as a philosopher then observe their technique for handling other people, I would observe how individuals handle other people then label then as stoics, or existentialists or relativists etc

How does that help you in dealing with everyday problems?

[baker]

The secret to all things lies in extinguishing the ego [whereby your dilemma disappears].

Ah, yes, the Stalinist no-man-no-problem solution. Talk about the Left destroying everything it touches!

[chewybrian]

The secret to all things lies in extinguishing the ego [whereby your dilemma disappears].

Ah, yes, the Stalinist no-man-no-problem solution. Talk about the Left destroying everything it touches!

I'm not sure how to assess your response, but I think @impermanence made a strong point. Ego (meaning conceit) is at the root of a lot of trouble we cause for ourselves. Our anxiety and anger about the outside world stems from our conceit that says we know how the world 'should' be, or how others 'should' act. We make the fundamental attribution error and assume that everyone is hurting us on purpose. Again, this is conceit, as we assume that our feelings or needs should be important enough to figure in their plans, when in truth they seldom give us a second thought. Never mind that we seldom give that much consideration to others, but they should know ahead of time how their choices will impact us and alter their behavior to suit us, right?

The illusion of objectivity tells us that we are able to perceive facts at a glance, when in reality it may take lots of reflection and study, and even then we might not get it right. We get angry with others because we assume that we know their motives, when we have to basis to think that we could know their motives.

Socrates said even fear of death was a result of conceit. We assume that we know that death must be much worse than life, and we therefore fear dying. But again, we have no basis for knowing anything about death. We have no reason to fear something we know nothing about, but we overestimate our ability to know and suffer as a result.

So, yes, working hard to limit conceit is a good way to make progress.

[Papus79]

How does a philosopher handle everyday problems with other people, esp. when they hold a position of more power than he?

Externally, he probably handles them similarly as anyone who doesn't want to get into trouble -- by adapting, pretending, witholding his true opinions.

An additional thought on the above:

I don't know if I can tell you how to get through a pummeling. I went through it horribly in several work places, it's hell while you're going through it and the best you can do is fight for the value of your own mind and its value and it's place in the world as if all of existence depends on it.

When you come out the other side though and you're back to just finding that in most places no one listens to you because you're not talking about football or what's on TV, really that the choice your looking at seems to be a binary one of a) alienation and b) slavery, it's extremely valuable to see just how much people have lost with option b). By and large it's not that they could think deeply about things and come up with all sorts of fascinating answers - it's that they don't have that capacity hence social and intellectual violence is what they have to do in order to survive to make up for that lack of capacity.

Even in social alienation then you have to be able to find ways to be grateful for what you have cognitively. One of the things that really reminded me of this was something I watched about the Riemann hypothesis this morning - I was actually able to understand the value of that finding in a way that I don't think many people could. If you have extra mapping apparatus in your head for untangling reality the trick is then to really give that it's value and worth, and consider just how lucky you are to have received it. You might identify it with you, you might be so accustomed to it, or so used to being alienated over it, that it seems like a drag but trust me - I'm not sure you could imagine what it would be like to lose it.

That's where you might be able to then really liberate yourself and say that it's worth a run on the universe rather than trying to beat yourself from every angle with hammers to then run in a social race that's mostly based on the mangling of integrity. The finance race and ability to support yourself - that one's not voluntary in most cases and that's a nexus where a lot of people struggle. Really all you have is to do your level best, for yourself and by your own standards, and even if things fail at that point you at least know that it was the container - not you - that brought it about.

[baker]

/.../
So, yes, working hard to limit conceit is a good way to make progress.

Poster impermanence introduced a pseduo-Eastern concept, namely, that of overcoming one's ego. In actual Eastern thought, there is no such thing as what we in the West call the "ego", but they do have the concept of the false self/false ego (such as in some schools of Hinduism, it's that notion of self that sees itself as separate from God), and the concept of anatta, contrasted with the concept of atta (such as in Buddhism).

Harping on conceit in some (pseudo)Eastern context is a big mistake, given that they believe that it is precisely by relying on conceit that one overcomes it. The conceit is in believing that if others can succeed, then so can one succeed as well.

Ego (meaning conceit) is at the root of a lot of trouble we cause for ourselves. Our anxiety and anger about the outside world stems from our conceit that says we know how the world 'should' be, or how others 'should' act.

Really? And you think it's idle to have ideas about how the world should be, and we should readily dismiss those ideas?
That's insanity, literally. People who actually dismiss their notions of right and wrong, true and false, end up in institutions with white padded cells.

You need to rethink the quietism you're tacitly advocating here.

We make the fundamental attribution error and assume that everyone is hurting us on purpose.

Sometimes we do so, other times, we don't.

Again, this is conceit, as we assume that our feelings or needs should be important enough to figure in their plans, when in truth they seldom give us a second thought. Never mind that we seldom give that much consideration to others, but they should know ahead of time how their choices will impact us and alter their behavior to suit us, right?

This is shooting yourself not only in the foot, but in the stomach.
If other people get to take themselves seriously, why shouldn't you take yourself seriously as well? And why shouldn't you expect others to take you seriously? Other people expect you to take them seriously. Why quietly get out of their way and let them have the upper hand?

Socrates said even fear of death was a result of conceit. We assume that we know that death must be much worse than life, and we therefore fear dying. But again, we have no basis for knowing anything about death. We have no reason to fear something we know nothing about, but we overestimate our ability to know and suffer as a result.

Choosing to be the underdog? Is this the "philosophical" solution?

[Atla]

Ah, yes, the Stalinist no-man-no-problem solution. Talk about the Left destroying everything it touches!

I'm not sure how to assess your response, but I think @impermanence made a strong point. Ego (meaning conceit) is at the root of a lot of trouble we cause for ourselves. Our anxiety and anger about the outside world stems from our conceit that says we know how the world 'should' be, or how others 'should' act. We make the fundamental attribution error and assume that everyone is hurting us on purpose. Again, this is conceit, as we assume that our feelings or needs should be important enough to figure in their plans, when in truth they seldom give us a second thought. Never mind that we seldom give that much consideration to others, but they should know ahead of time how their choices will impact us and alter their behavior to suit us, right?

The illusion of objectivity tells us that we are able to perceive facts at a glance, when in reality it may take lots of reflection and study, and even then we might not get it right. We get angry with others because we assume that we know their motives, when we have to basis to think that we could know their motives.

Socrates said even fear of death was a result of conceit. We assume that we know that death must be much worse than life, and we therefore fear dying. But again, we have no basis for knowing anything about death. We have no reason to fear something we know nothing about, but we overestimate our ability to know and suffer as a result.

So, yes, working hard to limit conceit is a good way to make progress.

Extinguishing the 'ego' has little to nothing to do with conceit, it has to do with extinguishing the sense of self and all reactions to the world. If your arm hurts cut it off; if you have some problems in life (even if they are caused by the shortcomings of others), eradicate yourself and all your reactions to the world. Not the greatest secret to all things in my opinion.

[psyreporter]

What went on inside the minds of such men? What were their motivations for recanting, or refusing to recant what they believed to be true? And how come they believed it to be true, even though it was so different from what most other people believed at the time?
(I mention these two only as examples to illustrate my topic.)

The philosophy of the French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas may provide valuable insights that are relevant to your question.

Levinas is Jewish and was a great fan / follower of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger. His family was murdered by the Nazi's and when he learned that Heidegger joined the Nazi party it was a great shock for him and he then re-evaluated Heideggers philosophy in search for a reason why it could have resulted in support for the Nazi party. Levinas developed a new philosophy in which he poses that "Ethics is the first philosophy".

Levinas philosophy seeks to establish a basis for morality and his perspective poses unique questions with regard to the first moment of interaction with other people, which may be of interest with regard to your question.

For a quick introduction into his work (to make Levinas's books more easy to read) a podcast on Partially Examined Life may be of interest. Philosopher Seth Paskin, one of the hosts, is Jewish and studied Heidegger in Freiburg, Germany, and later dedicated to Levinas.

Episode 145: Emmanuel Levinas: Why Be Ethical?
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2016/ ... 1-levinas/

Episode 146 is also about Levinas and there may be more (some are paid).

The following free ebook by the Dutch professor Adriaan Peperzak (University of Chicago) who is specialized in the history of Levinas, provides a quick insight in the history of Levinas.

To the Other: Introduction to the Philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas
https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/purduepress_ebooks/20/

[Terrapin Station]

So, take a couple issues where I have very different views than the norm (these aren't the only two, there are tons of them, but I'm trying to think of examples that are less likely to lead to big off-topic tangents):

One, I don't at all agree with our prison systems. I think we have a need to separate at least violent criminals from the main population, but I don't agree with the manner in which we do this. I'd have a completely different system in place based primarily on a simple spatial/geographical separation, with much more "humane" treatment, etc.

Two, if I were king I'd institute a completely different economic system and social structure than we presently have. It would be a system not based on money in any conventional sense, etc.

These are both things that I think are very important, too.

These are good examples because very few people agree with me on either of them. They're maybe not good examples because expressing them doesn't create very obvious social or legal problems, but bringing up those sorts of examples will quickly get things off track anyway.

So how do I handle the fact that I think so differently about these things? Well, most of the time I just don't bother bringing them up. I simply accept that I have very different ideas/opinions compared to most folks, and I don't have the passion or energy to spend the incredible amount of time I'd need to spend learning how to better proselytize and gain converts (which is also why I was never a sex cult leader, which I would have otherwise enjoyed). If the topic comes up in a context where I think someone might find it interesting that someone has a different view, I'll mention my ideas, but I don't expect it to go anywhere, really. When it comes to interacting with other people, I'd rather concentrate on stuff that more easily has practical, beneficial upshots for me. Otherwise I'd rather worry about entertaining myself.

[impermanence]

The secret to all things lies in extinguishing the ego [whereby your dilemma disappears].

Ah, yes, the Stalinist no-man-no-problem solution. Talk about the Left destroying everything it touches!

Let me simplify.

If you believe that somehow you are smarter than most everybody else, please reconsider.

[Terrapin Station]

Ah, yes, the Stalinist no-man-no-problem solution. Talk about the Left destroying everything it touches!

Let me simplify.

If you believe that somehow you are smarter than most everybody else, please reconsider.

I can be pretty arrogant, but the discrepancy we're talking about in this thread doesn't bother me. Maybe it's that I can be so arrogant that I have no expectation that other people will agree with me, and it usually doesn't matter enough to me if they follow my preferences.

On the other hand, I realize that if I were smart enough I could much better figure out how to manipulate people to go along with me anyway. So I don't think I'm smart enough in that regard . . . or at least I'm too lazy to bother with it.

And on the third hand, I sincerely like most people. I just like to harass other people who seem to think they're smarter than everyone else, which is thankfully not how most people in the world come across most of the time.