philosophy practice what you preach

Philosophers: practicing what you preach

Children are a spectacular audience in that they have a great BS filter. It is quite common in paediatrics for kids to be very skeptical of advice. I recall an overweight doctor working in paediatric endocrinology giving dietary advice to a diabetic child. Let’s just say, the poor doctor was informed of the value of giving advice that they themselves don’t follow.

Through the years, I’ve met many smoking surgeons, neurotic psychiatrists and overweight dieticians (but never a less than glowing dermatologist). It’s not necessary to practice what you preach to give good advice. However, going directly against what you preach, what you are meant to be good at – does raise authenticity and competence concerns, not always fairly, but we would be worse off without this filter.

Whatever about overworked doctors, my real question is about philosophers. Schopenhauer is widely regarded as having been an intolerable hedonistic psychopath and a chauvinist. It is well known that he nearly pushed a woman down the stairs – for being annoying. He bailed on a woman who was pregnant with his child. Hegel did something not entirely dissimilar. Nietzsche didn’t have much of a social life, except for in brothels (not unlike Schopenhauer, actually). Kant didn’t have one at all. Gazillionaire Seneca denounced worldly possessions. He was clearly preoccupied with a fear of poverty. At times, in his letters to Lucillius, he sounds like he’s trying to calm himself down more than anything else. I strongly believe he has what modern day psychiatrists would call a passive death wish. Marcus Aurelius was born into being arguably the most powerful man in the world – and so his advice sounds good, but it’s not clear of how much use it was to him. Seneca’s and Marcus Aurelius’ explanations often reference two separate entities: luck an the gods, without really examining the nature of these. Machiavelli, regarded by many as the ultimate weasel and plamaser, didn’t exactly fare so well at court. Freud came up with a theory that is to philosophy as Newtonian physics is to physics. Nonetheless, there is some outrageous stuff in there too. And if you say enough – some of it is going to be right, a bit like a broken clock is right twice a day.

Two quotes come to mind. Both from Seneca. The first I will use as a disclaimer:

“I shall never be ashamed of citing a bad author if the line is good”.

The second, the one I am actually interested in is:

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”

What if replace the word religion with the word philosophy? Let’s be honest, philosophy is nearly more powerful than religion – because it spreads more insidiously. There’s no discrete baptism, no conversion, no point of no return – just silent incremental exposure. And so, I wonder, we treat philosophy with such reverence, but should we?

philosophy practice what you preach

6 thoughts on “Philosophers: practicing what you preach”

  1. “And so, I wonder, we treat philosophy with such reverence, but should we?”

    Are you sure that people treat philosophy with reverence?

    Perhaps now people treat science with reverence, now science has the authority which once upon a time religion had.

    Thinking clearly is very important and logic, which is a part of philosophy, is a good place to start to be able to think clearly. One can start with Aristotle’s laws.
    1. Law of identity, i.e. A is A
    2. Law of non-contradiction, i.e. A is not non-A

    These will go a long way in clear thinking.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I completely agree with your point about science. I think that when reading the work of a philosopher, it is hard not to envisage them as morally superior – which is obviously just a bias. So my point is really about the people who have an interest in philosophy – rather than the wider audience. The philosophy of the wider audience has unfortunately been warped by a mix of “but-it’s-science” and positive thinking.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. “The philosophy of the wider audience has unfortunately been warped by a mix of “but-it’s-science” and positive thinking.”

    Yes. you are right. Most people do not want to think independently. They just want to believe in something, before it was religion and now it is science.

    I like your blog.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “when reading the work of a philosopher, it is hard not to envisage them as morally superior”

    I do think that a really great philosopher, like Aristotle or Kant, is far superior (in the quality of mind) than the greatest of scientists.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s