Submitted by philosophybreak t3_y9ndt3 in philosophy
Reply to comment by Apophthegmata in The real practical value of philosophy comes not through focusing on the ‘ideal’ life, but through helping us deal with life’s inevitable suffering: MIT professor Kieran Setiya on how philosophy can help us navigate loneliness, grief, failure, injustice, & the absurd. by philosophybreak
Philosophy teaches to be "better" in the sense of improving one's situation-- be it improving material conditions or well-being-- so long as it is within one's control. It teaches to be more pragmatic, which is where acknowledging reality comes in. One can recognise what is futile and what alternative options a person can take by being armed with both cognitive and meta-cognitive tools from what other philosophical thoughts can teach.
Achieving, or at least coming close to, a good life is paradoxical is what I am saying. It's not necessarily objective nor subjective. On the one hand, individuals have their own desires, understanding and definition of what a good life is. Then on the other hand, I think we can both agree that obsessing on social status and validation, chasing fleeting short-term pleasures, and not looking after the well-being of yourself and others do not constitute a good life. In my opinion, a good life needs to have wider net benefit for everyone's well-being-- that much is objective. But the approach on how to do so is very much subjective.
I kind of agree with you that an ideal life is probably with the minimum suffering, but it is a slippery slope because without it, that could include also avoiding adversity. There is no growth and maturation for the individual and society if there is no adversity. It is as integral to life as happiness and pleasure. If there is no adversity, how could one know what the latter is, and vice versa?
> It's not necessarily objective nor subjective.
Then it's anything. What an empty sentence.
> But the approach on how to [achieve a good life that benefits everyone's well-being] is very much subjective.
I disagree. People can reasonably disagree about things that have objective value, and do so for a variety of reasons ranging from ignorance, to lack of clarity, to misplaced judgment, misunderstanding, or just plain disagreeing about philosophical priors.
The idea that general well-being is subjective is itself kind of silly, given that we are talking about something that is universal, or at least adheres equally to every human being. There's no good reason for thinking that something which is true of 100% of human beings is subjective.
And if it isn't true of 100% of human beings, well, we aren't really talking about a good life with a wide enough net that can describe benefiting everyone's well being, well are we?
> I kind of agree with you that an ideal life is probably with the minimum suffering, but it is a slippery slope because without it, that could include also avoiding adversity.
So, let's not define it that way. If we think that adversity is a necessary condition for the good life, then let's go from....
To
And to that I would say: this is not a philosophy by which a human being can actually live because we do not and can not know what kinds of adversity, and in what amounts, would actually benefit us except in hindsight (if at all).
Which makes pursuing the good life an impossible task to do, short of seeking adversity for adversity's sake and hoping to not be overwhelmed.
This ends up defining the acquisition of that ultimate good, the good life, as something that can only happen by chance. And I disagree that the good life is basically equivalent to being lucky.
> The idea that general well-being is subjective is itself kind of silly, given that we are talking about something that is universal, or at least adheres equally to every human being. There's no good reason for thinking that something which is true of 100% of human beings is subjective.
Some people think their answer to good and/or meaningful life is to have raise a family with children, others think they're happy being childless. I think we can both agree that either desires/goals are perfectly valid. It's complexity like this that rather makes defining arbitrarily what a good life is difficult. If we are to discuss universal human values, it's the mutual respect-- golden rule-- that is arguably the most enduring and arbitrary (but even morality is arguably a construct and therefore subjective but that is a discussion worthy of its own time).
>And to that I would say: this is not a philosophy by which a human being can actually live because we do not and can not know what kinds of adversity, and in what amounts, would actually benefit us except in hindsight (if at all).
You put words into my mouth and this is what I am trying to get across. We don't know what adversity will face, and philosophy in general teaches that whatever comes, be prepared for it with the knowledge and wisdom granted to us by experience and education. It's not seeking adversity for adversity’s sake, but rather learning to accept that the unpredictability of negative externalities is a fact of life and overcoming the challenges thrown at us. Humans could not possibly foresee all sufferings and prevent those from happening. The best example is technology. As much as mass, instant digital media have eased our communications, this also led to an entirely different set of problems for humans, especially with fake news and mental health.
> I kind of agree with you that an ideal life is probably with the minimum suffering, but it is a slippery slope because without it, that could include also avoiding adversity. There is no growth and maturation for the individual and society if there is no adversity. It is as integral to life as happiness and pleasure. If there is no adversity, how could one know what the latter is, and vice versa?
You clearly stated that a life without adversity would be an impoverished one, resulting in no growth or maturity for the individual or society, and then stated it is as integral as happiness and pleasure.
Ergo a life insufficient in adversity is as affirmable as an unhappy life, and we ought to seek adversity in a similar manner to how we seek happiness when either is deficient.
I'm not "putting words into your mouth." I'm explaining what your position entails if we take it seriously.
If the good life requires adversity for maturity and and growth (and maturity and growth are goods) then anyone not enduring adversity, or enduring an insufficient amount of it, or enduring the wrong kinds of it, or in the wrong admixtures, will be lacking in those goods.
If we should be pursuing the good life (which we should, by definition) then we shall need to seek out adversity. And this is an incredible game of hazard, pregnant with all kinds of dangers that make the good life impossible.
> Some people think their answer to good and/or meaningful life is to have raise a family with children, others think they're happy being childless.
Then we have people who differ on what makes the ideal life objectively worth living. And if you're saying some people think the good life consists in raising a family for them, but they don't think doing so will result in the good life for others, we are talking about preferences, or something smaller than the good life, not the good life itself.
> philosophy in general teaches that whatever comes, be prepared for it with the knowledge and wisdom granted to us by experience and education.
This is a fine explanation of what philosophy is for (if we are to value it for its uses) but I'll note that it has nothing essentially to do with adversity.
Wisdom is also needed for correct judgment and action when dealing with boons and good fortune. If philosophy is for helping us deal with whatever comes it's primary importance cannot be in the managing of adversity.
From certain Eastern philosophical and Stoic perspective, attempting to rid adversity is a fruitless endeavour and one should come to terms with its existence as concept. But neither schools of thought would recommend anyone to deliberately subject themselves to extreme adversities. Running every morning or working in a job under tight schedule is not the same as being in abject poverty or slavery. There are certain adversities that are more manageable which builds character.
> If philosophy is for helping us deal with whatever comes it's primary importance cannot be in the managing of adversity.
Good fortune is as unpredictable and random as facing difficulties. Some philosophies, namely Buddhism and Stoicism, cautions people to not be spoiled by good fortunes, because I think we both know that this could lead to the person being complacent. Philosophy could also teach to re-shift one's perspective and continually be pro-active to resolving problems that could be reasonably managed.
> Then we have people who differ on what makes the ideal life objectively worth living. And if you're saying some people think the good life consists in raising a family for them, but they don't think doing so will result in the good life for others, we are talking about preferences, or something smaller than the good life, not the good life itself.
Then would you agree that pursuing what a good life is is also subjective? That is basically my point. Defining good life is as objective as subjective. I am just positing my views based from Eastern concept of yin and yang.
> Then would you agree that pursuing what a good life is is also subjective?
No, I'm not saying pursuing the good life is subjective. You aren't listening very well. People can have a great many opinions about something and be wrong. There is a difference between opinion and knowledge. The fact that people disagree does not necessarily mean that the topic is subjective. It may also mean that one or both of them is wrong.
Saying that the good life is as objective as it is subjective nonsense, it's a contradiction in terms.
I'll also note that apparently we've moved the goal posts. We went from speaking about how philosophy, as a general thing, ought to be primarily focused on the acceptance and management of adversity, while I wanted to point out that even if this was true (I don't think it is) it doesn't make any kind of sense to say that philosophy has nothing to do with the ideal.
And now we've got this line that this is all based on the concept of yin and yang, which like, nothing you have said has much to do with that at all, and certainly doesn't help explain why you think philosophy does not deal with ideal and should be focused on the management and utility of adversity.
I appreciate the differences in opinion, but if you have read the article, the author himself does imply there is room for subjectivity as much as for objectivity when it comes to handling life situations in general using philosophy. I mean, life itself is too complex, it is a paradox. As the author stated: "there is no formula".
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments