How to live
A Good Life Cleary
How to Live a Good Life | Robert Wright, Skye Cleary, & Massimo Pigliucci [The Wright Show]
Sharing buttons:
hello sky and Massimo hi Bob hi Bob nice
to be here
good to have you let me introduce this
I'm Robert Wright this is a right show
available on both streaming video and
via audio podcast you are respectively
sky Cleary and Massimo Pigliucci and by
the way as I speak your names I think
I'm going to activate the feature of
this that magically highlights the
person who is speaking like magic
yeah we don't normally do this because
normally it's just two people but I
think we would be a little on the small
side if we tried to cram all three of us
and so sky you have never been on menial
or TV well you better mean the right TV
but not with me is that true that's true
yes well with our co-editor Dan Kaufman
um and when he was moderating a
discussion between Massimo and I about
stoicism and existentialism that was a
masterful segue to book promotion sky
because that leaves you no choice but to
talk about your book which is what we're
going to talk about it's called how to
live a good life a guide to choosing
your personal philosophy as you suggest
it has co-editors one of them is Massimo
who is here another's day and Kaufmann
who may be familiar to some of our
viewers and listeners as host of the
sofia podcast which is also on meaning
of life dot TV so why don't you to say a
little bit more about yourselves your
plot spoiler you're both philosophers as
is dan but beyond that why don't you sky
why don't you start and give us a little
sense yourself
sure so I teach at Barnard College and
Columbia Potts line and I'm also the
editor in chief of the American
Philosophical associations blog
and my first book was on what's called
existential ISM and romantic love that
came out in 2015 so this is my huggle of
a good life it's my second book and I'm
working on a third book about Simone de
Beauvoir and how her philosophy is
relevant to today okay and she is of
course famous existentialist wise that's
right
yeah so in fact the chapter that I wrote
so how to live a good life was kind of
what sparked me to explore that realm
further yeah and we will definitely be
talking about existentialism but before
we do that let's turn to Massimo who has
been on with me before talking about his
is it unfair to call it a hobby horse
Massimo I guess we should say hi mine
didn't call it your personal philosophy
as a matter yeah so I'm a professor of
philosophy at the City College of New
York and my background is mixed I
started my academic career as a
biologist interested in gene environment
interactions or what normally are
referred to as nature nurture things and
then after my midlife crisis I switched
field went back to school got my degree
and now I am in philosophy of science
but yes in the last several years
Storrs ism somehow has sort of taken
over my life and it's these days it
truly is most of what I do in fact so ok
let's say a little bit about the book
before we get back to you to and your
relationships to the book you know it
has it has chapters on various
philosophical traditions and I should
say religious traditions some of the
major religious traditions are they all
written by proponents of the
philosophies as a and the traditions as
opposed to mere analysts of them yeah
that was part of the idea that we wanted
we didn't want an academic book of you
know people explaining the theory of
whatever we pay that Buddhism
you know existentialist and so on we
wanted people who actually are
practicing or living by or attempt to
live by those philosophies and religions
and so we want to yes of course there is
a part about the theory I mean you have
to know something about what these
things what these traditions say but we
wanted somebody who actually instead of
authors who actually were trying to live
by them and tell us about their stories
and how that fit in their life okay yeah
and this came from actually the ID came
from the conversation we had with Dan on
the meaning of life safeiy because my
smile Massimo and I were talking about
how philosophy had radically changed our
lives and so we thought hey let's talk
to other people who's trying to live
their choice and philosophies and you
know ask them how it helped them to lead
better lives that's great so meaning of
life TV will be getting a piece of the
royalties then it sounds like did we
forget to get you to sign the contract
so some of the traditions you look at
I'll just quickly recap the table of
contents Buddhism Confucianism Taoism
under the ancient philosophies from the
East heading under ancient philosophies
from the West there's two Chilean ism
stoicism epicureanism I just had by the
way Catherine Wilson on who's written
how to be an epicurean in some ways
analogous to here how to be a stoic man
same publisher - oh really
then religious traditions Hinduism
Judaism Christianity progressive Islam
ethical culture and modern philosophies
existentialism pragmatism effective
altruism secular humanism if we have
time I'll ask you a question about the
the religious thing the religious
section but we're probably going to
stick mainly with philosophies so for
starters do you so you said you know the
authors are ad advocates of the
traditions proponents of them is it fair
to say in your two cases that you're
almost a
Evangelos in the in the sense that that
in other words it isn't just that after
a kind of objective perusal of the
various philosophical traditions do you
think one has stronger intellectual
foundations than the other it's more
like in here two cases at least these
philosophies actually had a dramatic
impact on your life I definitely get
that from your chapter sky and is it
fair to say for you to Massimo
to some extent I mean those two
possibilities you just outlined I don't
think they actually mutually exclusive
because in my case I actually did do
pretty much what you just described I
did go out and sort of shop for it for a
new philosophy of life over a period of
a few years I did not do it such a
comprehensive job as it's done in the in
the book and of course even the book
only takes a look at 15 traditions
there's probably in your dozens more
that we could have included but I did do
something like that I mean I grew up
Catholic I realized for a number of
reasons that that was you know
Christianity in general wasn't wasn't
going to do it for me or in fact any
religion that used some kind of
transcendental element of a god-like
type so that screw did a bunch of things
but when I started looking more actively
I actually did explore seriously secular
humanism I took a look at Buddhism and I
took a look at two other eudaimonic
philosophies Aristotelian ISM and
Epicureanism so even though it was not a
comprehensive search I did search and
and stoicism is the one that struck me
as the best fit for me for my
personality I wouldn't I wouldn't
necessarily argue that this is good for
everybody or that this is the best way
to go about these sort of things but so
I don't think the two are mutually
exclusive of course once you start
practicing a particular philosophy then
you actually become also invested you
know personally in it which is part of
the things that we want and we wanted to
get readers to get these feeling that
philosophy is not an abstract only at
least in abstract pursuit of you know
intellectual truths or something like
that it's it's something you can live on
a day-to-day basis okay
yeah and I don't know if I would call
myself an evangelist and I'm certainly
not I wouldn't call myself an
existentialist in the same way that
muscle my Michael and self a stoic
because there no exist n shalese ever
did but it did and I think those 1 don't
say that did that I know yeah but I
think the issue with existential ISM is
that it is very ambiguous and you know
that you don't have specific practices
like cold showers or fasting and
essential Assad famous for cold showers
I have to say exactly yeah yeah but I
mean you know there's no specific
doctrine it's more like a bunch of
overlapping themes but at the same time
it is a living philosophy and you know
what I wanted to show in my chapter was
that sometimes I think about my life and
my choices in an existential way ok so I
thought you would spend some time
exploring both of your your
contributions in particular I mean
there's a lot to talk about in the book
we will we will touch on some other
questions but it's it's a good
opportunity to to dig deeply into the
traditions you represent and sky in your
case that's especially welcome for me
personally because honestly I've never
had a super clear idea of what
existentialism is you these phrases pop
up existential dread you know you think
of absurdity in some sense but I don't I
have to say I'm hoping to learn a lot
from you well I learned a lot for your
chapter but but I'm hoping hoping that
our audience will learn more here and
then I will as well
what do you before we talk about how
existentialism entered your life which I
think we should do what is your answer
when people ask you what is
existentialism first of all it's
complicated
but there like that there are a few key
things and I mean one of the key ones is
that existence precedes essence so
although we didn't choose to be born we
can't choose the situations into which
were thrown and you know the world is
absurd and there's no ready-made meaning
I mean sometimes we inherit philosophies
from our parents which is something we
talk about in the book but for
existentialist the key point is too is
that it's up to each individual to
figure out how to live and one of the
key is sort of the key theme is freedom
so we're free to choose our actions but
with freedom comes a heavy burden for
our responsibilities and that can be
very anxiety inducing and the goal of
life is so that's that's the existential
dread part when you realize that you are
actually free and therefore in some
sense accountable or responsible for
what happens next
exactly so there's no if most of the
existential philosophers were atheists
so you know once if you accept that then
there's no one to forgive your sins once
you get to heaven or wherever it is and
so the goal is to try and live your life
as authentically as possible okay so
when you say existence precedes essence
existence is just kind of the fact of
your plight it's like you're here deal
with it that's the existence part and
then the essence part is like is that
kind of what you choose to make of it
the the essence you choose to create the
essence of you as a person or what
exactly yeah and the essential forces
talked about it in terms of facticity
and transcendence so there are facts of
our lives that we can't change you know
we live in certain social political
systems you know in certain bodies but
of what we need to try and focus on is
what we can do to you know move move
beyond our facticity so yet they call
that transcendence so if we strive
towards self chosen goals okay now right
there I sense an dinner's
action of sorts with stoicism just just
in the sense of you know there are these
facts there are some facts you're not
going to change it's certainly the fact
well the fact that you exist I don't
recommend changing and most people to
change that but there are other facts as
well
stoicism meso really emphasizes the the
the Gremory reality of the feral ISA
stubbornness of some facts and Klem yeah
yeah I mean that is one of the you have
to be corrected that is one of the areas
were stories ism and existentialism
actually have quite a bit in common I
mean the Stoics start out with a
principle called the dichotomy of
control and that is the notion that some
things are outside of our control and
other things are under our control so we
some things are up to us as epictetus
one of the leading stories ancient stoic
success and other things are not up to
us so then then wisdom essentially
consists in realizing and internalizing
this this distinction and then focusing
your efforts on the things that actually
are under your control the things that
you can actually do and then developing
a attitude of equanimity toward the rest
stuff happens and you know sometimes the
universe will turn in your way sometimes
it won't turn your way this is a surface
effect of life and part of being an
adult responsible person is that you are
prepared to accept that despite all your
best efforts sometimes you're gonna
you're gonna fail that doesn't mean that
you are morally culpable for that
failure unless in fact you did make
errors of judgments unless you did act
badly and but those things those errors
and those actions are under your control
so both stress agency is that fair to
say yes and I guess one difference
between the two between stoicism and
existentialism would be the extent to
which we live in a universe with
inherent meaning I mean I take the the
Stoics to be kind of moral realists
right I mean they think there is moral
truths out there it's it's
the scent embodied in the universe right
and and and and their philosophy is
founded on that whereas existentialists
start from what might ostensibly seem a
grimmer starting point yeah that's an
interesting point because that is
actually a point of contention among
modern Stoics so the ancient Stoics
certainly believed in a providential
universe so there's reasons why things
happen
now when I say providential universe
don't think the Christian God who has
order things for the best and all that
sort of stuff what they did they were
pantheists they thought that God was the
same thing as nature and in fact they
saw nature as a gigantic living organism
and so imagine that the cosmos is a
living organism and we are just cells
you know in there are bits and pieces of
this organism so in a sense whatever we
do as cellular components of this
gigantic organism has a meaning because
it helps the organisms function in
whatever way it needs to function that
doesn't mean that things are gonna go
well for us that doesn't mean that the
organism actually cares about individual
cells but there is a sense of comfort in
the fact that you know whatever happens
to me even bad stuff it's actually
helping the the universe at large
Epictetus has this wonderful metaphor of
you know imagine your foot that is an
organ of the of the body and the foot
has to cross a muddy path because the
organ the body has to get home now the
foot isn't gonna like it to have to step
into the mud but you know ease the foot
and and so once he realizes that is
member you know it's a part of these
like a gigantic organ is then it will do
it clearly because hey that's the only
thing we all get home not just not just
me moanin Stoics have disagreements
about this some is more component small
number of modern Stoics maintain the
original position of panties the
position but the majority modern Stoics
are either agnostic or atheist and so
they actually lean toward metaphysics
that is much closer to what sky was was
describing mmm-hmm now in that case you
lose the
to Providence and so as modern stoic
Laurence Baker put it in a book called a
new story says you know deep economic
control basically reduces to follow the
facts the facts of science the
universities whatever science tells us
it is or the best approximation that we
have and the the stoic attitude is both
that's a part of what the existentialist
will call facticity and now it's still
up to me however how to deal with that
is a lot to me as I said to transcend
that facticity not in any sort of
metaphysically hive a sense not in the
sense that we can somehow you know arise
above the laws of physics but in the
sense that we are part and parcel of the
universal web of cause and effect we
things don't just happen to us we are
part of the way things happen and and
therefore our responsibility lies in
that little bit of the universal web of
cause and effect that goes through us
okay okay you know just put add in the
Simone de Beauvoir describes that
actually that I think she took also from
us historic philosophy is that we're
like stones in an arch that no pillars
support so we're gonna in this together
we're in webs of relationships that were
kind of left adrift in the universe and
the response to that is gonna be
different depending on which existential
philosophy you're talking about and also
you know which stage and had existential
philosopher was that for example
jean-paul Sartre was much more focused
on radical freedom and he said well if
you come across you know a craggy
Mountain that you know you just can't
Traverse then we'll change your course
and go a different way whereas the
mandible would say which was much more
attuned to the limitations on our
freedom especially that she got into in
the second sex and saying you know it's
it's not okay that some that there are
some mountains in front of some people
and so we need to kind of bond together
and change the structures in which we
live to be able to live a better life
okay but I do I gather in existentialism
one thing there is a fair amount of
agreement on
in contrast to stoicism it sounds like
is is this starting point of a universe
within a certain sense intrinsic
meaningless or at least no intrinsic
meaning is is that putting it too
strongly maybe maybe a way to ask the
question is to ask you to elaborate on
something you say in the book which is
that you you characterized Friedrich
Nietzsche as the like intellectual
grandfather something of existential so
I took that to mean that you know III I
was thinking the excuse me the god is
dead part of nature right
so yeah Nietzsche said God is dead and
we have killed him meaning that you know
the structure of society used to be
founded on religion but then the
Enlightenment came along and you know we
discovered that we're not here because
of Adam and Eve but because of evolution
and so the problem that Nietzsche had
was that we keep on living in society as
if on these false foundations you know
as if there were still a God that you
know not everyone believes in anymore
and then kamut elucidated that we we are
thrown into this world I mean what if
the Atheist existential philosophers
said enough actually it was Heidegger's
turn to talk about being thrown but you
know we're here with no kind of
guidebook what for how to live I mean if
you're religious yes you have certain
texts but even then it's you know
ambiguous and so but if you're a theist
then you know there really there's
nothing and we're left adrift and you
know it's really hard to understand what
to do and that's why part of the
existential project one of the
fundamental parts of the existential
project is you know figuring out for
ourselves how to live and it's not easy
okay that's our Bob that's I think where
what the one distinction which does is
me is interesting you characterized
stoic philosophy a minute ago as sort of
morally realistic and I suppose to some
extent that's true especially for the
ancient stoicism Stoics but but I
actually would characterize it as quasi
realism there is somewhere between
between moral realism and and sort of
moral constructivism so those are as you
know those are the two broad categories
when it comes to moral truths you know
if you are moral realist then you think
that moral proofs are in a sense mind
independent they're out there they're
they're really analogous to at least
mathematical truths is not if not
physical truths and if your model and
what a constructivist you just say no
more IDs and human invention in witches
make up stuff as it goes and as we go
and some things work better than others
as it turns out so empirical
experimental the Stoics especially
monasteries have a kind of an
intermediate situation which I find
particularly palatable because they say
that on the one hand yes
human ethics is a construction of human
beings after all the word ethics comes
from the Greek Eddy cause which just
meant you know a way to get along
together the point of ethics is to learn
how to get along with other people and
that may mean different things depending
on different contexts and who those
people are and and and what they want
but at the same time they also maintain
Stoics also maintain that there are some
fairly serious constraints on what makes
for a good ethics or not a good ethics
and those constraints are found in human
nature so and by UNH I don't mean any
any kind of impermanent you know I mean
so sorry permanent essence that defines
human beings I just mean the facts of
being a human animal right and those
facts the math mattered the most for the
stories are we are eminently social and
we're capable of reason for them it
follows therefore you take those two as
sort of axioms of of the human condition
and it follows that therefore a good
human life consists in using that about
ability to reason in order to improve
society to improve the world to make
things better for everybody okay so why
don't we delve a little into your
personal stories in relationship to your
personal philosophies I mean as I said
yeah I think sometimes when somebody is
a proponent of philosophical traditions
because of the impact it had on their
lives sky do you want to talk about how
you
I mean both of you actually neither of
you started out as a philosopher you
both had kind of career changes that
that are are related to your interests
in philosophy sky do you want to you
want to talk about how you where you
were in your life when you happened upon
existentialism and decided to move into
philosophy as career sure so yeah my
background is in financial markets so I
worked there for quite a few years and
then actually in New York and then I
moved back home and did an MBA and that
was I guess the collision of factors
that were happening it also in my late
20s and I had you know pressure to get
married I had soul friends getting
married you know I had kind of
boyfriend's channeling me into certain
expectations and then you know pop
culture at all these no Disney rom-coms
about you know meeting a1 and falling in
love getting married and living happily
ever after but at the same time I saw
that um you know a lot of married
justice around me were pretty unhappy
and you know divorce was the rates are
still kind of close to 50% and so I
wasn't sure if that was a good idea like
why should we get married if it really
doesn't work out so I had a lot of
questions about how we should live and
you know how can you choose to love was
one of the big questions I was dealing
with and and how should we love and you
know who should we love and how do you
know if they're the one is there even
such a thing as the one
you know we've read magazines and it's
like oh well if he doesn't opal other
women and if he doesn't like spicy foods
and then you're fine I mean these crazy
things so I was in a an MBA class and I
went to Macquarie University in Sydney
where there are some philosophers and
faculty and in one of the classes one of
the instructors started talking about it
was I guess her PhD was about
substantial ism in the boardroom and so
she's time talking about jean-paul
Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir and
freedom and responsibility and anxiety
ambiguity and that really spoke to me
because they seem to be dealing with
similar questions that I was asking now
I know I didn't get any answers in that
in that lecture but I think just having
the narrative through which to think
about some of these issues I found
really helpful and intriguing but it was
existentialism per se as much as
philosophy more broadly that kind of
captured you at that point yeah I mean I
had done some philosophy in my
undergraduate degree but it was very
analytic and I it just didn't capture me
at all and so there was no
existentialism in in my undergraduate
degree so yeah I was really I guess
coming across like this new way of doing
philosophy that I hadn't encountered
before that I found really intriguing
and was it was it partly a sense of kind
of radical freedom that in other words
it sounds like you were to point in your
life where you weren't sure you're on
the right path and I gathered that kind
of one of the take homes of
existentialism is you know take the bull
by the horns go crazy maybe maybe that's
not a formal doctrine well two things am
I am I wrong in in in the way I'm
thinking of existentialism or the
subtext of it or whatever and be what
can you can you can you put a finer
point on what exactly got you kind of
excited about it I think I found it very
liberating that I think I started to
become aware of these I guess pressures
around me and also the internal
narratives that I've been but well
they've noticed that I'd internalized
about what a good life should be
and how we should live and so yeah I
think it was the this idea of freedom
that we we can choose to throw it all
away and at the same around the same
time there was a book that came out by
hazel Riley called tete-a-tete give her
the lives of Simone de Beauvoir
jean-paul Sartre and I read that and I
mean they were very radical for that
time I mean this was like the 1930s
1940s they didn't get married they but
they had an open relationship and it was
a lifelong romantic commitment and I
really admired some of the ways that
they tried to first of all try to live
their philosophy but also the way that
they kind of issued social expectations
of what they were meant to do and
created you know a relationship on their
own terms
and you know there was a cost to that I
mean they're always as a cost to turning
away from what society is pushing you
into but I think that's idea that I
could do something different and that's
that there wasn't one size fits all and
spur what was really I think that was
really liberating for me okay um so to
some extent I gather it was almost the
appeal of Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir
as kind of role models right I mean it
was there was something about the
lifestyle that was intriguing and I and
I'm sure it's easy to get confused
between their lifestyle and their
philosophy right so can you talk a
little about like what parts of their
lifestyles and their stories do
authentically represent the philosophy
yes so I think they were specifically
trying to create a philosophy to be
lived I mean they'd been through college
and got bored with how abstract
you know Hagel and all the others were
and so they you know if the root of
existential philosophy came from sitting
down over an apricot cocktail and
Raymond Aaron said oh if you are a
salmon or a phenomenologist you could
make waspy out of this cocktail I'm not
going to blew their minds so this this
idea that you could tie together life
work philosophy on an internet basis can
you can you poke some bad itself a
little more the phenomenology in the
cocktail first of all what do we mean by
I know what a cocktail is what do we
mean by phenomenology style it's about
looking really deeply at experiences and
describing as accurately as possible
the phenomenon of what's going on and
that's why you know existentialism
certainly picks up on this idea of being
kind of more descriptive than
prescriptive which goes back to what I
said earlier is there's not necessarily
specific practices because it's all for
us to to work it out for ourselves so I
I think that yes they tried to live
their philosophy and this is one of the
reasons that they wrote novels and
published their Diaries and published
their letters because it was them trying
to trying to figure it out as they went
along and there was certainly some
conflict in there I mean I think one of
the biggest conflicts was Sochi and such
a tripod such we tried to create an open
relationship and establish themselves as
essential and they could have other
relationships that were contingent but
when it was in fact well I realized
later on that's you know that was a
floor in their system to assume that the
contingent loves would would just go
along with it and a lot of them were
really hurt by their relationship so I
think that's a big area where you know
if they found that their philosophy fell
short
okay so Massimo at this point why don't
we why don't we ask you to do a little
more in the way of comparing and
contrasting before we I do want to get
back into existentialism per se a little
more but but first just by spiking
stereotype you would think that stoicism
and existentialism are in some ways the
opposite we think of Stoics as very kind
of disciplined people who preserve their
equanimity while all around them is flux
and challenge and so on and again by
stereotype the existentialists at least
the ones we've been talking about are
not known particularly for their their
equanimity or their discipline you know
they stay out all night and they drink
and smoke and so on is that a is that a
valid apprehension of actual differences
in your view between the two this
something to that I mean the Chancellor
juice in these lives and opinions of the
eminent philosophers says that Stoics
drink wine but they don't get drunk for
instance so you know they're okay with
pleasure pleasure is a selectable thing
is a preferred thing but so long as you
control the pleasure and not yet not the
other way around right and so long as it
doesn't become sort of an all-consuming
you know major part of your life so to
some extent there are some certainly
there are behavioral differences however
there are the more that Skye was talking
the more I was struck by actually more
fundamental similarities I mean we're
already highlighted so the stoic version
of the existentialist facticity and
transcendence you know there are facts
about life that you can't change and
what is really up to you is how you deal
with with with those facts so those are
may that's a major thing in common the
other thing that is in common is you
interestingly asked Skye could sort of
separate the life of the Philosopher's
you know certain doís from their
philosophy this is a very modern that
kind of question reflects a very modern
attitude toward fallarbor v think the
existentialist and certainly the Greek
Romans would we think it's misguided
because in fact in the interim I mean
the reason why we have the Elgin is
largely spoke on the lives of the
philosophers and not just opinions is
the lives in the opinions of the
philosophers is because any
who will live their philosophy will be
considered a hypocrite and in fact you
would learn as much if not more about
people's philosophy by looking at the
way they lived
you know the quintessential case of
course being Socrates you studied just
as much what Socrates actually did
particularly if you read examine phone's
version of Socrates as opposed to Plato
which is more more analytical and more
into the actual philosophy and I like
this notion that it doesn't make any
sense to espouse the philosophy of life
and then not live through it I mean we
all live it you know more or less you
know perfect why we're all failures well
well you know nobody's a sage and that
sort of stuff fine
but if you keep talking about something
and then you don't do it that seems just
you know that strikes me as a
supercritical and it turns out that this
this difference in attitude between you
know the classical stance of if you if
you espouse the philosophy you better
leave it and the modern one is like now
it's all about analytics is in my mind
is best exemplified by a series of
studies that have come up over the last
few years about the behaviors of moral
philosophers mean professional
philosophers who actually specialized in
ethics you know in moral philosophy
turns out that by a number of different
measures moral philosophers are no more
moral or ethical than economists aren't
economists famously bad people according
to some study that's a good question I
think the comparison was the average
academic at their own campus and so
they're no better than they're no worse
either but they're no better than the
average academic and many people rightly
I think were surprised by this because
what is the point of studying ethics if
you're not better at living your life I
mean that would be like a statistician
who nevertheless you know very
understand probability theory and
nevertheless fancies retirement on on
playing the lottery that that makes no
sense that means that the guy Peter
doesn't understand the stuff that is
teaching or just doesn't care which
would be really bizarre and yet this is
not surprising because the modern modern
for
just like any other modern academic
discipline is in fact a highly
analytical highly specialized you know
technical piece of work so that you can
spend your entire life
commenting on without really being
at the intelligence without really
following Kant's philosophy you can
spend you know you can write dozens of
papers a chance to a meal without
actually being a utilitarian in your
life that to the ancient Greek Romans
and I assume to the existentialists from
what Scott would say makes no sense if
you buy into a philosophy if you think
this is a good way of living your life
then you better try to live your life
accordingly as I said you know with with
all the limitations that actual lives
you know imply sky would you say that's
fair that existentialists in particular
would expect some kind of alignment
between accepting the logic of
existentialism I guess and and living it
I mean I would think that in principle
if you accepted the logic of any
philosophy you you you would be expected
to align your life with it but maybe
maybe not in any event
skite is that how does that look from an
existential point of view yeah I think
that's absolutely right I think that's
what the existential philosophers were
trying to do and I mean Kay who God who
is often considered the father of
existentialism not to be confused with
the grandfather who as we each a son
before but if each of the grandfather
and Kierkegaard is the father I guess
that's where we are sorry nobody was
religious but you know he one of his
gripes was that the problem with
people's relationship with God at the
time was that it was so abstract and the
the priests were the ones who were sort
of into mediating the relationship and
so one of kaykai gods key things was to
develop a personal relationship with God
and that was what a lot of his
philosophy was revolved around that
personal like understanding and thinking
about frameworks for him personally
and I think all the ex - illicit well
pretty much will TI stench less than I
can think of that came off - that were
for at the same view yeah that's that's
interesting because I had previously
suggested that you know existentialism
starts from the assumption that there's
no inherent meaning and we have to build
whatever meaning there is but
Kierkegaard as a Christian wouldn't have
I guess wouldn't have bought into that
exactly I mean why was he thrown in
because he wasn't he doesn't he predates
by a little bit the classic
existentialists he probably didn't call
himself an existentialist what so what
do you say a little more about why
everyone else is calling him one yes so
I mean he he was brought up religious
and he guess what he actually came to
the conclusion was but yet there is he
went through the similar process to them
that the later extensionists
came to was like well how do we find
meaning in a world and he's God valid um
and I guess he came to the conclusion
that well you know Christianity promises
eternal happiness in the afterlife like
why wouldn't you want that so it's
always I think you missing well you know
there is no inherent meaning in life and
therefore we're gonna make one up and
that and I think Christianity is a
really good one to link to okay so he's
he's almost asserting Christianity as
much as accepting it just accepting it
on faith it sounds like it's a choice
it's a choice being a Christian is a is
a choice yeah absolutely and she you
saying you know and it's a choice that
you need to reiterate with every step
but then you know you need to make a
kind of a definitive leap of faith to to
to assert that but and then the later
existential philosophers kind of were so
attracted to Kierkegaard because of his
work in like understandings of the
aesthetic and the ethical realms and
they kind of Sakurai's Kierkegaard
and focused on you know the personal
passionate subjective experience on the
one hand but also you know the ethical
engagement with others okay
now speaking of faith there's a phrase
called bad faith associated with Sartre
I guess and that may be related to the
question of authenticity which looms
large I guess in existentialism I didn't
realize how large until I glanced at the
stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
according to their article on
existentialism I mean they make it sound
like authenticity is almost like a
metaphysical category I mean it's it's
it's like let me read you two sentences
extol ism does not deny the validity of
the basic categories of physics biology
psychology and other sciences and and/or
and it doesn't reject moral theory per
se but there is this it almost elevates
authenticity to the level of those kinds
of things here's the sense
existentialism therefore may be defined
as the philosophical theory which holds
that a further set of categories in
addition to those categories governed by
the norm of authenticity is necessary to
grasp human existence so do you want to
say a little about what they mean by
authenticity and maybe relate that to
this notion of bad faith if it's
relatable yeah so what bad faith is
basically denying your that you have
choices you know denying your freedom
and so authenticity I guess I mean in
existentialism there aren't any like
official virtues or anything but if
there were an authenticity would
certainly be one that comes close and
your authentic when you actively take
charge of your life and and choose to do
what you think is genuine and right and
it's not always easy to know what's
genuine and right which is why I'm
Simone de Beauvoir wrote about ambiguity
in one of her main books as the ethics
around the Cure
so I mean the idea is that you know we
should be striving for authenticity it's
not a goal that we can you know achieve
because exponential philosophy is the
philosophy of action and doing so it's
always you know about acting
authentically and authentic choices are
ones that open up our future and and
that's why before I was very concerned
with women not being the second sex
anymore because their oppression means
that their choices are limited and their
futures are limited and so she said that
you know in order for women to be
authentic to they need to be able to
choose from a range of options in an
open future and so bad faith is when you
deny that you have those choices and and
say oh well you know I I guess in the
attributed to biology like oh I have no
free well after all as pre-programmed to
do it like that kind of thinking is bad
faith that also included in bad faith
would just be the the relatedly
the acceptance not just a biology but of
social convention as some kind of valid
constraint right I mean there is a
spirit of nonconformity in
existentialism for that reason I gather
I mean of course it's possible you can
decide that your authentic self happens
to be exactly the same as the set of
roles that society has assigned you from
birth that could happen butBut I
gathered that in existentialism you're
supposed to not assume it's the case
kind of let go of socially defined
you're socially defined self as you
explore all possible selves and then
pursue whatever the quote authentic self
is regardless of what society is has
mapped out for you yeah exactly and I
think that's one of the questions I
dealt with it was that
yeah I guess my my path was kind of I
saw it as being railroaded a little bit
into you know suddenly you know getting
married and things like that and yeah
and just to do that and say oh well you
know we should get my aegis because
that's what everyone does or that's the
socially acceptable thing yeah that
would be bad faith but actually and I
mean it it does come up as a big
question it's like well what if you
choose anyway I mean I think it's gonna
be hard to know I mean I got married
that's not I think it's gonna be hard to
know like whether I did that because of
some kind of you know very ingrained
idea I had about what what I should do
but I still think going through that
exercise of challenging what people
expect of you is really important yeah
and Massimo you were gonna say something
that is yet another you know kind of
area deep agreement between sources men
existentialism although this toy circles
were put it differently but there is a
famous passage in epic tillis discourses
where he's talking to his students and
he's saying essentially that they have
to make choices in life in life and
choices are up to at least that's one of
the things you know decided to do or not
to do something or try to do or not to
do something is in fact up to you nobody
can really make the choice for you and
he's talking about integrity so instead
of sort of the existential way of
describing things he's talking about the
character integrity is like you need to
make a choice that are true to your to
yourself to whatever it is that you want
to do in you whatever it is that you
think it's it's good way to do things
and at some point concludes that pin in
the discourse and says look you know by
all means at some point you might have
to sell your your your your integrity
your soul but at least sell it at the
highest possible bit better in other
words
so this is where Skye's background and
financial markets I take it that
victimís is talking in a sense about
what if centuries mean by authenticity
right so if you wanna meet your choice
you have to be yours by all means do
get married if that is what you think is
a good thing for you but not as a
reflexive you know sort of automatic
thing oh well everybody does it so I
suppose this is also my turn but rather
as wait a minute let me stop and think
about this stuff and you know I may
still decide that certain choices that
society expects from me are in fact okay
I'm okay with those I'm gonna be happy
with those but those are gonna be my
choices in the sense that I I paused and
reflected before actually making them I
didn't do it automatically in a sense so
the story is recurrent the opposite of
the Nike commercial don't just do it
stop and think about it and then you may
or may not want to do it it's the
defense well that's an interesting
question so skyward the existentialist
just do it although by stereotype we
imagine them just doing it right but
they reflect no I think yeah absolutely
it's reflection I mean I think so for
example cue God would get to the stage
where you do you do reflect and then at
some point you're gonna stop and take a
leap so because otherwise if you're
infinitely reflecting then you're not
gonna be you know not gonna be doing
actually doing anything so yes there is
at some point where you do have to stop
and do it but sometimes I think there's
potential philosophers I think emphasize
that sometimes you don't know what the
right answer is though you don't know
until you actually do it and then like
if they're reflecting while doing is
also important mm-hmm so Massimo you
were seeing a real commonality there
between stoicism and existentialism in
in the importance of you know not taking
for granted socially defined constraints
in a way defies stereotype a little I
would have expected because we think of
the Stoics is saying okay here's your
situation deal with it you know I would
think that your situation includes your
your social position I mean that is if
that's not true I assume that's a
stereotype you have to fight and
relatedly the idea that there's a kind
of quiet ism and stoicism you know a you
know just kind of like passive
acceptance of the of the social order
are you here to say that that's all
wrong
just that it's overstating I know it's
it's definitely all wrong I mean it's
like every stereotype there is a grain
of truth right so it is it is certainly
the case that endurance is a stoic
matter right if you can't change things
then your only choice is either to
endure them or to just complain the hell
out of them and the Stoics say that
complained the hell out of things that
you cannot change it's not not only not
helpful because you can't change them
it's actually going to make things worse
because then you're gonna feel you know
you're gonna add self-inflicted you know
injury to the one that already exists so
there is a the stereotype is based on a
fundamental notion that it is the fact
that that story exciting to endurance at
the same time however they kind of
strike a balance between those two
positions that sky earlier associated
with Sartre and the boy in terms of you
know Sartre wasn't that more on the on
the side of a radical freedom while I
sort of accepted the fact that wait a
minute but there are societal
constraints here there are certain
things you know if I'm a woman I'm and
there's certain kinds of constraints my
radical freedom is limited by society in
a way that it isn't for for for men
the Stoics kind of strike a balance
between the two so the note the
fundamental notion is ultimately the
only things you control are your own
judgments and decisions to act or not to
act that's it you know you don't control
the outcomes but that doesn't mean you
cannot influence outcomes there's a
distinction between controlling and
influence and right so destroyed
equanimity comes in to the fact that
whenever you're trying to do something
you accept from the get-go that you may
or may not succeed and you're gonna tell
yourself I'm gonna be okay even if I
fail okay but that doesn't mean not
gonna try and and in fact there is a lot
of interesting episodes in the actual
lives of actual ancient Stoics as I said
earlier stoicism like existentialism is
focused on the lives of these people
actually what what they were actually
doing and not just what they were saying
there is a group of philosophers that is
mentioned in philosophers and Roman
senators mentioned in Epictetus
discourses and about about which we also
have independent sources that is kind of
collectively referred to as the stoic
opposition
like opposition was in number of people
who openly opposed three Emperor's Nero
visitation and omission because they
considered those Emperor's to be tyrants
and to limit people's freedoms such as
days they were understood of course in
ancient Rome right and these people
actually openly objected to the emperor
and some of them lost their lives as
lives as a result some of them were sent
into exile including epic tales himself
the victimís was thrown out of Rome by
the mission and he had to move to
Nicopolis in northwestern Greece where
he established re-established in school
so these were people who understood that
at that particular historical moment
there was something really wrong with
the Roman system with the Imperial with
the Roman Imperial system those the
people that were running the state were
corrupt
there were tyrants there were therefore
to be opposed so that is a case where
you are trying to change things on a big
scale you're not trying this is not a
you know the fact challenging the
emperor in ancient rome is as large a
scale as it possibly can get in terms of
challenging the system but they were
doing that again with the knowledge that
i'm trying to do this because this is my
own decision my intake i'm selling my
integrity pretty high by risking my own
life about you know by speaking up but I
also understand that I don't control the
outcome you know may or may not survive
my efforts and in fact he did survive
the first round of efforts eventually
did not survive the second one so so it
is certainly not the case that Stoics
don't are not into and not sensitive to
the fact that there are some situations
you need to change another big example
again in terms of even more in terms of
his life rather than he is philosophy
because he didn't write much and we
don't know much about his philosophy
other than he was a stoic was Cato the
younger Cato
was a arch enemy of Julius Caesar II saw
Caesar as a tyrant correctly he
understood that if Caesar had won the
day that would have been the end of the
Roman Republic which is in fact what
happened and he took up arms against the
Caesar right history literally started
revolution in order to put an obstacle
to what he saw it
kind of political systemic change that
was going in the run in the wrong
direction
and he lost his life as a result of it
so these are people who fight the what
they for what they think is right even
at the cost of their own lives and even
at the large scale of you know starting
revolutions and changing systems okay so
I want to spend a little time before we
go talking about the book more broadly
and that will mean venturing beyond
existentialism stoicism but first Skye
I'd like to ask you to talk a little
more about authenticity I mean how do we
decide I mean let's take me as a
test-case I would love to live a more
authentic life and I'm always up for a
major life change and I'm starting to
really see the appeal of existentialism
you may have a convert here but how how
do I decide what's authentic is it like
a feeling is it and yeah you know I
don't really know where to start like I
don't know if I should like look to my
cultural background and say well stay
authentic to what you know you inherited
for your parents because that seems kind
of arbitrary right I'm like so how do I
I seek your guidance okay
why I'm looking to your cultural
heritage yeah that's one aspect but also
if you stick too rigidly to it then
that's going to turn into bad faith
because that's doing just what we were
brought up with one way that um yeah can
I do this by an example I guess yeah
okay so I mean one of the ways I think
about is Beauvoir's understanding of
authentic love which is a mutual
recognition of two liberties so I mean
one of the key things I found useful
about existential philosophy was
thinking about how to relate to other
people and so authentic relationships
are based on respecting and
acknowledging each other's freedom and
like not being possessive and jealous
and and dominating and supporting the
other person in you know their their
hopes and dreams and also figuring out
goals together and
authentic love in by that definition is
you know not just it's inspiring us to
be better people so from that I would
say you know in terms of authenticity
you know what is it that seems to be
right and true for you so and this is
the problem with excess philosophy
because there is no quick fix there is
no you know algorithm that's going to
tell you okay well you need to take into
account you know your background you
know who your friends are that sort of
thing although you know because we live
in webs of relationships all these
factors are going to influence our
decision and so in this way Kierkegaard
called it you know the the dizziness of
freedom because we are free to choose
how to live our lives but you know
that's very I will dizzying but also
very anxiety inducing so I guess what
I'm saying is that there's no hard and
fast answer but what's important is is
to reflect on what your goals are in
life and how you relate to other people
in achieving those goals and the
existentialism can be a little bit I
have a bad reputation for being very
individualistic but I think that's
misplaced because they think we're we're
thrown into webs of relationships and
you know we're responsible you certainly
for ourselves but we're also responsible
for other people by virtue of them being
there and being in relationship with
them so yeah so thinking about your
goals but also in the context of being
in relationship with other people okay
so for you the authentic you turned out
to be a philosopher was that the way was
that the decision you made yeah at the
moment I think it's all quiet tentative
with it yes yes I was so consumed with
these types of questions that yeah I
gave up finance and turned to philosophy
yeah and so but I think that's also part
of the the existential idea is that you
know we're always growing and becoming
so even though I'm a philosopher now
doesn't mean that I might not change my
career you know in the future but it's
always you know what's important is to
make sure I have that open future in
order to be able to change if I can or
if I want to okay now let me let me ask
you both to venture beyond your your
kind of favorite philosophies I
mentioned early in the conversation the
various the various traditions that are
covered in the book let me ask you each
to choose one that you kind of like that
you find appealing and and you and you'd
like to say something I'm favorable but
maybe it's even a rival maybe if you
were asked I if you were deprived of
existentialism
Massimo of stoicism wasn't available
maybe it's the one you choose as an
alternative but in any event why don't
you both take the opportunity to talk
about chapters other than the ones you
wrote in the book okay shall I go first
sure and so I mean I think what I loved
about editing this book was that there
are so many different options or so many
different philosophies of life so I
think I got you know an incredible
appreciation for the for the sheen
numbers of how people are trying to live
and trying to live amongst other people
and so I would say like there are lots
of the philosophies that kind of
appealed to me in various ways but um I
think the one I found most intriguing or
one of the ones that I found most
intriguing and that I admire is the
effective altruism chapter which is
based on utilitarianism and maybe should
just pause and say that it is of course
utilitarianism is the idea to try to
maximize overall human welfare or
happiness or something and then
effective altruism is this attempt to
really I guess spearheaded by Peter
Singer among others really measure like
if you're deciding how to what charity
to donate to or whatever or even just
how you're gonna spend your life to
almost quantify what utilitarian value
would come from pursuing this path as
opposed
okay so that's my interjection sorry go
ahead yeah I know I mean I'm further to
that I mean one of the difficulty is
quantifying it you know what is gonna
create the most good and that is you
know that's really a really hard
question but I like the emphasis on
thinking about the consequences of our
actions and encouraging people to use
whatever like resources they have to do
the most good and kelsey piper who wrote
the chapter you know she became a
journalist who writes about you know
issues in the world that she wants to
fix and she donates to charity and she
gets up it i know some crazy our once
once a year when facebook matches
donations so but i I mean I'm not a
utilitarian in any respect but I really
admire the way that you know they're
thinking about you know Kelsey Piper how
she is joining in communities and to try
and live in ways that minimize calm and
and costs to the world we live in
ok Massimo my choice is gonna be
Buddhism which is you you know something
about in fact you know I hell of a lot
more than I do about it
and in fact originally we asked you to
write that chapter but you were busy
working on your book and so we turned to
Owen Flanagan to do the job but before I
tell you why Buddhism would be a good
substitute for a miracle alternative to
stoicism
let me step up step outside for a second
and take a look at the bigger picture
the reason we have there a number of
philosophies of life and religions right
as well as things that could qualify
either way
such as Buddhism is because we define in
the introduction a philosophy of life a
life philosophy has been made of at
least two components sometimes we have a
third one the two fundamental components
are a metaphysics and an ethics a
metaphysics is a in account of how the
world hangs together so to speak right
so I have a religion
or philosophy whether it is
existentialist choices Christianity
bullish and so and so forth has some
kind of story about how best to conceive
the world in which we live and then the
second components that the ethics which
is well given that understanding of how
the world works how we supposed to
behave in the world what are you gonna
do about it right the third component
that some traditions have but not all is
a set of practices I mean sky was saying
that X centuries doesn't really come
with a set of practices but both
Buddhism and stores do and in fact all
religions do because if you're talking
about reflecting on sacred texts or
praying or meditating or anything that
those are all practices right have some
sort so that is what what those are the
three threads or to two to three threads
depending they kind of unified the whole
the whole bunch so Buddhist now Buddhist
metaphysics are different as you know as
far better than I do there are very
different understandings in Buddhism so
what she talked really about Buddhism is
plural because and the reason for that
is because of course it's a tradition
it's an uninterrupted tradition that's
been going on for two and a half
millennia which means it has spun out a
bunch of different schools and some
schools some of which are more
marketable religious some which are
essentially secular or skeptical this
has not happen with sources because
doesn't got interrupted by the rise of
Christianity but it went on for about
500 years and then the rise of
Christianity basically meant the end of
all the elements that philosophy schools
so stoicism kept influencing people
including Christians you know some some
of the major Christian authors and then
all the way into modern philosophy but
as a tradition it only reemerged right
but recently in the last in the last few
decades
so stoicism in a sense is far more sort
of lessiter genius there are differences
as I mentioned earlier monsters
themselves but it's far less that
edginess then put the Buddhism so
however if we take let's say what it's
hopefully probably a majority of
traditions in Buddhism I actually don't
feel particularly comfortable with the
metaphysics aspect of it so I don't
believe in you know reincarnation karma
and all that sort of stuff although I
understand
there are secular bullies who also don't
you know also reject those I think with
Buddhism more than some traditions it's
actually possible to separate a
philosophical component from a religious
so to speak component and I've always
gonna focus on the philosophical inrun
in advocating so but in terms of the
ethics there is a lot of stuff in
Buddhism that goes very well with the
teachings of stores is more or
vice-versa and you know for instance you
know that the notions of non-attached
non-attachment is is something that you
also also find in borås in stories and
we have a slightly different emphasis
and again coming from a different
metaphysical background Buddhists are
often you know there's often a reference
to this this notion of no self which my
understanding at least by reading of
your stuff and a knowin stuff is that a
lot of Westerners have this
misconception that no self means that
there is no metaphysical self the while
no self actually means that you should
be less attached to your own stuff and
cared less about about you and more
about others because after all while the
major goals if not the major goal of
Buddhism is to decrease suffering in the
world then I would just say quickly
that's the ethical implication of not so
from the ethical dimension there is a
metaphysical version of it that in some
renderings are more extreme than the
average right equivalent is you know the
Stoics accepted Heraclitus metaphysics
of course was a pre-socratic philosopher
the one that famously said that you
never step in the same river twice why
not
because the river itself and that you
are not fixed objects you don't have an
essence you are dynamic processes where
you change all the time
and so even for the storix the self is
not an essence it's a dynamic process
but nevertheless there is such you know
there is me I am I am now talking to you
whatever you want to however you want to
understand I and I am the one that is
responsible for my own decisions not not
you even though of course my own self
will change and has change I'm not the
person I was five years ago or 10 years
ago 20 years ago and presumably another
person that will be in five years or ten
years under oath
there are the many other points of
context in terms of the ethics I mean
the the notion of be mindful for
instance of you know right reason right
intention all of those concepts found
find the equivalent in stores in terms
of the practice of the four virtues
which are you know practical wisdom
courage justice and temperance the
language is different the way they're
presented is different but the
fundamental concept I think actually
very similar in fact they are so similar
that as I mentioned earlier during my
period of exploration of a number of
laws with Buddhism as on my list I did
with you know a number of things in that
area because it intrigued me it was
something that was actually speaking to
me okay let me just quickly ask you and
just take off on it because because
Massimo brought up the word kind of
essence now I know I mean essence is a I
mean Buddhist Buddhism is very anti
essentialism that's certainly true and
that's part of what is meant by the
not-self idea there's a sense in which
there is no essence of me you mentioned
that essence enters existentialism in
the formulation existence precedes
essence is it wrong for me to think that
in trying to find my authentic path by
existential lights I am some sense
trying to figure out what is the
essential me like what is essence of Bob
is that wrong yeah well I think the
essential view is that there isn't an
essence that's already there that you're
trying to discover it's an essence that
you're creating by pursuing a project by
doing things by living projecting
yourself into the future so it's
something so I guess you choose the
essence you want to construct rather
than trying to align your life with what
you just is self-evidently your essence
right okay I guess I'm up for that
it might be easier if somebody could
just tell me what the essence of me is
but I guess I have to construct it I
guess I'm willing to try so let me I
have a kind of a closing question before
I ask it's guy I want to ask you about
your time constraint so you are you okay
for a little longer you
the one okay so quickly let me just say
enough that it will allow you both to
basically say anything you want to say
in closing but it has to do partly with
the connection between philosophies and
religions you have both philosophical
traditions and religious traditions
Buddhism you've got under philosophy
because oh and Flanigan is more
interested in the kind of philosophical
naturalistic you might say part of
Buddhism but you know Hinduism you've
got under religion there's one other
little kind of quirk here which is that
in under religious traditions you've got
Hinduism Judaism Christianity
progressive Islam see it's not just
Islam its progressive Islam and a couple
of things I mean first I can imagine
someone objecting like wait a second is
the assumption that Islam per se is is
not progressive whereas these other
things inherently are and of course
that's not true I mean there there are a
variety of kinds of Christians and
Hindus and so on and in a way my well
it's not a question I'm demanding that
you both answer or anything but it's
it's an issue I want to raise it's it
gets back to essentialism in a way
essence like it seems to me that certain
philosophies at least it's fairly easy
to characterize as having in some sense
in essence I mean Massimo you said
partly because stoicism didn't have a
lot of time to diverge and branch out
and evolve and it and it developed
initially in a kind of a local area it's
a reasonably coherent set of principles
whereas all of these religions you know
you can you can find adherents who take
them in radically different ethical and
for that matter metaphysical direction
so I guess again there's no one question
you have to answer I mainly want to give
you both to change to say whatever you
want to say but I guess the the backdrop
is this whole question of well there's
there's there's a decision to put
religious traditions as well as
philosophical the question of whether
with religious
traditions it's it's even harder to
describe an essence or a single
tradition than it is with many
philosophical traditions and I guess
more broadly the fact that many people
choose one or the other
they say you know I'm a religious person
that's my source of guidance or I'm not
religious and then they may be lucky
enough to have a philosophical tradition
that they can really put stock in and
and use that so you can say almost
anything in response to that and you can
do it in any order um all right well I
just mentioned that I absolutely agree
with you that you know religions asked
so incredibly diverse that it's
difficult to generalize and it was
difficult for us to kind of narrow down
you know why why these few but we tried
to sort of focus on some of the main
ones and the progressive Islam was
really kind of we were looking yeah for
the stone once but we're also looking
for you know interesting ones like I
mean ethical culture is much smaller but
it's like a really interesting idea
because it's spiritual but it's also
what some people consider at a religion
song giant so and then you know the
contributor as when we were talking to
him he's done some really great writing
on on Islam and you know it just turned
out that his particular way of living
his philosophy was progressive so I
guess in that way it wasn't like an in
so intentional other than just trying to
give a really diverse perspective of it
like a few examples say ethical culture
you did put in a religion that's
interesting because I am the ethical
culture Society almost see as being by
self definition alternative religion but
they do the kind of rituals that's the
interesting thing I mean they have a
service and they and so on so yeah
that's a chapter worth reading by and
claisen I think who's is there at
Columbia um
that's right so but the question here
with with progressive Islam for instance
could at least just as easily a reason
where Buddhism if or when I decided to
change the title of the book so the book
the of this chapter - you know secular
Buddhism
then there would have been a particular
tradition or particular s but a
particular way present in Buddhism in
fact originally we actually asked our
authors to cover the more general
version of their philosophies that are
chosen philosophies but some of them
said no I'm not gonna do it that way I'm
gonna do it the way much I actually live
it and that was fine with us I think
that to some extent in answer to your
original question but you know what's
the essence if any of these different
traditions
I'm gonna go Vic and Stein on you
meaning that that has weakened Stein you
know prominent mid 20th century
philosopher pointed out language is a
game in a sense meaning that it is it's
a question of agreement abound among a
community of language speakers and so
there is no such thing as the essence of
any of these terms these are cultural
traditions both religious or
philosophical or sometimes kind of
having aspects of both and if I consider
myself a stoic all of that means really
is that my way of thinking has been
inspired by a particular tradition that
generally speaking is labeled as
historic the same goes for for you know
the Christians for instance I mean the
other tradition I'm familiar with is
Christianity because I grew up Catholic
I mean there are some Christians were
actually secular they believed that
Jesus was like a Socrates figure not not
the Son of God so that's pretty radical
in terms of sort of you know the
differentiating yourself from from a
very long and very well-established
tradition and even within Christianity
as we know there is a number of
different ways of interpreting and
putting emphasis on one thing leather
than the other what brings them all
together is the fact that they that all
member all people who think of
themselves as Christian to refer to a
certain cultural tradition often I'm
asked you know I've been involved in
this project of so trying to update
voices in particularly aspects of stoick
ethics and especially stoic metaphysics
to the 21st century
and often the questions that I get asked
is well but is that it still stoicism
and my answer is frankly well if I say
it is meaning that or if enough people
say I should say more correctly say it
is then it is right you don't you don't
pick your own language but but if you
have enough people I said yeah that's
close enough
that's that's uh I can see why you would
you would go that way then it is a fun
and if you have people are gonna say no
actually you know what mask you know
what you're doing it doesn't it's not
recognizable it starts and then then I
guess it will become something else or
nothing at all depending on whether
people pay attention to it or not so I
think we should be we shouldn't be
overly concerned with you know but is it
really Buddhism or is it really into ism
or something like that there's really no
reason no no no no particular pay pay
off in being trying to be sort of
purists about about this sort of stuff
another aspect of the same question is
what what about eclecticism so there are
some people like for instance our
missing co-editor you know contain
kaufman is is often sort of it comes
across as a little bit of eclectic I
mean if he wrote the chapter on restore
New York's Italian ISM but it's like you
know I bits and pieces of things he's
open at different different influences
and some people reject that and they say
well but if you start picking pieces
right and left and you're gonna end up
with an incoherent jumble and I think
that is a reasonable concern if if you
do it's only a mindless why but we also
have to remember that pretty much all of
these traditions themselves were
influenced by other traditions both
before and during the Stoics came out of
Socratic philosophy and they were highly
influenced by the the cynics and part of
their philosophical understanding
changed as a reaction over time as a
reaction from of critizise from the
outside from the Epicureans and the
academic sceptics so all of these are in
fact eclectic in some sense but you want
to be eclectic in a way that makes sense
in a way that is you know sufficiently
coherent so because after all what is it
that we're talking about here you
earlier were asking sky for specifics
like you know so what I how can I behave
in an authentic way
something like that right we remember
that most of these traditions in fact I
would like you actually all of them even
the even the the in political ones the
ones based on sort of Commandments kind
of stuff and rigid rules they're really
not supposed to tell you what to do on a
moment-by-moment basis they are a
framework right they are there a general
compass they're kind of oriented
yourself in in your life and so if I am
if I follow the stoic compass it turns
out that that you know for most of the
the things that I do doing in my day I
ask myself well is this why is this
courageous is this just an it is is this
temperate those are just helpful ways of
organizing my thoughts the answer to the
question in the specific is this
particular action going to be temperate
just and so on so for that that's up to
me nobody else is gonna say you know
nobody's gonna is communicate me from
from stoic church for giving the wrong
answer in fact in a sense that's that's
why they're called personal philosophies
they're they give you a general
framework and a way to navigate your
life in a more coherent and useful
fashion but after about at the end of
the day you know it's up to you at what
price you sell your integrity Epictetus
put it and I think one of the goals of
the book is that it's um it's more like
an opening or a gateway for people to
kind of get a taster and understand
different philosophies and to reflect on
their own philosophy of life or religion
but also you know like I said have an
appreciation for other philosophies of
life and hopefully to enter into a
conversation about you know about other
perspectives and you know because I
think the world could do with a whole
lot more understanding right now yeah I
think you're yeah it's like you know
Whitman's chocolates used to have this
thing called a Whitman sampler and it
would have like one thing of all these
different kinds of chocolates this is
like a philosophical sampler it's a good
you've got commendably short chapters on
all of these different traditions
written by people who in some sense
believe in them and and so it's it's a
great smorgasbord to switch keulen Airy
metaphors a little bit and I'm glad you
mentioned Dan the missing co-editor Dan
Kaufman who wrote the chapter on
Aristotelian ISM maybe maybe Dan can can
later at some point come on and just
defend Aristotelian ISM because that is
something that like existentialism
I started out knowing very little about
and sky thanks for bringing me closer to
my authentic self in the course of this
congratulations to both of you on the
book this is this is what it looks like
holding it up to the camera very
recently published by vintage books how
to live a good life a guide to choosing
your personal philosophy congratulations
and good luck with it thank you
![How to Live a Good Life | Robert Wright, Skye Cleary, & Massimo Pigliucci [The Wright Show]](https://img.youtube.com/vi/0TUSj1y3tjU/mqdefault.jpg)
