073 - Who Needs Philosophy? - You Do!

Developing one's own philosophy of life can be one of the most rewarding experiences. ll can serve as the basis for a productive and happy experience in this world.  

What many don’t realize is that our beliefs, values, and actions are based on a grounding in a particular philosophy, whether we understand it or not. Examining the underpinnings of our concept of self and the world can be a fruitful exercise. It is better to actively choose one's philosophy of life rather than have it handed to us by others, or by unconsciously absorbing it from the environment of family and friends.  The default position often produces conflicting and random direction, which can lead to doubt, frustration, a lack of fulfillment, and loss of meaning in one's life. 

This podcast episode demonstrates how we are handed a philosophical outlook starting in childhood, continuing through our education, and examines the current paradigms upon which this pedagogy is based. It discusses key philosophical questions that should be actively pondered, and dives into current topics such as sexual orientation, political affiliation, identity groups, and individualism vs. collectivism. Lastly it is shown how many of the casual cliches we use in speaking are actually statements of profound philosophical positions.

Transcript

0:04

Hello. This is Gregory Nowak. This is the cunning of Geist episode 73. Welcome back. First, I want to apologize for the long delay in getting this episode done. And some of the teasers that I put out about what it was going to be about. I worked for more than a week on this one, subject the Trinity, according to Augustine and Hagle, and I had all these. Ideas swimming in my head and I was preparing my notes and something deep down within me told me to hold back for a bit that I still needed some more work to get my thinking straight on that, on that subject. So hopefully we'll cover that in a future episode, but again, I do apologize, but, but luckily I Woke up. And, uh, I had a good idea for a new episode and I worked on it all day long and, and, and this is going to be it. So hopefully you enjoy it. I'd like to start this episode with a question. In fact, three questions, perhaps some of the most basic of philosophical inquiries. One, who am I? To what is my purpose in three. How can I find answers to these two important questions? Now most children will ask questions of this type at a very early age, but something happens. As they start to grow, they begin to be taught things like do this. Don't do that. And at a certain age, they're instructed on things. Uh, rules of behavior. They're instructed in the golden rule that there are other people that should be treated the way they would like to be treated. And they're eventually told about the. The town, they live in the country, they live in and. They're told that they come from their parents and they're part of a family and there are other families. And at some point probably pretty young they're presented with some religious beliefs or maybe not. Uh, and at some point. Uh, char will even ask bigger questions, like, well, who created your parents? On back and so forth. And with some of this may go all the way back to God. And of course, this brings up the gauge, our question who created God. Now. If presented with religious beliefs. One may evaluate them. Uh, on, on their own with their own young thinking capabilities to see if they hold water. Or they may choose to accept what they're told because they loved their parents. Uh, or they may say, all right. Except for the time being, but our reserve judgment and think about this later on. Of course, once you begin school, You learn to read and write. Do you learn history? You can learn science. And many other subjects, or you're taught to take care of yourself physically to keep clean, to brush your teeth. You're told that someday you will decide what you want to be in terms of a job or profession. And at some point you may be expected to provide an answer to the question. What do you want to be when you grow up? It's commonly asked if. Of children. And it's interesting because the question itself states in ontological fact that you're deciding what you want to be to be. As if your job is your entire being. Rather than you having a being already come. Composed the mind, emotions and body. And w whatever job you choose can be looked on is not really affecting your total being, is that much. It's more along the lines of what kind of car you're driving, the style of your dress. These things really don't define your existential being. You're also taught that there's evil in the world, uh, that people get hurt and get sick and even die. And then there's questions. Why do bad things happen to good people? And the philosophy starts to take hold in terms of some of these questions. Uh, you're taught that it's important to protect yourself from evil. And although death cannot be put off. You're told that if you take care of yourself, you'll live to a ripe old age. So you don't have to think about that now. You also may have been taught certain racial, religious, ethnic, or national biases that, uh, your people or group or identity are a bit better than others. Spiritual specialist males to be taught that. That, uh, we have seen the light that others have. Not that God appreciates us more than others. The one thing is for sure. You're being taught. You're being programmed into a way of life that has certain beliefs and values. Some beliefs will make sense. Others. you take for granted because you respect your teachers. Some you may feel are incorrect and you seek to rebel from them. And at some point in life, this all sort of comes to a head and you take a philosophical stand, whether you realize it consciously or not. And maybe unconscious. Uh, it may be the result of deliberate thought and study in your partner may be just what you absorbed by osmosis, through friends, the culture and society, and put it all together. And that's what that's who you are. Now, There's a question. Do you, do you just accept the beliefs and values you've been taught and just get along or do you search for your own meaning? Sometimes these searchers are called seekers. And I thought personally, I was a secret for a long time. And to some extent, I still am. now, as I said, everybody makes these decisions, whether they're conscious or not. And as we've covered in previous episodes with the mind has a conscious and an unconscious component. Now. It's important to point out that our species has evolved to put tremendous weight on doing what others are doing. And this is stronger in some people than others. It's a very powerful social force. Nonetheless. Now I'm an older guy. I was a child in the 1950s in America, and that period was marked by extreme amount of conformity. Doing what everybody else did was the rule. Your hair had to be cut a certain way. You had to dress a certain way. Uh, and back then, and in America, every child was expected to identify what ethnic group they belong to and what religion. Th their family was, the country was a melting pot and this is accepted. For example, if you go play with your friend after school, the mother would say, oh, you know, something like, who are your people? Or, you know, Uh, what really, what church do you go to or whatever. And it was. And you gave an answer. You know, Johnny was from an Italian family and Catholic Betty was from a German family and Lutheran. Tommy was originally English and his family has been in America for a long time. Rachel was Jewish and you know, many, many different types of people and they were all considered Americans and they thought of themselves as Americans. And as Americans, we are taught the American way where the land of the free, the home of the brave, we're a free country where one could practice the religion of their choice. The horrors of world war II are now over in communism. So the 1950s, early sixties and possible nuclear war where the new threats. Now it wasn't until. The 1960s. Mostly in the mid sixties and later that many of these established social conventions began to be changed. But my point is that there is a site guys that were all born into it. And most of it's just accept that. That's what it is. Today, the world is obviously different than the 1950s, but these same questions and assumptions. Remain today. We have a new tribalism brought about by the electronic revolution and the internet, which we discussed in depth in episodes 21 and 48. And there seems to be more choice today. Uh, in terms of where one belongs in more difference out there, there's apparent differences in sexual identity. And in terms of recognition, politics is now become a key identifier of one's identity. Much more than it was previously, rather than Johnny is, uh, is an Italian American and a lapsed Catholic. Now Johnny is a far left progressive. And no one cares a Betty's family was from German descent and she's a lapsed Lutheran. What is important that she's now a right-wing Trumper. So. All this change though. Is created not an undercurrent of dissatisfaction. Most Americans feel the country's not moving in the right direction. Respect for our political institutions is in an all time low. The media has become balkanized. There is a sense of something is wrong. And that sense is usually projected onto the other as causing it. And I believe this is not just an American problem, but it's, but it's all over the globe. Now. My contention is this frustration and anger can be dealt with in a better way. By turning to you, guessed it philosophy. And that is the subject of this episode. Rather than just blindly accepting the shibboleths of the tribe we identify with, we can dig deeper and go back and start to address some of the questions I began with. Who am I? What is my purpose? How can I get answers to these questions? And I believe we can analyze these questions on our own and thoughtful manner, not relying on what we're being told by others, but what we have found to be true based on our own life experience and mental capabilities. And this is what philosophy is. Philosophy is the ground, which gives birth to our beliefs and values, whether we realize it or not. And oftentimes we did not see the philosophy is in fact, the ground from which our ideas, beliefs, and values spring. This is a major point of Marshall McLuhan and his various works for getting the medium is the message. And for more, and McClune please go back to episode 21. What McCluen is saying is that we should pay as much attention to the ground upon which our beliefs stand as the beliefs themselves, and putting this in a media context, which is more known for, we should pay as much attention to the meeting of television as to the content of the television programs. Now let's examine question one. Who am I? Let's look at it from the standpoint of sexual orientation. When, when you're born, you're assigned to biological sex, either male or female. And back in the fifties, though, when you're, you were also raised in a certain manner, based on this assignment, they were boy colors and girl colors. They were board boy toys and girl toys. There were boy. Clothes and girl clothes. And it's funny in the famous Chuck Berry Christmas song run, run Rudolph. You may be familiar with it. The lagers go as follows for what Santa gives the little boy and the little girl for the boy he does. According to song now said Santa to a boy child. What have you been long in for? All I want for Christmas is a rock and roll electric guitar in court. And for the girl it's quote said Santa to a girl, child. What would please you most to get a little baby doll that can cry, sleep, drink, and wet and quote. And as usual, Chuck Berry sums it up perfectly for the times. And if you didn't follow fall into one of those stereotypes, let's just say, well, that was kind of looked down upon. Now the issue is this. We can accept the biological birth as the hand, we were dealt by being born just as we can accept our hair color, our height, our skin tone, but in terms of sexual orientation, shouldn't we have sudden choice in the matter, you know, we discussed in detail episode 72 of the anima and the animus arc types in the. Being huge components of the collective unconscious. And we also said, although they tend to be turned more masculine, more feminine faith traits, they don't rely on body type at all. They have to do with a whole host of psychological attitudes, which we outlined in that episode. And individuals fall in all different positions in these factors. And these psychological attitudes in the unconscious of the ground. And the figure, which is how we add to when we choose to love how we choose to express this. physically, that's the figure, but underneath there's the ground of attitudes that we identify with and it has nothing to do with are the biological sex assigned at birth? And other examples, one's religious beliefs. We're born into a certain ethnic group or combination thereof. And that's the hand we're dealt with just by showing up on earth. We may be taught. Certain faith is in, this is what we believe our people believe. And many, except their religious beliefs, their parents give them because their parents or parent or caregiver who gave it to them, they love and respect. And so, but certainly this is not the case with, everybody's not written down as a law of nature that you must accept your parents, parent or caregiver. Uh, religion. and, but rather than just accept blindly, what has been handed down, shouldn't one question themselves regarding their own religious beliefs and not just try to fit in. I understand the fitting is important, but, but so's coming to your own beliefs about things. And here is where philosophy comes in. This is what's called developing one's own philosophy of life. Yeah. Political orientation is another example. I have a friend. He's a lifelong committed Democrat. It says his father would roll over in his grave. If he ever voted for one single Republican. Now I know my friend. Well, and I also believe that he feels his opinions are based on truth and that's fine. And he may be correct. But just how much of the ground he's standing on comes from his father. I wonder. I know a woman from high school whose husband died and she later remarried. The first husband was a far right conservative. The new husband was a very liberal Democrat. She says calmly and matter of factly that she changed her political opinions from far right to far left because she wants to be on the same side as a current spouse. Now, this may be an extreme case, but it certainly happens. And not just with wives, but husbands as well. It can also happen professionally. If everyone at work is Republican, one might be inclined to join the club. And this is not only true with spouses and work, but with friendship groups, as well as a big factor. I again, thinking back when I was in college in the late sixties, early seventies, there was a default political ideological position that we all had, or at least all the friends I had most of, most of the kids in college at the time. And being in that age group and the people we hung out with the so-called Woodstock nation. So to speak, it was anti-war pro peace. Make love, not war, et cetera. What was the Genesis of this default position? Where did it come from? Well, I guess it was a reaction to the conformance. Approach with the 1950s. But it was also in the air and the music in the film and in the youth movement leaders. Um, it was a tremendous social change at the time. Now. These default positions, occurrence, scientific world views as well. They're called paradigms. And we did a whole episode on this and that episode, 62. As Thomas Kuhn showed in his masterful work structure of scientific revolutions. Science does not advanced by incremental steps, but by revolutions of the current paradigm. And I've discussed this here in many occasions. The current scientific paradigm is that of naturalistic materialism. That mind is an epiphenomenon manner. The matter is fundamental, not mine. Free will is essentially an illusion and a purely materialistic universe because the grunda we're thinking is not freedom. It's just electrons, protons, and neutrons bouncing around. And a key point here is that this default scientific paradigm filters down to every person. That's why we're here today. Things like follow the science from our leaders in science says this, the headline says science proves. Over and over again, you read this. To me, this is a problem. Why? Because science itself is based on philosophy. Before we get into that. Let me just cover. The, the basic tenants of this naturalistic materialistic worldview, they are as follows one. That life emerged somehow spontaneously on planet earth from raw chemicals. To that the minds we humans have are a result of evolution alone, meaning that mind is purely an epiphenomenon of the brain. Three, that there is no inherent meaning or purpose in life other than what we make of it. And which happens to be the current existentialist position. If you had to boil it down. For that the origin of the cosmos is unknown. Five. The w w why the universe has the laws that it does are unknown. And finally, six, if science does not know the answer to a question, now, it will, at some point in the future, and this last 0.6 is not science, but scientism the religion of science. And these are the six. Tenants of the paradigm we operate under it. These are the basics. And I believe that state deeply flawed. And there are many objections. The biggest one I think, is this notion of verification, ism, and that's pretty much the heart and soul of the materialistic. Paradigm. This is the empiricist approach that we can only know what we observe. That something is true. Only if we have observed physical evidence to back it up. This is the attitude that holds sway today. But philosophers have rightly pointed out. The reality is not what we observed, but it is our interpretation of what we observed that counts. American pragmatic philosopher. Charles Pierce was one of the first to point this out with his theory of semiotics. See episode 52 for more on Pierce. Nicha also famously said there are no facts. Only interpretations. You think about it for a moment when we observe something, our understanding of it comes out of our memory. We have a memory of the thing in question as well as the grind from which it comes. And we interpret the thing based on the memory of the thing. And from the ground in which it comes a case in point. This has a lot to do with observation and what we choose to look at and interpret now. There's a funny experiment of this on YouTube that you can go and prove this to yourself. It's a one minute video you're asked in the beginning to watch a video of several people passing basketballs. And you're asked to count how many times the people wearing white uniforms pass the ball, not the people wearing black uniforms. There's a mixture of both and just one minute long. So it starts, you start counting. At the end. They ask you, did you see the Moonwalking person in a bear outfit dancing in the video? Of course they would say what that's crazy. There was no Moonwalking person in a bear outfit, dancing in the video. They say, watch it again. And you cannot take your eyes off the dancing bear. Try it yourself. You can Google viral awareness test. Dash Moonwalking bear. And I bet you'll be fooled the first time. When you watch it, if you focus on counting the passes. And all this depends on what you consider the figure and what you consider the ground in your mind and how you interpret that figure versus the ground. Now. There's so much. Evidence against blind materialism. And. Uh, but the materialistic world. Is the dominant position. Even people of faith, hold, hold to it. Many believe that God created the materialistic universe and its laws. And that's it. It's done. Now. My point is that the scientific materialistic view is based on philosophy. There is a philosophy of science. Kuhn showed this popper is a, is a leader in this area. Science itself is based on philosophical positions. Now. An important point. When I say philosophy, I don't mean there's one agreed upon philosophy among philosophers, far from it. Today philosophy is divided into several camps. There are few main ones. Probably the most prominent one today is the analytical. Philosophy type. And this branch is more empirically based. It's more in line with the materials to paradigm. It also tends to be centered a lot on language and the meaning of words. It's most prevalent, probably in the UK, in the Americas. Then there's the continental philosophy with its two main camps of existentialism and the German idealism of cotton Hagle. And of course there are many combinations and offshoots, Which I want discussed now. My point is that there's not one philosophy that all philosophers hold to. However, it's important. I believe when I'm trying to get across here, is it. Once you try to think what their own personal philosophy of life is, because thinking about this will enable one to feel more complete conviction about their own beliefs. Now here's some questions to ask yourself. Are you taking someone's word on something, or have you thought about yourself when you hear greater minds and yours have concluded or science says or settled science? Ask yourself. Why do I believe this? Do I believe it because someone I respect believes it or could they be wrong? Now, this question is essentially epistemological. It was how do you know what you believe? And I think people have to ask that that's one of the, that's one of the three big questions. This is important because. Our own beliefs and values. Well determine our own outlook on life and what our goals and ambitions are. Let me give you an example. For many years, I studied that 1970s, new age tome called a course in miracles. I went to lectures on it. Seminars. discussed it with many people. And, it presented a philosophy of life that I felt at the time in my forties that I could agree with. Essentially the course teaches a Gnostic view that the world has made an error as an escape from God. The world we see is not real at all. It's just an illusion. And an illusion of the ego and that the ego sees only sin, guilt and punishment. And the course endeavors to retrain the mind of its essential sinless nature and its true home in God. It does this through practicing forgiveness for all things in everyone. The course of miracles, philosophy can best be expressed, but what it says right at the beginning of the text, nothing real can be threatened and nothing unreal exists. Farrin lies the peace of God. Now the course presents his teachings very beautifully. and, it's w it's worth reading it. At least parts of it because it's so well constructed and it certainly gives one some very good advice on how to view relationships to get rid of the hate. However, it also presents a very complicated ontology and it takes some time to unravel just what it's saying. And I did this and I eventually came to the conclusion that it's underlying metaphysics incorrect. Sorry. I put it aside. I still had respect for her, but it was not, it was not my thing anymore. But one important thing that I noticed, and I wanted to get this across. Among the core students that I met, the other core students, the teachings did not have any real epic application to making their lives better. Other than perhaps reducing them at a guilty lid and others. And I know that's a big thing. But it's not the only essential thing for a successful and meaningful life. And the course kind of presents that. That is it. And you can see where this is. So if you believe that the world is just an illusion, what's the point of really trying to achieve something. And further, the course taught that all time is an illusion as well. That all that has happened and will happen has already occurred that we're just reliving it in some kind of weird fantasy. Uh, the dream of existence is an air and it's over, but our ego somehow are stuck here. Just, you know, watching the movie over and over and over again. So. If this is your foundational belief, why strive for anything? And, um, as I've been saying, our underlying beliefs, the ground upon which we stand will provide the basis for our actions, our goals and purposes. And. I left the, the course of miracles community for philosophical reasons. Eh, but it was not lost on me that the, uh, view of a meaningless existence here on earth, Can can. It's not any help for once motivation in life here on earth. Now the opposite of this is true as well. If one's philosophy of life includes a belief in freedom and that the world is real. Then we have mental capabilities that can lead us to achievement. Not only for ourselves, but for others as well. This is going to be a very empowering philosophy to get ahead and to get things done. Now. The last issue I want to discuss is how people should view the relationship with others is a very important subject. Two poles, this being individualism versus collectivism. The individualist position is that I have the right to pursue my happiness. As long as it does not interfere or hurt others. Where the collective is, attitude is more the needs of society. Come first, personal gain is the afterthought. And this. Issue provides a very clear example of how philosophy can lead to an ethical point of view and a political point of view. And perhaps this is the biggest trade-off in societies today, the rate of the individual versus the role of government and establishing those rights. And the 20th century certainly saw a huge battle between these two forces, the communist collective versus Western democracies. And the struggle continues today. Not only against communist nations versus, the west, but it exists within nation states as well as some countries are becoming more socialistic in the. And the fight goes on. Compounding the problem. The concept of individual rights is different definitions to different parties. So people aren't even clear what they're talking about. Or if they're talking about the same thing. And then on top of this, there's the issue of an eroding trust in government institutions. They're perceived as failing large percentages of the population. And a lot of this is due to the new tribalism emerging from electronic media, which threatens the nature of nation state itself. Uh, Hagle and his philosophy of write clearly saw the polarity of collectivism versus individualism. He believed it was best expressed. On one hand by Plato's Republic for the collectivism position and Russo's individual freedom on the other. Regarding Plato's Republic. Let me quote Hagle. He says he states quote the subjective and simply coincided with the state's will. In modern times, we make claims for private conscience in Play-Doh states. Subjective freedom does not count because people have their occupation assigned to them by the guardians, but subjective freedom, which must be respected. Demands that individuals should have free choice in this matter and quote. Now, I know some scholars take issue with Hagle here and his interpretation of Plato's Republic, many, few other Republicans, just to representative a representation. If I want you to handle their own individual selves. Now, but there's no question that Hagle says the problem. There is a problem with the completely collective state. because it disregards the need for recognition. That is the quintessential human need. In fact, our own self-consciousness depends on it. Halo clearly states in the phenomenology of spirit, one of his most famous quotes. Quote self-consciousness exists in and for itself. And by the fact that it's so exist for another, that is, it exists only in being acknowledged in quote. But not only in being acknowledged, but in the relations with the individuals or parties. And Hagle is quite specific about this in his philosophy of right. He states the true positive freedom exists through the institutions of ethical life, family, civil society, and the state, which he calls duty. Quote duty is the attainment of our essence, the winning of positive Freedman, freedom and quote. So the desire for recognition involves not only recognition, but being treated with dignity and respect. So for Hagle, the individual must not die in the collective, but the collective must exist in include recognition and respect for the individual. It must work both ways. It's not an either or situation. And today we see this need for acknowledgement in the growth. Of so-called identity groups, as I've said, When people feel a loss of personal identity, particularly in today's internet age, they cling to the identity group of their choice. And these groups are growing in importance. As I said, they are rivaling the nation state itself in terms of importance and see episode 48 for more on this. And this brings us finally to Karl Marx, the king of the collectivist. It's the young man in Germany marks came under the influence of certain disciples of Hagle while obtaining his PhD. In 1841. He later became a chief critic of Hegel's and turned him on his head, as he said, and developed his own dialectic materialism, the basis of his communist manifesto. Like Hagle. He believed that history unfolds dialectically, but we're Hagle puts ideas in the forefront. Mark saw advancement in material form alone. Now there are only a handful of individuals who've whose philosophies have been taken up at large societies in a major way. And perhaps there are only two. Mark's in Jesus. But it's not just with Marx and Jesus that this occurs. When I'm saying his philosophy underpins our everyday conception of the world, whether we realize it or not. Not 20th century author iron ran does a humorous bit regarding this by linking common expressions to the philosophers that expounded the theory represented by the cliche. She says, for example, take the expression. Don't be so sure nobody can be certain of anything. Well, that's David Hume. Or this may be good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice. Well, you got that from Plato. Or. There was a rotten thing to do, but you're only human. Nobody's perfect in this world. You got that from Augustine. Or. It may be true for you, but it's not true for me. You got that from William James. Or I can't prove it, but I feel it's true. You got that from current. You've heard ECT first. Think afterward you got that from John Dewey. Now, some people might answer. Sure. I've said those things at different times, but I don't have to believe that stuff all the time. May have been true yesterday, but it's not true today. They got that from hagle. And they might say, but can't one compromise and borrow different ideas from different philosophies. According to the expediency of the moment. They got that from William James. That's that's it from me. Iron ran. So you see. We say, are these things that we not realize that we're at the same time recording the world's greatest philosophers. So I thought that was pretty neat, but. The point is we need our conceptualizations to make sense of the world and our being in it. That is why we must try to consciously integrate our beliefs into a personal philosophy of life. One there recognizes our freedom when there recognizes our uniqueness while at the same time, our connection to others and our need for the recognition of others. And for us to recognize them. As the sand, the movie avatar ICU. And it works both ways. So to summarize why philosophy, because we can't escape it. And we work to develop a personal, consistent philosophy of life that will serve as the basis for a productive, rewarding, and happy experience in this world. Or we will have a given to us by others who will be absorbed into our unconscious from the environment and will provide us with conflicting and random direction, which can lead to doubt frustration, a lack of fulfillment and a lack of meaning in one's life. And I say this sincerely. I hope that these many episodes of the cunning of Geist podcast have allowed you to ponder your own beliefs and values for your own personal benefit. So. That's a wrap for this episode. Thank you once again for listening. I will be providing references on the podcast, Facebook page at cunning of Geist in a few days time. Please be sure to like, and follow that page on Facebook. As I try to post something new there every day and we get into good conversations there, but check it out like it, follow it. And again, feel free to share this episode and other episodes on your own. Social media accounts help spread the word. So that's it for now. Let me sign off by saying this is Gregory Nowak. This is the cunning of Geist. See you next time.