Good philosophy, bad philosophy

I was sixteen when I first read philosophy. Marcus Aurelius' call was compelling – construct, between your mind and reality, a membrane. Train that membrane to be governed by your higher self, a self based on virtue and values rather than raw emotion. Resist hurling abuse when unwitting plebs cutting you up on the road. Don't eviscerate your fellow student for the critical error on their (in the grand scheme, meaningless) calculations. Bypass the primordial mind towards calm, collected reactions to achieve the best possible outcome.

The perfect philosophy

Stoicism worked. Its teachings measurably improved my life, and quickly. As the languid teenager, inspired to adopt a laconian weightlifting regimen through his near-instant newbie gains, the progress I'd seen through stoicism pulled me into the rabbit hole of philosophy, and I voraciously consumed all the philosophical teachings I could get my hands on.

My motivation was pretty simple, I thought that exposure to enough ideas, and over a long enough time, would enable me to build up a 'perfect philosophy' one that would work in harmony with my specific character. One that that matured over time, each new idea competing in an darwinian contest, fitter ideas replacing less fit ones. I no longer think this way about philosophy.

This approach worked pretty well at the start. From Camus I learned the absurdity of life, that meaning must be crafted from the insane and the mundane. From Proust the fallibility of memory, from Popper the perils of induction. I acquired these insights and hung them, garments on a mannequin of perspective. Over time though, the mannequin stopped making sense. Taleb's compelling thesis on the hidden role of chance, clashed with Thiel's equally convincing view on optimistic determinism. The final outfit was muddled.

I think it's inevitable that once you start reading philosophy you are going to adopt ideas that may seem at odds with one another. You may even, like I did try and resolve them, I think this is a mistake, in fact I think the idea of aiming for some kind of ideal personal philosophy is a mistake. But this is what most people want.

The problem of simplicity

People want to read a clean, compelling argument that is free from contradiction. It would be hard to take Seneca's Letters from a Stoic seriously if he admitted, while preaching for living a simple life devoid of wealth, that he owned some of the most opulent and luxurious property in the entirety of Rome. Written teachings are an ideal, a representation of how you could live, or a view you could adopt, they are a caricature of the writer, not the writer themselves.

Social media has taken this quest for consistency to its extreme, and has rewarded those who can make single, clear, coarse argument more than books did, at least with books the medium of the text abstracts the writer from the art, this isn't the case any more. You have charlatans like CarnivoreMD, preaching that vegetables are 'bullshit', that a good diet consists only of flesh. You then see him, every day, gorging on offal and throwing out vegetables, the algorithm rewards this content, so he continues to create it. The followers lap it up. Equally you have the (slightly less toxic, but only slightly so) David Goggins and Jocko Willink types, combining the preaching of work ethic as life's calling with highlight reels of extreme physicality.

This hybrid of philosophy meets action is powerful. I've seen its effectiveness through observation of friends and, admittedly myself. When exposed to this kind of philosophy meets action content, people adopt not just the views but also the exaggerated personas, they construct entire philosophies around caricatures. Now your friend who maybe got into Jocko's content because he liked the idea of creating a more disciplined life is getting up at 4am, taking cold showers, meditating, signing up for ultra marathons. A loose selection of tangentially related habits, picked off the shelf and neatly wrapped into a lifestyle by a charismatic individual. The philosophy is so compelling in its simplicity it has ceased to become a garment, its a whole identity.

People ape these philosophies because people want to be told what to do so badly they'll listen to anyone. Their simplicity offers certainty, removing the burden of decision-making. Don't think, just act.

Philosophy as an outfit

But isn't this what philosophies are for? Aren't they meant to be lived out as intended? Couldn't it be that these people have simply discovered their 'perfect philosophy' and are sharing it with the world? I don't think so. In fact, I don't believe that's what philosophies are for at all, and I'm certain these individuals haven't found any so-called 'perfect one.' The pursuit of a single, all-encompassing philosophy—a neatly packaged and simplified worldview—is, in my opinion, at the root of much of the cult-like behaviour we see today. From MAGA to Woke, from Incels to Libertarians.

Life is far too complicated, too random to be able to prescribe a fixed view that will see you through all situations and every phase of life. Perhaps it's more helpful, rather than constructing the perfect rules and views to live by, view philosophy as garments of an outfit to be thrown on, sometimes you'll find a few that work together, other times, you might just wear full denim.

Meditations was needed at a point in my life, in order to take control of my destiny I needed to be very deliberate about focusing on the things I could control and ignoring the rest. Teenagers (and emperors) have limited agency. When I was building a company, this view shifted. A deterministic, single-minded, I-can-outwork-any-challenge, blinders-on view of the world might not have been 'factually true' but it was the one that optimised my chances of success in an risky environment. Now I've 'won' that game I've swapped Thiel for Taleb. Nearly everything I have achieved has been down to luck, and what matters is protecting my life from the downsides of bad luck, I want to succeed in 99/100 possible variations of the universe. I'm risk-off.

I'm not seeking truth, simplicity, or consistency with philosophy anymore. I'm not trying to resolve conflicting ideas – there be dragons. I'm just trying to put something on that helps me get to where I want to go.