Have you noticed that people who behave wildly differently can still base their behavior on the same underlying philosophies?
Or that people who behave similarly can also base their behavior on different philosophies?
Pick a way people behave and you’ll find people saying that behavior comes from any source.
For example, among the most peaceful people some base their behavior on being religious, some on being atheist, some on not caring about religion or atheism at all.
Some of the most belligerent people base their behavior on religion. Some not. People on the left call Hitler right-wing. People on the right call him left-wing.
People who exercise say they do it to relax and feel good about their bodies. People who don’t exercise say they don’t because it’s too much work and hurts.
Vegetarians say they avoid meat out of respect for animals. Hunters say hunting animals puts them in touch with animals.
Parents who abuse their children say they do it out of love. Parents who spoil their children say they do it out of love too.
People support decreasing privacy in support of freedom. People support increasing privacy in support of freedom.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
What’s going on?
What’s going on? Don’t people’s philosophies guide their behavior?
This pattern reinforces a perspective I’ve been developing for a while.
We evolved from ancestors that learned behavior long before humans existed, or, for that matter, primates. Dogs and rats learn behavior. Probably all mammals do.
The ability to philosophize doesn’t seem so prevalent outside humans. I don’t know how other animals think or if they do, but philosophizing seems to me uniquely human or nearly so.
The parts of our brains that learned behavior came to exist before philosophy did. I don’t think philosophies guide our behaviors. I think we learn behavior patterns like other animals — in ways having nothing to do with philosophies — then shoehorn them into philosophies we learn independently of the behavior patterns we learn.
We like to claim our philosophies guide us, but I suspect our rational minds just create them to placate themselves. And to use them to try to influence others.
I’m probably separating these effects too much — that is, we learn behavior and create philosophies at the same time — but I’m tending to deprecate the role of the philosophies.
Academia holds philosophy in high regard. Society hold the works of people like Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Kant, and so on as pillars of society and culture.
I devoted years of my life to reaching the pinnacles of academic disciplines. I think of science as understanding nature, not philosophizing, but it is more intellectual than experiential.
I wonder if some of that devotion wasn’t misplaced.
I’ve shifted my life more toward experience, more base parts of life, and emotion and enjoyed the results of that shift.
I hold philosophy in high esteem too, especially Ethics. Being a Platonist, I think (hope?) that it can guide me in seeing more clearly what my goals should be (and I would argue your set of “beliefs” /are/ indeed philosophy).
I hope to see more on the topic, it’s interesting and useful.
I just read a thought-provoking book by Sam Harris called Free Will that touched on what I’ve written lately on decisions and what voluntary control you have over them. I’m thinking about writing something to follow it up. I made a note to.
I agree beliefs work as philosophy. I think beliefs store what we learned through our experiences. But I view beliefs as patchworks that sometimes are consistent but often not. I think people try to make their philosophies and ethics consistent. I think less and less that people work the way they want their philosophies to.
I’m glad you mentioned finding discussing such things useful. As much as this post deprecated philosophy, I also see value in talking about it.
Very interesting reply, I hope to see that “Free Will” post soon. It’s very interesting to consider beliefs as “experience storage” (which apparently we can share and give to other people).
Regarding consistency: I do strive to make my ideas consistent. When consistency is not there, to me it is a sign that something needs to change, whether it’s my life or my philosophical ideas.
I would feel pretty scared abandoning it (the ‘quest for consistency’), but your reply made me wonder if consistency is just another, subtle form of external validation.
I haven’t written much about consistency, but I find people’s beliefs contradict each other all over the place. They just don’t use contradictory beliefs at the same time. While they hold one belief, they don’t consider other contradictory beliefs. When they hold the other they don’t consider the first.
I don’t think our minds evolved to become perfectly consistent. They evolved to keep us alive and reproducing, which requires problem-solving in the moment, not consistency between moments. When we don’t need to worry about our survival, we can work on living rewarding and happy lives, which again doesn’t require consistency.