> Today I’d say: if you spend long periods of time deep in thought about hard philosophical questions, what you get is…nothing worthwhile. It’s not a complete waste of time per se—you’ll certainly learn interesting things. But it’s not going to solve life in the way that you expect it to. It won’t be an end to your suffering. It won’t make you all-powerful. And you won’t come to some insight that will feel like a discrete “before” and “after” moment in your entire life story.
I hate to show up and disagree (I feel like I always comment with disagreement)... but I disagree. I haven't attained omnipotence, but I've had insights that felt like discrete before and after moments. There are problems that disappeared one day and never returned. My suffering has dramatically reduced. A lot of this came from investigating questions like "what am I?" or "what are the mechanisms that drive this phenomenon?" or "what is the nature of experience?"
I think there's a subtle difference between two orientations towards philosophy. There is the kind that attempts to systematize the world and experience as a reflexive grasping for safety, because comprehension feels safe and uncertainty doesn't. And there's the kind that relentlessly analyzes things driven maybe by curiosity, an obsession with truth, or a desire to fix one's life. The second kind alone has the ability to pierce illusions, and illusions are usually the cause of suffering. It also will produce systematic understanding as a byproduct, though I'm not sure if that understanding can be transmitted effectively to another person (i.e. it's the process of creating the understanding, and not the understanding itself, that causes the change).
There's also the difference between abstract thought and engagement with experience - the difference between "how does consciousness work?" and "how does *my* consciousness work?". I think this distinction parallels the above one, because abstraction feels safe but concrete investigation doesn't.
In general I agree that reading philosophy probably isn't going to make much of a difference. But I think the attitude of investigation that philosophy promotes, when applied attentively and honestly, will reliably cause change.
that distinction between ways of approaching philosophy is good, and yea I guess there *are* profound insights or moments of change that come from deep introspection, whether philosophical or psychological or w/e.
it seems like the main place we disagree is how much the obsessiveness over investigation/truth is helpful. I think I just have less of that obsessiveness these days (which also looks like less philosophical "ambition") but I don't see it as necessarily a bad thing if it's enjoyable
I definitely sympathize with your perspective here, but maybe a bit like fltsid's comment, I think there are different ways of approaching philosophy. In the modern Anglosphere, we tend to imagine philosophy as if it were another branch of science that, if done correctly and completely, will lead us to a set of unchanging and absolutely true propositions. Leaving aside the fact that this isn't even what science does, I think this understanding of philosophy is very limiting.
It's also globally and historically an anomaly rather than the rule. There's another idea of philosophy as a *way of life*, a *practice* of looking at the world through the lens of certain concepts as a way of changing our experience of that world. This mode is actually where philosophy began in the West (https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Way-Life-Spiritual-Exercises/dp/0631180338) and where it largely remained in East and South Asia. We could take a question like "what is most fundamental about experience or reality?" as an ongoing door *opener* rather than as something we are trying to close the door on once and for all.
this is great. "if done correctly and completely, will lead us to a set of unchanging and absolutely true propositions" is exactly how I used to think about it, but viewing it as a way of life seems right
Maybe it's like the Cheshire cat's grin—present without substance, meaningful without completeness—it captures something about (any kind of) knowledge in an age of infinite information. The trick isn’t to chase every thread. It’s to enjoy the ones you catch, release the rest, and trust that the incomplete view might be exactly what you need. https://rajeshachanta.substack.com/p/meandering-incomplete
yeah. this reminds me of the famous quote from the Gita: “You have a right to your actions, but never to your actions’ fruits. Act for the action’s sake.” You might not ever get the fruit of philosophy (an ultimate solution to reality). But you do get the action itself (an authentic engagement with reality and its deepest questions). Which is a different thing, and differently worthwhile
I also studied philosophy and experienced this too. My take is that while airchair philosophy can be fruitless, learning _how to think hard_ is incredibly valuable. I felt like philosophy taught me a lot about close reading and semantics, but not as much about how to reason effectively in the real world - which to me includes catching biases, managing uncertainty, avoiding overthinking etc.
For example, some questions that I do think are productive to think very hard about (at least for those who work in tech):
- Why did Superhuman succeed at $30/m even though it was competing with GMail at $0/m. Why didn’t someone invent every other GMail competitor fail?
- Why didn’t someone invent the iPhone earlier given that all the technology already existed in 2007?
- Does an alternative businesses model for journalism exist, where high quality journalism can be funded without paywalls?
Great article...I agree the questions are beautiful in and of themselves. And also, even if you don't suddenly find the Absolute Truth, there are plenty of smaller, personal truths that can guide how you live. That's been the case for me. I haven't methodically worked through philosophy through a curriculum or systematic approach. But the philosophy I've read has directly impacted my life choices while also giving me that more beautiful lens through which to see the world
This resonated deeply. I went through a very similar experience - though it was in midlife rather than in college. In my case, my philosophical turn was brought about by going a bit far in the opposite direction - of achieving a more than average level of what's generally considered to be "success" and realizing that it wasn't sufficiently satisfying. I didn't want to go through life without having "understood" it, whatever that meant. But, after a few years of diving into the depths of philosophy as well as science, I reached basically the same realization as you. Still, I do feel more enriched, and have achieved a certain amount of peace from that effort (which could be just a reduction in my FOMO), but the "deepest turtle" remains out of sight.
The part that really bothers me, as you have yourself pointed out, is the loss of ambition. I have since reached a compromise, that engineering (conveniently my vocation :-) ), was the most optimal way to approach life, better than both philosophy as well as science. I ended up writing a book, "An Engineer's Search for Meaning" (https://meaning.lifevisor.ai/), to capture some of the ideas.
Very relatable. Went through the philosopher's disenchantment a few months back and life has been better. Young dudes should work more, instead of philosophizing.
> Today I’d say: if you spend long periods of time deep in thought about hard philosophical questions, what you get is…nothing worthwhile. It’s not a complete waste of time per se—you’ll certainly learn interesting things. But it’s not going to solve life in the way that you expect it to. It won’t be an end to your suffering. It won’t make you all-powerful. And you won’t come to some insight that will feel like a discrete “before” and “after” moment in your entire life story.
I hate to show up and disagree (I feel like I always comment with disagreement)... but I disagree. I haven't attained omnipotence, but I've had insights that felt like discrete before and after moments. There are problems that disappeared one day and never returned. My suffering has dramatically reduced. A lot of this came from investigating questions like "what am I?" or "what are the mechanisms that drive this phenomenon?" or "what is the nature of experience?"
I think there's a subtle difference between two orientations towards philosophy. There is the kind that attempts to systematize the world and experience as a reflexive grasping for safety, because comprehension feels safe and uncertainty doesn't. And there's the kind that relentlessly analyzes things driven maybe by curiosity, an obsession with truth, or a desire to fix one's life. The second kind alone has the ability to pierce illusions, and illusions are usually the cause of suffering. It also will produce systematic understanding as a byproduct, though I'm not sure if that understanding can be transmitted effectively to another person (i.e. it's the process of creating the understanding, and not the understanding itself, that causes the change).
There's also the difference between abstract thought and engagement with experience - the difference between "how does consciousness work?" and "how does *my* consciousness work?". I think this distinction parallels the above one, because abstraction feels safe but concrete investigation doesn't.
In general I agree that reading philosophy probably isn't going to make much of a difference. But I think the attitude of investigation that philosophy promotes, when applied attentively and honestly, will reliably cause change.
that distinction between ways of approaching philosophy is good, and yea I guess there *are* profound insights or moments of change that come from deep introspection, whether philosophical or psychological or w/e.
it seems like the main place we disagree is how much the obsessiveness over investigation/truth is helpful. I think I just have less of that obsessiveness these days (which also looks like less philosophical "ambition") but I don't see it as necessarily a bad thing if it's enjoyable
I definitely sympathize with your perspective here, but maybe a bit like fltsid's comment, I think there are different ways of approaching philosophy. In the modern Anglosphere, we tend to imagine philosophy as if it were another branch of science that, if done correctly and completely, will lead us to a set of unchanging and absolutely true propositions. Leaving aside the fact that this isn't even what science does, I think this understanding of philosophy is very limiting.
It's also globally and historically an anomaly rather than the rule. There's another idea of philosophy as a *way of life*, a *practice* of looking at the world through the lens of certain concepts as a way of changing our experience of that world. This mode is actually where philosophy began in the West (https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Way-Life-Spiritual-Exercises/dp/0631180338) and where it largely remained in East and South Asia. We could take a question like "what is most fundamental about experience or reality?" as an ongoing door *opener* rather than as something we are trying to close the door on once and for all.
this is great. "if done correctly and completely, will lead us to a set of unchanging and absolutely true propositions" is exactly how I used to think about it, but viewing it as a way of life seems right
Maybe it's like the Cheshire cat's grin—present without substance, meaningful without completeness—it captures something about (any kind of) knowledge in an age of infinite information. The trick isn’t to chase every thread. It’s to enjoy the ones you catch, release the rest, and trust that the incomplete view might be exactly what you need. https://rajeshachanta.substack.com/p/meandering-incomplete
love these rabbitholes. the one about color across languages is so cool
yeah. this reminds me of the famous quote from the Gita: “You have a right to your actions, but never to your actions’ fruits. Act for the action’s sake.” You might not ever get the fruit of philosophy (an ultimate solution to reality). But you do get the action itself (an authentic engagement with reality and its deepest questions). Which is a different thing, and differently worthwhile
I also studied philosophy and experienced this too. My take is that while airchair philosophy can be fruitless, learning _how to think hard_ is incredibly valuable. I felt like philosophy taught me a lot about close reading and semantics, but not as much about how to reason effectively in the real world - which to me includes catching biases, managing uncertainty, avoiding overthinking etc.
For example, some questions that I do think are productive to think very hard about (at least for those who work in tech):
- Why did Superhuman succeed at $30/m even though it was competing with GMail at $0/m. Why didn’t someone invent every other GMail competitor fail?
- Why didn’t someone invent the iPhone earlier given that all the technology already existed in 2007?
- Does an alternative businesses model for journalism exist, where high quality journalism can be funded without paywalls?
Great article...I agree the questions are beautiful in and of themselves. And also, even if you don't suddenly find the Absolute Truth, there are plenty of smaller, personal truths that can guide how you live. That's been the case for me. I haven't methodically worked through philosophy through a curriculum or systematic approach. But the philosophy I've read has directly impacted my life choices while also giving me that more beautiful lens through which to see the world
well said. the little moments of insight or shifts in perspective are lovely in themselves
This resonated deeply. I went through a very similar experience - though it was in midlife rather than in college. In my case, my philosophical turn was brought about by going a bit far in the opposite direction - of achieving a more than average level of what's generally considered to be "success" and realizing that it wasn't sufficiently satisfying. I didn't want to go through life without having "understood" it, whatever that meant. But, after a few years of diving into the depths of philosophy as well as science, I reached basically the same realization as you. Still, I do feel more enriched, and have achieved a certain amount of peace from that effort (which could be just a reduction in my FOMO), but the "deepest turtle" remains out of sight.
The part that really bothers me, as you have yourself pointed out, is the loss of ambition. I have since reached a compromise, that engineering (conveniently my vocation :-) ), was the most optimal way to approach life, better than both philosophy as well as science. I ended up writing a book, "An Engineer's Search for Meaning" (https://meaning.lifevisor.ai/), to capture some of the ideas.
fascinating to hear your version of the same
story…the book looks cool, I’ll check it out!
Thanks. Here's the relevant chapter: https://book.lifevisor.ai/01-motivation
Very relatable. Went through the philosopher's disenchantment a few months back and life has been better. Young dudes should work more, instead of philosophizing.
What kind of non-philosophical intellectual explorations are you into?
some recent rabbitholes (some of them are still philosophical!):
- Charles Fernyhough's "A Thousand Days of Wonder"
- "new biology" ideas from people like Michael Levin, Richard Watson, Philip Ball
- Douglas Hofstadter's work on analogies
- David Chapman's recent work on "the mythic mode" – https://meaningness.substack.com/p/seeing-and-doing-mythically and https://meaningness.substack.com/p/the-mythic-mode-from-childhood-throughout-life
- I've also been getting more into fashion lately...