Essentially my philosophical life has regarded deflationism, an anarchistic process of distinguishing words games of logic and meaning, etc. from applicable prescriptions.
Timothy Leary.
Such a vast majority of philosophy’s contributions to mind, being, and purpose have been nothing more than abstract word games which are considered sound when they make self-referential sense within their own rules. Say, formal logic, ethical prescriptions, proof of God. They are finished when the philosopher feels it is right.
None of these contributions escape the abstract sphere of thoughts, perhaps visions, all of which are purely mental. Like a fence builder envisions a more efficient fence. Regardless of one’s blueprints, the applicability of innovation is proved precisely at the time of its execution; in the fence builder’s case, it is when the fence is built and tested.
Why philosophy intends to keep its innovations and discoveries from being applicable and therefore proven is beyond me. Ethics, of course, intend to give us prescriptions but in no easy manner. I suspect it’s because the ulterior aim is to—again—win a game of words and logical processes.
Human beings know what is right and wrong. What is good for me is good for you. Relativists would point out the supposed chasm between acceptable behavior displayed in different cultures. This is no argument against universal ethics. It shows our range, all of which is surely biologically determined; where else would altruism and the willful negation of altruism arise without the explanatory aid of supernature?
And wherefore does a sadist or combatant will evil behavior if they know it is evil? Precisely because they know what is bad for them is bad for their enemies. In all cases of evil, broken brains or ideology are the drivers.
The hallmark of a broken individual is the preoccupation with fixing themselves and others. Fitness, goals, self-improvement, charity, gospels and evangelism of the right way to live, improved diets, improved lifestyles, a better life gained by rugged discipline and forcing habits. These are the most popular people in the world. They are assumed sages and often peddle wares, supplements, and advice.
The hallmark of a healthy individual is a complete detachment from the gap between their agency and nature’s determination. People who cannot be bothered by politics in any personal way. People who do not engage with prescriptions for life, love, and health, unless it’s to humor themselves.
There’s a common remark to the criticism of our sages that states that no sage can be perfect themselves regardless of how transcendental their advice appears. Alan Watts was an alcoholic. Liver King is clearly a child of trauma. Jordan Peterson is insane. However, how concerned with sagely advice should the average person be if the tenets themselves do not in fact restructure or transcend the initial condition irrevocably? What kind of advice are we seeking then if not for everlasting improvement? The self-improvement component of sages is nothing more than entertainment. Where is the fun in it? That sublime little glint of joy you get when you think you’ve found an answer or made sense of something, despite how true the answers are, despite the answers being utter nonsense upon further investigation.
A person’s platform is not equivalent to value. We understand this unanimously with other figures in entertainment. But we are often charitable with self-help gurus, public intellectuals, etc. If people find something that helps them so be it. That goes without saying. Criticizing someone’s preference in milk is just as innocuous.
No one, no matter how studied, should be taken seriously. Only laughed at. Humor is the only value of people who tell you how to live your life.