My heart had finally settled back to its natural rhythm a short while earlier. My mind on the other hand had not. It had been about an hour since the near miss on NY Route 67 as it neared Interstate 87 north of Albany. The fright I experienced once I realized my tires were starting to be overpowered by the shoulder’s soft sand was a slap to my psyche. An oncoming van drifted into my lane forcing me to the right. Thankfully, the van’s driver snapped to in enough time to center the vehicle within its lane, but not before I found myself contending with several seconds of outright uncertainty, and to be honest fright, as to whether or not I would lurch sideways, flatten the 1960’s era guard rails, and land starboard side on a downward sloping embankment with a full load of beer, soft drinks, and bottled water.

Twenty-two year’s worth of driving know-how together with a sudden visit by Lady Luck prevented the worst from happening. Optimally calibrating a soft touch on the brake with subtle steering allowed me to securely grab enough pavement to right myself. With a jerk the truck was back on the road again heading east in the direction of New Hampshire instead of sliding downhill into a ravine.

It took a minute before I cursed aloud. I imagined having my thickset hands around the van driver’s throat and squeezing until he (or she) went limp. This image stayed with me longer than it probably should have, but such is rage. I wasn’t feeling very analytical or understanding or sympathetic. I was pissed. Eventually, as I replayed the incident in my mind I had to admit it wasn’t necessary to pull my rig so hard to the right as quickly as I had. There was clearly an element of overreaction involved. And I do recognize that sometimes my overreactions were more trouble than the initial cause. Fatigue more than likely played a role. After all, I had driven twenty-five of the previous forty hours, by far breaking trucking regulations. Truth be told, I was a wreck physically and emotionally. I just wanted to get home.

Sarah would be there. Ahh, Sarah. I knew she wanted more in life than to be settled with me in our mostly finished simple prefab house a couple of miles from the village in our desperately rural Sullivan County town. The truth was, I was the best she could do back when we met. At least that is the narrative I’ve been telling myself since she moved in six years ago. With little money, an ex-boyfriend who her threw her out, an abandoned GED program, but with a country-girl cuteness that still weakens my knees, I offered to take care of her. That’s what girls want, right? A man to take care of them.

She took two days to think about it, but eventually showed up in my driveway just as I was returning from a run to Connecticut. We had sex for hours that night. I thought I had won the lottery. But even though I could tell she didn’t share that level of excitement about me as I did her, I told myself, no worries. She’ll come around. She’ll realize I am the best she’s going to do.

And then Sarah announced a few months ago she was pregnant. She took the test to tell us the baby was to be a boy. I was both thrilled and scared. I hadn’t planned on becoming a dad and was afraid it would change my life too much. However, the more I thought about it the more pride I felt. Unexpectedly, the idea of being a father made me feel more complete, more proper, more mature. I liked that feeling. Knowing Sarah was going to have a baby boy made going home after a run like this a little better than before. I looked forward to seeing her in a way I hadn’t in the past. That was how I felt that afternoon. Ready to be home with my girlfriend who was going to have our baby. I shook off what remained of the jitters from the near-accident and continued driving east across Vermont. It would dark by the time I got home, but not too late. One more cup of coffee should do it, I thought.

It’s funny how a certain kind of outdoor space, a natural space, can shift my mood in an instant. I’ve driven this route west to east through Vermont many times and it contains several views on the roadside that catch my eye, give me slight pause, and induce calmness. Today, it was the one with a sweeping hillside that is grassy and kept clear of overgrowth due to having been hayed a couple of times per season presumably and which reaches a line of stout oaks on a hilltop forming a tight canopy. In the late afternoon on sunny days the hill and trees receive an angled light, which amplifies the colors and brightens the picture just the way I like it. Glancing this image for a mere two or three seconds as my truck rumbled by brought me a momentary feeling of peace and contentment. Things were feeling better. The near-accident was fading away from my thoughts.

My coffee was nearly done when I crossed over the river into New Hampshire and then south on route 12A. I pulled the rig to the outside edge of a parking lot near Walmart, so I could run in and get Sarah a bag of peanut butter cups. She’ll like that I did that, I thought. Twenty more minutes or so and I’ll be home. Once back on 12A I again appreciated my not having flipped the rig back in New York. Getting home in one piece felt like a reward.

Something felt off as soon as I stepped from the mudroom door into the kitchen. Sarah’s ‘hello’ to me was inauthentic, almost guarded. Her smile seemed somewhat forced. The air felt thicker than usual for some reason. I instantly sensed anxiety and apprehension seep into my consciousness. I hated times that didn’t go right. Suddenly, this felt like one of them.

She reached for can of seltzer sitting on the kitchen counter. It allowed her to take her eyes from mine, if only for a moment. I told Sarah I would be right back. I took my travel bag to my small office off of the living room where I dropped it to the floor thinking, I’ll need to ask her what’s wrong, because it sure felt as if something must be wrong.

While asking Sarah, what’s up, I opened the refrigerator door to grab a beer and noticed two six-packs of unrecognizable beer. I knew it was some sort of expensive craft beer, the kind of thing I never wasted money on and confusingly, either did Sarah. There were also two unopened bottles of pinot grigio, which is Sarah’s drink. Or at least it was before she became pregnant. But even before pregnancy, she typically kept only one opened bottle in the fridge at a time. Not two unopened ones. This didn’t look right.

I asked if she was planning a party or something. Her face looked fake. A mixture of discomfort and unease. Bubbling from her were insincere comments like, “Party?! No, of course not. I thought you might like to try a different kind of beer. So I’ve got some booze in the fridge. It’s not that big of a deal, is it?”

As I said, “I don’t get it”, a pickup rushed past the house on our dirt road kicking up a cloud of dust. Through the living room picture window I saw what looked like the back of Frank’s F-150, a good friend of mine in town. For a split second I thought, what is Frank doing around here now and why the speeding by without a stop?

I turned back toward Sarah. She had noticed the truck as well. Fear was spread across her face. She tried to hide it, but it was unmistakable. “What’s going on, Sarah?” I was tired and now feeling stressed. Sarah was pissing me off with her evasion and now this sudden look of dread. “Tell me what the fuck is going on, Sarah!”

She couldn’t or wouldn’t speak. Sarah never was a good liar. And her silence told me she wasn’t going to even try. Her eyes began to moisten and her mouth opened slightly as if she wanted to speak, but no words came out. Sarah’s left hand then slowly moved toward her raised stomach where it rested. My eyes followed her hand as she touched our baby.

I may not be the brightest bulb in the marquee, but I eventually do figure most things out. Frank! He drinks those fancy-boy beers! Was he coming here to drink them with Sarah? My heart quickened. The silence was broken.

“I’m so sorry,” Sarah said. “I didn’t know you were coming home today. Thought you would be in Buffalo tonight. I didn’t mean to hurt you.”

“Are those beers Frank’s? Tell me what you’re up to! Tell me now! Don’t bullshit me, Sarah! You and Frank were going to drink? And you’re pregnant! You’re not drinking these days. That was him driving by just now, wasn’t it? And he didn’t stop.”

Sarah started to answer me. “Me and Frank…we…don’t want trouble…have to do this. She quickly turned from me, grabbed her purse from the kitchen table, and bolted from the house to her Corolla. My surprise at her unexpected flight was momentarily paralyzing. By the time I got outside she had started her car and jammed it into reverse, barely maintaining control on the road. And then she was gone.

Sarah and Frank? What the fuck?! I gasped for air. A sinking feeling in my gut took hold as I realized my whole world had just collapsed. My blood reaching the boiling temperature gave me the energy and motivation to act. On a wall of my office hung my Ruger American hunting rifle. From my desk I grabbed the box of .30 caliber rounds and loaded the gun.

My mind was racing. “He’s been screwing around with Sarah while I’m on the road? I’m gonna kill him. I’ll blow his fucking head off!”

There was no sadness. No remorse. No second guessing. Just a feeling of disbelief mashed up with rage, leading to a single goal. To kill Frank. My truck was in the barn where I kept it while I was away on the road. With the rifle resting in the gun rack behind me, I charged dangerously fast to Frank’s place. Upon arriving, my truck vaulted from the road to his front lawn, leaving deep ruts where I had slammed on the brakes.

His truck was in the driveway. Behind it was Sarah’s Corolla. “I’m gonna kill you Frank, you bastard! Get out here!” I shrieked at the house.

There was no response. I screamed some more. Still no response. I figured Frank had his gun ready to use on me if I tried getting into the house, but I didn’t care. To get their attention I started shooting out the windows of his Ford and of Sarah’s car as well.

Strangely, it never occurred to me that the scene I was making would bring out the police. Even before I started shooting, Mrs. Lambeau who lived across the street from Frank’s house must have heard me, seen me with the rifle, and called the town police station. Officer Charpentier must have been the only one on duty to take the call, because she is who showed up to confront me.

“Put the gun down on the ground and step away from it, Mr. Dean,” Officer Charpentier called out from behind the town cruiser. “Once you do that we can talk about this. Do what I ask right now, please.”

“Not until I blow Frank’s brains out!” I yelled back to the police officer.

She responded with, “I’m not going to let you do that, Mr. Dean.” I saw that her service weapon was drawn. “Now put the rifle down slowly onto the ground and back away from it in my direction.”

“C’mon, Jim. Do as she says. Put it down.” Roy from down the road was speaking from the back of an oak on the corner of Frank’s property.

“Thank you, sir, but I have this,” Officer Charpentier said to Roy.

“So, Jim,” Officer Charpentier said to me in her even voice, “follow my directions and put the gun down.”

I don’t think it was what the town police officer said, but how she said it. Officer Charpentier was composed, steady, and taking command of the situation. As I listened, I was able to regain a shred of mental acuity. Enough clarity of thought anyway to allow me to realize Sarah was gone. As pissed as I was, she wasn’t coming back to me. I was no longer wanted. My breathing dialed down from huge gasps of air. I put down the gun on the lawn and walked to the cruiser.

The pain of the entire experience lives with me today, many years later. I would put it that I’m hurt and wounded more than I am defeated. I have my son a couple of days a week and I have something of a life. Working on being grateful for what I have is something I really do try to work on. Yet, crying comes to me much more easily than it used to and I kick at the rickety old boards of my barn in frustration a lot. It’s just that the anguish of betrayal, lost trust, and rejection continues to haunt me. Why we don’t make the best of our short time on earth, I’ll never know. I’ll just never know.

The most precious inheritance that parents can give their children is their own happiness. — Thich Nhat Hanh

Introduction

Deciding on a guiding set of principles to live by with the intention of getting the most from life sounds like a good idea. Perhaps I should say, the idea of experiencing happiness and purpose in life sounds like a good idea. I mean a purpose beyond just feeling good most of the time requires some structure or framework comprised of values, beliefs, and ethics which can provide a life affirming center or grounding while navigating the tempestuous comings and goings of life. Philosophy is a timeless discipline made available to assist those of us interested in such a pursuit.  

There are some who dedicate a lifetime to studying philosophy or the development of thought and knowledge as a guide to behaviors and the very nature of existence. To be sure, philosophy is a grand and historic academic discipline attempting to discern the universe as it is and exploring fundamental questions of how society and individuals should function within it. Unfortunately, as a subject it can quickly appear dense, abstract, and overly general or too specific, leaving a person feeling the topic is irrelevant and lacking in utilizable and concrete meaning. However, there are other philosophers who see their task as helping everyday people formulate their own personal philosophies as a way of self-improvement. Thankfully, philosophy need not be confined to ivory towers. It can also work on the streets, as it were, popularly sowing understanding and progress.

I’m interested in identifying a personal philosophy. Perhaps “identifying” is not the right word. Determining, building, formulating, realizing may be among better terms. Whatever verb I choose the larger question may be, why bother? There are a couple of reasons to bother. For one, philosophy, which literally means “love of wisdom”, is becoming more meaningful to me. Gratefully, I notice I’m getting wiser as I age, so peering more intentionally into the nature of wisdom is intriguing. Also, speaking of age, I recognize how the mind turns to a life review as we get older. Socrates sternly declared that an unexamined life is not worth living. Though a bit harsh, he makes a good point. Reflecting on how life is and has been lived shines a revealing light which can be useful in cultivating gratitude, personal growth, forgiveness, and a range of necessary corrective actions.

A lifetime of interest in politics, history, and psychology leaves me feeling incomplete. As engaging as they are, these disciplines do not provide enough guidance on how to live a good life. I’m drawn to exploring a more fundamental structure that better explains not only why I’ve lived as I have and what now makes me tick, but more importantly how I can prevail more satisfactorily during the years I have left.

I realize also, as late in the game as it is, that not being guided by clear moral standards and values can leave one unprepared or worse when the inevitable ethical dilemmas present themselves as they do in the lives of everyone. Simply saying one is ‘spiritual’ or ‘always kind’ or ‘being the best person I can be’ may not be enough to safeguard against damaging choices. Many of us find it easier to reject the advice of others than it is to replace their caring words of caution with a legitimate and bona fide set of convictions passionately embraced. I believe the younger one is in accepting this personal challenge of crafting a personal philosophy the better one’s life can be. I wish I could claim this had been my path, but alas I cannot.

Influential Philosophies

Identifying a personal philosophy is a luxury we now have given the times in which we live. Not long ago people were routinely born into a religious tradition complete with a step-by-step prescription for how to live one’s life and what pre-determined principles to value. Along with this inherited creed came the unambiguous and strict message that no questioning of precepts was necessary or welcome. This arrangement works well for those who readily accept faith and the infallibility of traditional thought, but for others who want to associate empirical evidence with conviction or inquire about the efficacy of applying old solutions to new problems, religion can be seen as deficient, if not oppressive.

Like most people my age, I was brought with a traditional religion. In my case, Roman Catholicism. As a child we often do as we’re told and attending church each Sunday morning followed by religious training or catechism after school each Monday afternoon is what I did until I was about twelve years old. Although it was far from a rapturous experience, rebelliousness toward this regimen was never a consideration. Indeed, by the end of this church-based indoctrination I wanted to explore the possibility of becoming a Catholic priest. One evening, when we were thirteen years old, my friend John and I scheduled an early evening chat with our parish priest Father Champoux to ask him how we could go about getting started with becoming priests. He didn’t hesitate to tell us that this is not something we should do. In fact, he was rather firm about it. Such was the start of my drift from the Catholic Church.

Despite not having been a practicing Catholic for the past fifty-four years or so I nevertheless need to acknowledge that the influence and teachings of the church for those first dozen years of my existence shaped much of my lifetime’s practical philosophy. Leaving behind for the time being the repressive and dictatorial manner in which Catholicism presented itself to children in the 1960s, (and no, I never experienced sexual abuse) I can humbly say there were indeed principles which were imparted to me by priests, nuns, and brothers, which I took to heart. Chief among them was a reverence for service to others. The call to reach into our benevolent hearts to serve our fellow humans—the sick, the weak, the uneducated, the elderly, the needy—is of profound spiritual and social importance. In addition, growing up around a lot of Jesuits as I did, who are members of a religious order known for their work in education, research, and cultural endeavors, gave me an appreciation for intellectual pursuits. Also, even the atheists among us have to concede that the social and interpersonal order society relies upon has many of its roots in old-time religion. For this, we can all be thankful.

So while acknowledging the importance Christian religion had in my early psychological, moral, and philosophical development I do not hesitate in declaring that adhering to a Christian tradition is insufficient for me to use in identifying my personal philosophy. I understand this is a brash and probably disrespectful declaration to make toward a religion currently practiced by nearly two and a half billion people. While not entirely dismissing the religious who claim their faith has all of the philosophy one needs with the added benefit of providing deeper levels of meaning and an exhilarating sense of amazement, I still ask why shouldn’t Christian teachings be enough for me? Why am I so special that Christian doctrine appears lacking? Quite simply, this religion, or any religion for that matter, is too doctrinaire, too obstinate, too pedantic, and too authoritarian. I may have been raised as a Catholic, but I was also raised as an American with a reverence for free will, individualism, and self-reliance. From a young adult age I noticed a discrepancy between the values of unquestioning faith required by religion and volitional decision making encouraged by democracy. I guess the liberating ethics of the Enlightenment appeal to me more than dogmatic loyalty to ancient rituals and scriptures.

So knowing which path I don’t want to follow exclusively in defining my personal philosophy, where do I turn? Well, the answer is a developing story. But it is taking shape. And one thing becoming clear is my personal philosophy will be eclectic—a cherry picked collection of values I find to be most gainful. There are so many intriguing and engaging approaches to philosophical thought it will be difficult and perhaps unnatural for me to select just one school. Therefore, what follows is a review of influential philosophies toward which I am drawn. Following my synopsis and in conclusion, I will cobble together a statement giving definition and clarity to my personal philosophy. An exercise such as this not only applies a strategy to help me reach my goal of identifying a personal philosophy, but may also serve as a stimulus or maybe even an inspiration for any reader interested in doing the same.

“There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.” H. H. The 14th Dalai Lama.

Next to Christianity, Buddhism is the next popular practice with which I also have familiarity going back more than thirty years. Notice I don’t refer to Buddhism as a religion, although many others do. I don’t because there is no theism involved. Buddha never claimed to be a deity or divine, but rather a human who showed the way to enlightenment. That fact alone appeals to many westerners oriented toward secularization, but who are nevertheless searching for spiritual and ethical guidance. Therein was my original draw to Buddhism.

Through considerable study and practice, much of it during my thirties in association with the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (now known as Triratna Buddhist Order), I developed some key takeaways, which continue to inform my philosophical thinking and outlook on the world. The concepts of mindfulness, impermanence, and egolessness speak to me about the nature of being human in the universe dealt to us. To be very clear, I am in no way making a claim I am anywhere close to fully comprehending these theories, never mind living in embrace of them, however I know enough that to examine their meaning and appreciate their gravity contributes to personal growth and evolution.

Mindfulness refers to being fully aware. Imagine receiving all of the unending physical and mental stimuli coming your way such that it is all perceived and observed, perhaps understood, but never fixated upon unless we make a discerning decision to focus on a given prompt. Living thus is beyond efficient. It is honing circumspection and polishing self-illumination. Meditation is one of the behaviors, along with intentional reflection, that slides us ever so slowly toward increasing mindfulness. A frustratingly subtle practice, meditation yields its attention-enhancing benefits drip by drip over a long period of time. Establishing a regular practice is difficult, but once started the seduction of always returning to it remains persistent. The gain of expanding mindfulness is worth it.

Another key Buddhist concept states that reality is ever changing and our clinging to any physical or mental entity is fruitless and ultimately deeply disappointing. Impermanence is a fundamental doctrine of Buddhism and a very useful condition to accept in life. Existence is “transient, evanescent, inconstant” according to the Pali Canon, a set of Buddhist scriptures. Notice how we tie our happiness to permanence all of the time? We develop a fondness or even love for people, places, and ideas only to discover sooner or later that they will somehow change or end completely, leading to angst. Preventing change takes a lot of energy that could be better spent elsewhere. By consciously de-linking our positive emotions to conditions which will naturally alter over time leaves us better able to live in harmony with others and with the natural world. If we are to deliberately align our happiness to impermanent objects and people, such as loved ones, doing so with the full consciousness of what the commitment entails, in particular its transitoriness, can help with preparing for the inevitable changes that will take place.

Related to impermanence in Buddhism is the doctrine of no-self or no-ego. We tend to each view ourselves as fixed and permanent individuals—at least for the duration of our lives. But this self-perception of our stand-alone selfhood is in direct conflict with the notion of impermanence described above. In other words, if there are no enduring and unchanging entities, then there can be no distinct and original self. Ego or self are therefore illusory and not real. Thinking this way can get abstruse and confusing, because it is so contrary to what we’ve always thought. Regardless, for me the importance of egolessness is that it helps me to not be as self-centered and set in my ways. By being able to take the focus off of myself with all of my opinions, desires, prejudices, fears, and perceptions I can more easily reorient to the needs of others and more clearly know that what I think I know today can and will most likely change over time. Together, mindfulness, impermanence, and egolessness contribute significantly to my personal philosophy.

Allowing myself to accept philosophical wisdom from the East, as I did with Buddhism, opened the door for me to examine other traditions from Asia. I have not dealt nearly as extensively with these other well established philosophies and my takeaways do not reflect the richness of these schools of thought, however two heritages stand out as relevant in my search for a philosophy of life. 

One is Confucianism. In the West, the philosophy of China’s Confucius (551 BCE–479 BCE) is associated primarily with an adherence to filial piety, or duty to and respect for one’s family and ancestors. Such devotion is actually a subset of a more comprehensive belief in the virtue of loving relationships with other people. How we develop character and usher in the good life is directly the result of the quality of how we interact with others, specifically the degree to which each of us practices benevolence, or caring deeply for all human beings. Also of note is righteousness or the building of personal integrity that avoids ethical breaches. Therefore, establishing nourishing and considerate relationships is the core to a Confucian philosophy of life.

The other intriguing Eastern practice is Taoism (often spelled Daoism). This philosophical system developed in China as well and is associated with the thoughts and writings of Lao Tzu, who is believed to have lived during a time of great turmoil known as the Warring States Period. Taoism prompts us to accept that uncertainty is prevalent in life and therefore to be careful about forming rigid assumptions about how life should play out. Flexibility, agility, and resilience are key attitudes to develop as we navigate through life’s ambiguities. We are called on to acknowledge that order is naturally accompanied by disorder, as is stability/fluctuation, sameness/change, control/disarray, etc. Wisdom and the good life emerge from our skill in self-regulation given these conditions. As Voltaire said, “Doubt is an uncomfortable condition, but certainty is a ridiculous one.”

It shouldn’t come as a surprise, but the ancient West also offers us philosophical traditions. Several years ago I ran into the philosophy of Stoicism and I like a lot of what I am seeing. I think I can guess what you are now thinking. So, he wants to be stoic— impassive, aloof, detached, and sporting a stiff upper lip. Unfortunately, common English usage has corralled and limited the meaning of stoicism. In the context of philosophy there is much more to it. Thanks to Massimo Pigliucci, an author and philosophy professor at City College of New York, who I have seen and heard on a number of podcasts, I’ve been introduced to this ancient Greco-Roman philosophy. Several features stood out to me quickly. Firstly, paying homage to a philosophy from the West instead of the East for a change seems refreshing and balanced. Secondly, one can take simplicity and pragmatism from Stoicism, making it applicable in the short term without years of concentrated study. Finally, Stoicism openly admits to being a means for unearthing a eudaimonic life, by which is meant a flourishing life worth living.

Stoicism began with Zeno of Citium in Greece about 300 BCE. In time, many of its  principles were incorporated into early Christian teachings in Rome. There are two key foundational ideas underpinning Stoicism: one precept makes clear the necessity for everyone to become a moral person and the other pertains to a concept known as dichotomy of control. Regarding morality, an individual is encouraged to engage in a persistent practice of the four cardinal virtues — Prudence or always choosing the right course of action; Justice or seeking fairness at all times; Temperance or moderation and self-control; and Fortitude or strength and endurance. By practicing these four easy to understand virtues, as difficult as they may be to put into continuous practice, one can achieve a moral status. Dichotomy of control refers simply to knowing what one can control in life and what one cannot. This idea can best be summarized by the Serenity Prayer composed by the American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr in 1934, “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”  Stoicism offers us a practical philosophical method that seems well suited for these times.

For many years I have personally thought of myself as a Secular Humanist. This has been a thought, but until recently without much thinking behind it. Secular Humanism, which I’ll capitalize because in this essay I’m using it as a discreet philosophy, is a good fallback position for those of us who are not religious, but still recognize value in morality, social structure, personal responsibility, and that ethereal assumption of spirituality. Those of us who are hesitant to join a club of any kind can find in Secular Humanism latitude to explore deep life issues minus membership into a creed or persuasion.

Secular refers to a preference for non-religious institutions, such as government, as the most just way of organizing society. Humanism indicates the significance of humans ability to apply reason and morals to satisfy human needs sans divine or mystical intervention or origin. Together these terms stress religion not having a monopoly on morality or ethics; the preeminence of individual liberty and human derived ethical standards; and a reliance on science and reason for understanding the universe; among other core beliefs. Development of righteous character matters to Secular Humanists, leading to suggested ethical practices for personal refinement. The principles of this philosophy can guide a person to create a life of meaning and purpose, free of religious dogma.

There are many philosophical influences one can investigate in order to identify a personal philosophy. I have described the key points to some of these schools of thought, which to date have had great influence on me. However, there are other philosophies which I have come across more recently that have piqued my interest and which call to me for further contemplation as I consider my own personal philosophy. What follows are summaries of these philosophies defined with an emphasis on the principal features of each that I find most intriguing.

Above, in the section on Stoicism, I mentioned that the Stoic maxim leading to a moral life is to follow the four cardinal virtues. Pretty straight forward. But then comes along Aristotelianism, a philosophy developed by, you guessed it, Aristotle, and we find him pushing back on the Stoics’ simplicity by putting forward a concept of moral relativism. And this in the third century BCE!

Aristotelianism is largely about interpreting eudaimonism (a flourishing life worth living) through a focus on balancing virtue with realism and reason. Aristotle shunned philosophical dictates that were too prescriptive. He chose broader objectives for people to consider such as living to one’s full potential, capitalizing on one’s strengths, and accomplishing one’s chosen goals. Most importantly, he chose promotion of a balanced life as more meaningful than a narrowly specified moral life. For example, frequent drinking to excess can be considered intemperate and therefore immoral. But what if one were to drink modestly most weeks and splurge for a special occasion like a wedding reception? Despite the hangover the next day was the person immoral? No, would say Aristotle. He had a good time, possibly rekindled old friendships, and did no one harm. Give him a break. Overall, our party boy may very well live a balanced and quite possibly a virtuous life, despite an occasional overindulgence. Moderation leads to greater happiness and health for more people than does strict adherence to rigid rules according to Aristotelianism. 

This notion of realism in philosophy is also evident in the American philosophy known as Pragmatism. Nineteenth and twentieth century American philosophers/writers, attempted to define and give utility to freedom and free will for a population that had won political freedom during the American Revolution, but was still trying to figure out what to do with liberty at a personal level. They saw that a great deal of life is making it up as you go along, which can leave many feeling adrift. Freedom to choose can be both a blessing and a curse. Figuring out how to make lives worth living within an inherently unsettled world is slippery going. Absolute values can appear inordinately elusive and abstract, leaving reverent dictates impractical and unworkable. Perhaps the best we can do in an existence that leaves us free, but with constraints, is what Pragmatists Charles Peirce and William James advocated—just make one’s world better by pursuing beauty, truth, and goodness. (My apologies to committed Pragmatists for the oversimplification.) 

Freedom also plays a significant role in the European-born philosophy known as Existentialism. In fact, as Jean-Paul Sartre put it, we are “condemned to be free”. We didn’t ask for this life, but now that we’ve been given it let’s embrace our freedom to generate the best life possible through our choice of actions. However, while doing so, we need to be cognizant of several parameters: constructing a personal essence is ongoing and fluid and ends the day we die; with freedom comes responsibility for others, because we aren’t in this alone; and there’s much about life we can’t change, but we can always strive to be authentically true to ourselves. Existentialism is intentionally non-didactic and wary of conventional behaviors. Rather, it’s a license to be fully expressive during a life that may be short, but need not be boring or oppressive. Happiness and the good life come from continuous reflection on how to find meaning in life while being our own person.

You may find here a variety of philosophy that isn’t very complicated at all. In fact, much of it can seem like common sense. To illustrate philosophical simplicity and straightforwardness there is the Effective Altruism movement. Perhaps Effective Altruism can best be thought of as a moral system or framework. Effective Altruism calls for each person to discover for themselves what significant problem there is in the world that they can make a meaningful contribution toward solving. This may involve targeting charitable donations, working toward policy changes, or directly assisting those in need. The goal is to be an agent of change and improvement. It’s concrete, measurable, and principled. All that is needed is a willingness to make the world better than you found it. Not a bad commitment to make with one’s life. (I think I can hear the ghost of Ayn Rand groaning.)

Finally, who says philosophy doesn’t have a sense of humor and a party side? Such is the reputation of the ancient philosophy of Epicureanism. A while back I mentioned how the word stoic has been undeservedly confined by popular usage in English. The same holds true for the term epicureanism. We think of it solely as a reference to the pursuit of sensual pleasure, particularly when it comes to food and wine. This impression should be no more than a starting point for a richer philosophy that speaks to a fuller cultivation of happiness and the good life.

Epicureanism is something of the bad boy of philosophies, given the religious ascetic and Platonic-based rationalism biases against pleasure, which together hold philosophical dominance. Epicurus (341 BCE-270 BCE) was dedicated to helping people live happy and serene lives free of fear. He established the foundation for this approach to be found in nature, both in the natural world and in human nature. At its essence, nature expresses blossoming, flourishing, and unfolding. We can embrace these properties as a guide to life choices which strengthen delight and contentment. Relishing the simple joys that nourish body and mind, savoring the company of friends, and making the most of every minute of this one life we have is the practice of Epicureanism. As the Epicurean Frances Wright wrote in 1821, “Enjoy, and be happy! Do you doubt the way? Let Epicurus be your guide. The source of every enjoyment is within yourselves.”

My Personal Philosophy

I see myself as practical and therefore outcome oriented. It is important that I know why I would bother expending time and energy on any pursuit. The intended end result must hold value. So, with that in mind, I choose to engage in writing a personal philosophy, because I expect in doing so I will expand my personal happiness and find contentment in having a life purpose to guide me during my final years.

Living a philosophy involves reason, contemplation, reflection, and decision making. These thoughts are experienced, felt, and colored by emotions. What necessarily follows are corresponding actions and behaviors. I conduct and judge myself through a continual assessment of my performance or interactions with other people, the natural world, and the competing selves within me. But, it’s what I do that matters most.

Philosophy is a conceptual structure. The technical components of this structure provide its essence and substance. We are each free to construct our own philosophical framework. Our building blocks are the values which we endorse and embrace and the order and weight we assign to these standards. For myself, my goal is to shape a philosophy that reflects the principles I hold as sacrosanct and which I will cobble together in such an idiosyncratic way as to possibly satisfy no one else but me. And that’s okay.

Here I present my personal philosophy as a medley of principles to live by.

Relations with others are to be compassionate, caring, respectful, and sensitive to needs.

“To serve, not to be served.” Such was my high school’s motto. I continue to take it to heart.

My center is in me. My center is in you.

Living introspectively and mindfully informs how I will channel my energy and how I will preserve my physical and mental health.

Nature is my guide. Nature is my rhythm.

Remain agile and accept change. Resist change only when very clear-eyed.

Do the hard things like: Adopt uncertainty; Meditate; Breathe through anxious moments; Trust in life’s brightness.

Bask in the love of family.

Morality is always a worthy aspiration.

Remorse for past transgressions is a natural part of life’s review. Don’t shy away from past sins. Own them. Learn from them. Move on better.

Find solace in the righteousness of secularism.

Be balanced, measured, and moderate in all things.

Savor my freedom and individualism daily.

Don’t hesitate to be generous.

Feel grateful and delight in pleasures large and small that life offers…always.

As I write this essay the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020 is ongoing. This pandemic is breaking all of the rules. Among them is the enormous impact the contagion is having by upending national economies and the day-to-day lifestyles of many millions. To a greater extent however, we are being shaken from our oblivious slumber to suddenly find ourselves facing long term consequences of how global functioning and our individual lives are to continue as a result of this catastrophe. Unlike most news events in the modern era that seem to captivate attention dramatically, but briefly, before being swept aside by the next story this pandemic may well be a catalyst for changes in how the world’s citizens perceive priorities and policy strategies for years to come.

What strongly strikes me about the Covid-19 pandemic, aside from the conspicuous fear of contracting the disease, is that this may be an opportunity to jolt us from our provincial and staid world view, immersed as it is in a belief of limited repercussions for our actions, to rather an acceptance of the likelihood that we all share a much larger and more intricately woven realm of causality. Covid-19 serves as an example of a harsh lesson—the proverbial knock upside the head. It is a natural, albeit perverse, environmental phenomenon profoundly impacting our collective environment and forcing us to reorient how we live. We are being summoned to pay attention to something bigger than ourselves. Let us heed the call.

Our lives have always been subjected to the whims of nature. The conventional claim these days among environmental activists and other less strident observers is that we are witnessing, if not participating in, a growing tension between humans and nature. Certainly the data on climate change suggests a transformation is underway in the human-nature relationship. If we accept the premise that humans depend on nature, and given the power of humans to effect environmental change, that nature depends on humans, then the quality of this interaction becomes increasingly significant. As this insidious virus makes clear, mutual co-dependence of humans with their environment is worth a public re-examination and debate about how best to proceed, because something is evidently amiss.

Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2), a type of Coronavirus that is similar to but characteristically different from flu virus, has been introduced into the human population with devastating consequences. An examination of how and why this has happened will help us to see if indeed this pandemic is part of a larger story about how we humans intercommunicate with the planet. And this story, along with any conclusions we may draw from it, can inform us about what are more sustainable and beneficial practices we could or should pursue moving forward.

As you may remember from a science class somewhere in your past there are tiny life forms known as microbes or microorganisms. Bacteria is the most commonly referred to microbe, but there are others. What all microbes have in common is that they are very small and are all comprised of cells. In fact, some are only one cell in size. Their purpose is to play a critical role in the overall health and richness of a biome and to a larger extent of an ecosystem.

Viruses on the other hand are a whole different kettle of fish. Think science fiction alien-like, ahh, thing. They have been creepily described as existing on the margin of living things. They are 1/100th the size of a typical microbe and not comprised of cells. Instead, a virus or virion is a collection of genetic material that encodes proteins. It is encapsulated by a protein seal and exists in one of two ways—either in a dormant state just ready to strike when a vector or host comes along or it becomes “alive” once it infects the hosts’ cells and begins executing its genetic codes, resulting in a rapid reproduction of itself. But of course, despite its treacherous demeanor, we shouldn’t forget that viruses are here for a good reason. By transferring genes they promote genetic diversity, similar to the role played by sexual reproduction. Life on this planet inherently needs adaptability in order to survive and horizontal gene transfer, what viruses do, helps life fulfill this need.

A clear big takeaway from the Covid-19 pandemic is that nature can still pack a wide-ranging punch, even to a population who thinks of itself as seasoned, sophisticated, enlightened, and prepared for anything. It can be useful to remind ourselves that epidemics and pandemics have occurred before and some fairly recently. History is replete with real-life horror stories of communities ranging from towns to civilizations being decimated to one degree or another by such invisible killers.

For example, during the war between Athens and Sparta around 430 BCE the besieged citizens of Athens fortified themselves behind what were called the “long walls”. The overcrowding over time is presumed to have led to a not yet definitively identified pathogen outbreak among the people. Impaired mental functioning, inflamed eyes and organs, bloody throats, and foul breath preceded death. Approximately 100,000 died.

Perhaps the most well know historic pandemic was The Black Death, also remembered as The Plague, which killed nearly half of Europe’s population roughly during the years 1346 and 1353. A now likely extinct bacterium was transmitted from fleas on infected rodents, causing death from Asia to Europe. The disease followed the Silk Road route. Once infected rats who stowed away on merchant vessels to the Mediterranean and Europe offloaded the sickness spread widely.

More recently, the so-called Spanish flu (1918-1920) killed perhaps up to 100 million people around the world. It came in three waves with the second wave in the fall of 1918 being the deadliest. The Asian flu in 1957 and 1958 killed 116,000 Americans. I could go on.

It is a fair hypothesis to state that environmental degradation and mishandling will lead to unintended and severe consequences, such as pandemics. Some would say we’re past hypothesizing as evidenced by measurable and demonstrable adverse ecological conditions of recent times. Given our obvious inherent fragility two questions naturally arise: Should we be interacting with nature in a more intentional and respectful way that ensures or at least improves the chances of better lives for all people? And correspondingly, how do we best mitigate and prepare for environmental disruptions that negatively impact our lives?

We can examine the veracity of the above supposition by seeing if there is a link between environmental deterioration and social welfare. Before proceeding let’s be clear on definitions. Environmental degradation includes: reduction of high quality life sustaining natural resources such as air, water, and soil; destruction of ecosystems; annihilation of habitats; wildlife extinction; pollution or the introduction of deleterious impurities into the environment. Social welfare includes those universal objectives that bring value and excellence to life such as: health and longevity; sustenance and abundance; peace and safety; freedom and equality; literacy and knowledge; or as Thomas Jefferson succinctly put it, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a causal link can be established between human activity that leads to environmental decline or disruption and the worsening of social welfare, then we have highlighted an urgency and potential outline for constructive policy making, business practices, and individual behavior going forward.

Now is an optimal time to look at the factual information showing a connection between how we interact with nature and what She does to us as a consequence. As I’ve indicated, Covid-19 should be seen as a wake-up call. It’s impact has been so substantial that there is no question all of us are now paying attention. What is most evident is that a novel virus has arisen and penetrated our world. How exactly this happened is still being examined as of this writing, however epidemiological and genetic evidence points to it being very similar to a bat coronavirus seen in China and that a transfer from bats to intermediary animals and then to humans occurred. A California microbiology professor Kristian Andersen directed a team looking into the virus’s genesis. Their conclusion, “We propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of Sars-CoV-2: natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic [animal to human] transfer; and natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer”. In other words, new pathogens are likely to continuously undergo evolution in the animal world and they can transfer to humans who can serve as adequate hosts.

On the surface zoonotic transfer appears to be a naturally occurring process, albeit a potentially dangerous one. However, as the line between the habitats of wild animals and the human world becomes increasingly porous as a result of greater human encroachment we may be boosting the chances of zoonotic transfer and therefore of the disease risk associated with it. For example, this wet market practice being practiced in some parts of the planet, in which live animal species are interacting unnaturally due to human commerce may be extremely hazardous. Given how localized outbreaks can become global so quickly in the modern era, the danger of such markets should be called into question despite their cultural history and local importance. Developing sound methods of engaging with wild animal populations that reduce instances of harmful zoonotic transmissions would seem to be lesson #1 from this disaster.

Given the severity of the Covid-19 disruption to our lives it’s natural to yearn for a “return to normal”. Let’s unpack what normal was just a few short months ago. Edward Cameron is an Irish climate scientist and strategist living in Vermont. His description of the month before the pandemic started in earnest, also fondly remembered as “normal” times, is useful to contemplate. Commenting on stimulus money being spent by governments in reaction to the public and economic threat of Covid-19 he wrote in May 2020, “There will be a temptation to seek a return to the economy as it was on 31 December 2019. Should we spend these trillions of dollars and succeed in rebuilding the stock market, while still living in a world where more than 3 billion people live on less than US$ 2.50 a day? Should we grow GDP back to pre-crisis levels and still live in a world where 22,000 children die each day due to poverty and 805 million people worldwide do not have enough food to eat? Should we put people back to work but still live in a world where 750 million people lack adequate access to clean drinking water—killing an estimated 2,300 people per day? Should we resuscitate the price of oil and commodities and continue our long march towards climate catastrophe? Would we call that success? Would that world be a better world than the one we have now?”

Point taken. Going back to normal has a downside. Of course, we all want the security of living with familiar comforts and predictability. Such consolations provide us with happiness and mental health. Yet, it’s worth keeping in mind as we yearn for familiarity that many benefits come at an ecological price not often considered and these rewards are not as widely shared as we might like to think, thereby creating unresolved social tensions. A critical fact about epidemics historically is how they expose vulnerabilities in what had been normal prior to the scourge. These weaknesses inherent in societies’ living standards and political decisions are where infections take hold and tragedies ensue. Compounding the grief is the realization that while microbes and viruses seek to exploit soft pockets made available by human practices, it is those most at risk from these customs who bear the greatest brunt. We see this being repeated with Covid-19 as the infirm, poor, disadvantaged, and elderly are infected and die at the highest rates.

There are many like Edward Cameron calling for this crisis to be a moment of opportunity for ushering in a better world. Profound social changes have often followed epidemic disruptions. History shows social perspectives are altered impacting religion, economics, politics, and lifestyle habits in the aftermath of large-scaled cataclysms. Sometimes this leads to massive improvements like the loosening of the Roman Church’s dictatorial hold on Europe following the Bubonic Plague or what can result is disastrous such as the rise of the Nazi Party subsequent in part to the Spanish Flu pandemic. It’s naive to think there will not be a momentous reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic. The quality of the response depends on the excellence and persuasiveness of thought leaders and political talent.

An emerging line of reasoning hoping to direct the post-pandemic effort connects issues that often are viewed as separate challenges, specifically poverty, wealth inequality, and environmental devastation. Many of us first saw this amalgamated approach with the progressive left’s Green New Deal. The proponents of this process advocate for going really big, by tackling a range of environmental improvement and social welfare concerns, even racial injustice, all at once. The claim is there is an inherent inefficiency in tackling these problems separately or in a siloed manner. For example, if the focus is solely on emissions reduction to reduce global warming at the expense of addressing how agriculture, a leading emitter of particulate emissions, feeds the world’s population, then progress on favorable change is curtailed.

Despite the impassioned argument for going big with a set of multiple reforms simultaneously I’m left questioning the political practicality of initiating too sweeping of a reform movement all at once. An energized opposition is likely to become too much of an impediment, resulting in no substantial change occurring. To be clear, each component of a Green New Deal-type plan—poverty, wealth inequality, equal opportunity, and environmental devastation—seeks to remedy a critically pressing concern. And viewed holistically, a thread can be found linking these issues. However, making legislative progress on any one of these in isolation is a herculean task. Instituting meaningful policy on all of them together in a single comprehensive move seems like a very heavy lift indeed. So, whereas I can appreciate the desire to link environmental and social action at a policy level, the legislative impediments arising from this strategy could very likely weaken and dilute the attempt.

That said, I nevertheless find Cameron’s reference to socio-ecological resilience to be quite informative and promising. To be more specific, I find the term ‘resilience’ appealing, especially in the context of strategic resilience, which I believe is his intention. Progress, innovation, and change don’t happen unless there is an underlying ethic of reflection, preparedness, agility, and risk taking. These are traits that often seem to be in short supply among many groups of people, including those of us in the “first world”. Resilience as aptly described by Cameron pertains to the development of capability “to anticipate, avoid, accommodate, and recover from shocks”. Such thinking is in line with business continuity planning, a most useful and proven approach to executing strategic resilience. Business continuity planning is a systemic process designed to minimize threats, recover from disruptions, and maintain operations with just the right balance of sustainability and adaptability to allow for ongoing functionality. Covid-19 lays bare societies’ agility and viability vulnerabilities worldwide. A more premeditated methodology built around strategic resilience will better prepare us for the dangers and disorders yet to come.

“The main part of preparedness to face these events is that we need as human beings to realize that we’re all in this together, that what affects one person anywhere affects everyone everywhere, that we are therefore inevitably part of a species, and we need to think in that way rather than about divisions of race and ethnicity, economic status, and all the rest of it.”  Frank M. Snowden, a professor emeritus of history and the history of medicine at Yale University. Professor Snowden articulates what is the greatest challenge for us to customize a post-pandemic world. It is not just waging a fight against invading pathogens. It is not immediately halting all ecological ruination. It is not instantly remediating the effects of world poverty and injustice. It is finding a way to work together, to find common ground, to forge partnerships across diverse and opposing ideologies and world views that take us collectively to a place of harmony with nature and universal social well being.

Political divisions will always be with us—and they should be. As much as Washington and Adams warned the young American nation about the drawbacks and pitfalls of partisanship our early countrymen quickly resorted to establishing institutions whereby like-minded people sharing political positions and philosophies could coalesce and compete. Bias and partiality drives politics in every nation in one form or another and varying levels of cooperation and animosity facilitate or diminish government action and decision making in each of these places. Rhetorical conflict can result in progress or not. In the best of situations leadership quality and citizen enlightenment merge to discover solutions that elevate conditions for the greatest number of people. It is not the eradication of disagreement that is needed, it is the crafting of positive options from the scrum of our differences that is called for more than ever in the post-Covid world.

“With all the riots and BS going on, I’m starting to miss the days of the #chinesevirus at least that was laughable nonsense. Where did all that go?” Conservative contributor to Twitter from New Mexico. 

“I’m never wearing a mask…We ruined the economy for nothing.” Conservative contributor to Twitter from Washington, DC.

“Let’s all be honest. Democrat Governors all over the Country let criminals out of prison so they could show up for the riots. The plandemic was the lie they told. These riots were planned right down to the bricks.” Conservative contributor to Twitter from California.

The above quotes were taken from my Twitter feed on June 3, 2020. For the past week the nationwide protests have been occurring following the videotaped murder of an African American man by a white Minneapolis police officer. I could of course add many many more quotes of this type, but I think these make my point. There is a significant segment of America who dismiss and don’t accept the urgency of attacking a viral pandemic raging through their country. Can you imagine these folks rallying to combat climate change?! Whereas the marketplace of competing ideas yields the best solutions, as I’ve noted above, there does come a point where paralysis can set in due to unbridgeable chasms of opinion. We may very well be a this point.

I purposely follow a lot of conservative contributors on Twitter to help give me a sense of what this part of the population is thinking. Granted, Twitter seems to be a platform where MANY extreme views from the right and the left make their instantaneous presence, and despite the velocity of these well caffeinated and provocative conjectures, it may not be any more of an accurate reflection of mainstream viewpoints than any other source. But it is informative nevertheless, to read the thoughts of those who I do not encounter on a daily basis in real life. My grand takeaway is becoming that America is not only profoundly polarized politically, but now appears to be such a large and unwieldy country that to think of coalescing around a national purpose of any sort these days looks to be pathetically unrealistic. It makes thinking we can tackle threats that require national unity, rational problem solving, and concerted effort fanciful. And to be fair, the left can be soundly obnoxious themselves, particularly on the extreme end of the wing. Together our partisan palsy puts all of us at greater risk of mishandling future natural epidemics at a time of accelerated globalized change. This is not smart people.

The fundamental test therefore lies in comprehending, on a near universal scale, the common ground on which we all stand. Doing so involves a mind-shift toward seeing the world through everyone’s similarities, shared purpose, and sense of oneness. Of course there will be differences of opinion and perspective. But where is it written that any nation need cleave itself over these contrasts and disagreements? We should make clear to ourselves that collectively we can achieve greater liberty and prosperity for everyone by adhering to principles of equality in justice, brotherhood, and multicultural acceptance. I’ll drag out a banal, but incisive phrase—there is more that unites us than divides us. Or perhaps, we can simply listen to Desmond Tutu, “My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together.”

Finding common ground with those with whom we have disagreement does not start with sending links to articles highlighting one’s point of view, or by pointing out “incontrovertible” data, or by quoting experts in science, economics, education, and so forth. It starts with identifying shared values. We all live in communities we want to be prosperous and safe. We all want the best for our kids. We all want the freedom to live life as we choose. We all want to live long comfortable and flourishing lives. At our roots, we are moral, emotional, social, and intuitive, not rational. Reaching each other over how we feel about issues will forge alliances more than trying to get ourselves to think alike. Debate at a cognitive level can often be fruitless outside of a university-like setting. We think what we want to think. But appealing to our widespread sentiments of what feels right provides greater hope we can build coalitions.

Working within the framework of one’s civilization can reveal beneficial touch points in trying to find common humanity. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist in Virginia recognizes care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity as supporting morality, which I’ll define as a culture’s sense of right and wrong. Exploring these areas with the goal of intentionally establishing areas of agreement among disparate people allows us to seek agreements and reach accord. Understanding the moral interests and human nature of others is the place to reach them. Developing trust makes it easier to agree on win/win approaches. When we figure out an improved way of collaboratively merging reason and intuition we will have a greater chance of productively connecting to face incoming environmental and social challenges that we will surely face together in the future, whether we are ready for them or not.

Covid-19 should be seen more as a forewarning than as a one-off unexpected cataclysm. We are being alerted to not only future pandemics, but to a range of calamities that can result from the lack of congruence between humans and nature, including the efficacy of how science and governments respond to these threats. Will we snap back to a normal goaded by pent-up demand as Pilita Clark in the Financial Times describes as spending, “…money we don’t have, on things we don’t need, to create impressions that don’t last, on people we don’t care about?” or will we be guided by a desire for preventative science-based planning and funding that is cooperatively engaged across disparate agencies, departments, businesses, and even nations? Resisting the fratricidal tendency many people have to express hate, xenophobia, and scapegoating when faced with fear, as these forthcoming scourges will likely engender, could be our biggest obstacle to the necessary teamwork such times will call for. If so, this will be enormously difficult.

All times are a stress test of one sort or another each with their own zeitgeist of idiosyncratic incitements that make or break the people of their age. The grand conflict of our epoch is integrally enmeshed in the quality of the relationship between the earth’s dominant life form and their planet. We have had a shot fired over our bow. The time for awareness and resolve is on. How we engage this struggle will determine the kind of world we bestow upon or deprive from future generations. Whatever turns out to be our legacy we cannot say we weren’t warned.