Two philosophers who influenced Hadot are Thoreau and Wittgenstein.

He wrote a paper on Thoreau: "There are nowadays Professors of Philosophy, but not Philosophers". The title is taken from a quote by Thoreau on philosophy as a way of life.

Hadot is credited with introducing Wittgenstein to France. The affinity can be seen in passages such as the following from Philosophical Investigations:

There is not a single philosophical method, though there are indeed methods, different therapies, as it were. (PI 133d)

I would like to nominate Jules Evans for inclusion. His website says 'I research wisdom practices from different eras and cultures, explore them in my life, and interview others to see how they helped or harmed them'. Other contemporaries might include Mark Vernon, writer and columnist, Alain Du Bouton, and Karen Armstrong all of whom write on philosophy as a way of life to some extent.

The idea would require a lot of thought, pulling nuggets of wisdom from several sources from both antiquity and modernity: Plato, Aristotle, the Cynics, the Stoics, Plotinus and the Neoplatonists, Confucius and the Neoconfucians, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Mencius, Aquinas, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Kant, Locke, Scheler, amongst others. — Dermot Griffin

We might contemplate the question: who or which amongst these individuals and schools share the convictions of contemporary naturalism? Perhaps the stoics - hence the resurgent interest in stoicism - and Nietzsche. But, according to Lloyd Gerson's most recent book, Platonism vs Naturalism: The Possibility of Philosophy, there are fundamental incompatibilities between philosophy (qua 'footnotes to Plato') and naturalism (qua 'natural science'). Accordingly the judgement of what 'living well' comprises might be subject to divergent criteria amongst these various sources.

Footnote: Who were the 'therapeutae'?

Ancient philosophy was designed for the sake of living a truly eudaimonic life. The modern philosophies that have risen since the Enlightenment need to shift towards this paradigm of therapeía, that is to say, "healing. — Dermot Griffin

We can't have this if our world worships massive material wealth -- the surplus economy where only those in position to hold the surpluses flourish.

What I would like to eventually do [...] is create a list of key ideas from various philosophies that promote a real eudaimonic way of living. — Dermot Griffin

In another thread I quoted Hadot to try to balance a one-sided understanding (link). An important thing to remember is that for Hadot praxis is no more universal than theory. Each philosophical school of antiquity recommended different practices, which were suited to the different forms of theory or discourse. Different theories of eudaimonia resulted in different practices. Mixing the different practices haphazardly is therefore a very unnatural thing to do, at least prima facie.

What one would apparently be doing would be sifting the body of practices through a particular sieve in order to produce a particular effect. It may be that one wants to show certain commonalities between the practices, or one wants to show how certain practices of antiquity are similar to some of our own received wisdom, etc. That's well and good, yet the notion that in antiquity there were lots of different theories but one set of underlying practices is quite false. The different practices were as contentious as the different theories. Introducing the notion of praxis does not bring with it the effect of agreement between different schools, nor does it necessarily introduce a common ground. In fact it can have much the opposite effect, revealing schools which were much more drastically different than our modern day schools of philosophy. In the modern day the different schools do, by and large, share the same praxis. This was not always so.

"... a list of key ideas from various philosophies that promote a real eudaimonic way of living".

I have been thinking about something similar in last weeks. You specified your idea with the adjective "real". That's the problem. As Quixodian wrote, "the judgement of what 'living well' comprises might be subject to divergent criteria". In different philosophies there are different and even conflicting ideas about what "real" eudaimonia should be. But we can turn this problem into a resource: we can suppose that, as a consequence, a good eudaimonia should start by examining which criterions we should use to define it correctly. I think that, in this work, we will realize that it is essentially a problem of subjectivity, relativism: the concept of "real" eudaimonia is relative to different perspectives, different philosophies. Again, we can try to turn this into a resource: let's state that a "good" (which is less strong than "real") eudaimonia should be based on an endless dialogue between what is commonly perceived as subjectivity and what is commonly perceived as objectivity. In this context, we can look for the key words and concepts that have been used in philosophies and, particularly, we want to understand why they are "key" concepts, "key" ideas: what makes them "key", that is, central, sensible, crucial. I think that a good criterion is the criterion of connections: a point is a "key" point if it is rich in connections with other points. This is, again, quite subjective: objectively, every point is able to have infinite connections; but, subjectively, we as humans may be interested in certain specific kinds of connections. For example, a word that we perceive quite rich in connections, and, as such, is a "key" word, is, for sure, "being". Heidegger made its meaning much less theoretical and abstract by putting it in the context of human existence, time, death. Another key word is, for sure, life.

At this point we can realize that we are at risk of getting lost in the web of key words and connections. To avoid this, we need some subjective choice, to take specific stands, to privilege certain perspectives, while keeping a continuative dialogue with perspectives that are different from our ones.

I think that this work is worth it. In a sense I can say that I have already been working for many years on it, under the umbrella term of "spirituality".

He argues that philosophy is to be a practical exercise, a spiritual exercise. He writes in Philosophy as a Way of Life "Ancient philosophy proposed to mankind an art of living. By contrast, modern philosophy appears above all as the construction of a technical jargon reserved for specialists." — Dermot Griffin

In line with that argument - My (personal) answer to the question of what philosophies purpose - Philosophy is an exercise for learning to be aware of how my mind works. It's about self-awareness. For me, that's the definition of a spiritual practice.

I like to think of Stoicism, Platonism, and Aristotelianism not as there own systems that are distinct from one another that promote their own politically correct ways of doing philosophy. Rather I see them as distinct branches of a truly Socratic tradition of philosophy, all seeing Socrates as the model of the sage and focusing upon the cultivation of good ethical character. Therefore, in my opinion, Stoic, Platonic, and Aristotelian philosophy are all expressions of a Socratic therapy. I like to think that modern philosophy needs to return to the Socratic mindset regardless if it is Anglophone analytical thought (ordinary language philosophy, logical atomism, logical positivism, American pragmatism) or French and German continental thought (phenomenology, existentialism, French Nietzscheanism, absolute idealism). There are good ideas in both camps but the emphasis needs to shift towards a kind of eudaimonism.



I'll have to hunt this paper down; I didn't know Thoreau played a role in influencing him. And I sometimes forget that Hadot was a big popularizer of Wittgenstein in France.

I think that this work is worth it. In a sense I can say that I have already been working for many years on it, under the umbrella term of "spirituality".

A trying task to be sure. I think one can be spiritual without being involved in an organized religion. However, I do think that there is a benefit to organized religion as the promoter of comradery between people.



Speaking of the concept of mind, I don't know if you have an interest in the philosophy of mind, but David Chalmers book The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory is a fascinating read about the nature of what exactly consciousness is. Nothing to do with ethics, I just highly recommend this book.



If I recall correctly, Jules Evans is a big advocate of Stoicism. And the Therapeutae were a prime example of the fusion between the Judaic and Hellenic/Greco-Roman traditions.

I'll have to hunt this paper down; — Dermot Griffin

here

Update I was not able to find a free PDF

I would consider putting Foucault upon your list because of his writings, Concern of the Self, emphasizing the notion of health as requiring a personal regime verified by a person. It is implicit in many philosophical frameworks. But Foucault shows the importance of it as means of separating bad evidence from the possible good. Something many other thinkers take for granted.

Your title reminds me of Martha Nussbaum's The Therapy of Desire.

And I'm a lover of Hadot's take on ancient philosophy. He's definitely worked his thoughts into my own.

The one name unlisted that I'd highlight is Epicurus. I've posted this quote before, but I'll do it again because I love Epicurus.

Let no one be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul. And to say that the season for studying philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more. Therefore, both old and young alike ought to seek wisdom, the former in order that, as age comes over him, he may be young in good things because of the grace of what has been, and the latter in order that, while he is young, he may at the same time be old, because he has no fear of the things which are to come. So we must exercise ourselves in the things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it. — Letter to Menoeceus

Which is really just a way to say -- yup. I love the study of philosophy in its relationship to the problems of life.

What I would like to eventually do, akin to Jordan Petersons 12 Rules for Life and Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, is create a list of key ideas from various philosophies that promote a real eudaimonic way of living. — Dermot Griffin

Just for yourself or others? Don't you think the world is already awash with well-meaning or messianic others providing us with gratuitous advice on how to live?

Philosophy is an exercise for learning to be aware of how my mind works. It's about self-awareness. For me, that's the definition of a spiritual practice. — T Clark

Interesting. For me philosophy is a study of what others believe and why. What this does seem to be good for is letting you know that whatever your presuppositions, values and beliefs might be, there are likely to be good reasons not to hold them. I don't know what spiritual practice is, except perhaps things done to promote emotional wellbeing.

Let no one be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul. And to say that the season for studying philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more. Therefore, both old and young alike ought to seek wisdom, the former in order that, as age comes over him, he may be young in good things because of the grace of what has been, and the latter in order that, while he is young, he may at the same time be old, because he has no fear of the things which are to come. So we must exercise ourselves in the things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it.
— Letter to Menoeceus — Moliere

Not trying to be provocative, but none of that means anything to me. Reads likes some motherhood statements. What exactly is the connection between philosophy proper and its relationship to the 'problem's' of life? Can you provide examples? I understand that philosophy might be a source of some aphorisms or concepts which can be collected and blended into a kind of belief system casserole, but is that philosophy at work or just a kind of shopping for ideas that resonate?

Not trying to be provocative, but none of that means anything to me. Reads likes some motherhood statements. What exactly is the connection between philosophy proper and its relationship to the 'problem's' of life? Can you provide examples? I understand that philosophy might be a source of some aphorisms or concepts which can be collected and blended into a kind of belief system casserole, but is that philosophy at work or just a kind of shopping for ideas that resonate? — Tom Storm

Please, by all means, be provocative. I don't mind. You're not wrong: Epicurus' philosophy comes across as aphoristic and motherly, especially in my emphasis of the letters (Cicero and Lucretius formulate more coherent arguments). The task for his interpreters is to turn it into something more than that, which I believe it is.

With regards to Epicurus' philosophy I think one problem of life is the fear of death -- how to deal with that? Then there are also fears of supernatural beings, that we need to touch the roof three times before saying "Happy Holidays!" or else the Banshee will eat your first born. I think the human mind has a tendency to find patterns that are unreal that cause fear or anxiety. Addressing one's fears and anxieties is much of what Epicurus means by the practice of philosophy and the search for wisdom.

Then there's the desire for things, and the desire to avoid things which, because we are human, can become compounded by the very words we use to understand those desires -- I don't just want such and such I must have such and such. Or if I am to lose tomorrow I cannot live with myself, and am miserable now because of that misery!

However the fear I have is that it's not philosophy at work, but instead is just a shopping for ideas that resonate. One of the questions I still ask is about what philosophy proper looks like outside of the academy, and I do not have an answer.

Please, by all means, be provocative. I don't mind. — Moliere

Cool. I guess I am anxious not to be or sound disrespectful or needlessly antagonistic when I post.

Addressing one's fears and anxieties is much of what Epicurus means by the practice of philosophy and the search for wisdom. — Moliere

Ok, yes I can see some of this in Epicurus. From my modest exposure, I've certainly found Epicureanism more congenial than Stoicism.

One of the questions I still ask is about what philosophy proper looks like outside of the academy, and I do not have an answer. — Moliere

A good point. Philosophy is a word used with various meanings. One of the hallmarks of our time is the oversaturation of ideas and possibilities, lifestyles and worldviews available to us, whether it be as a social media influencer and shill in spandex, or a bushy-bearded Thomist contemplative pondering infinities. I often wonder how people choose what they will settle on.

Cool. I guess I am anxious not to be or sound disrespectful or needlessly antagonistic when I post. — Tom Storm

In this libidinal economy?

Totally understandable.

Ok, yes I can see some of this in Epicurus. From my modest exposure, I've certainly found Epicureanism more congenial than Stoicism. — Tom Storm

Glad to hear it :) -- though I'll give stoicism to the truly stoic, I think it's lessons are over-emphasized for how it interacts with most humans.

A good point. Philosophy is a word used with various meanings. One of the hallmarks of our time is the oversaturation of ideas and possibilities, lifestyles and worldviews available to us, whether it be as a social media influencer and shill in spandex, or a bushy-bearded Thomist contemplative pondering infinities. I often wonder how people choose what they will settle on. — Tom Storm

Right! So can one be a philosopher outside of academia, or are they just another YouTube personality, guru, or self-styled life coach?

For my part I'll say I'm not even a guru, because I'm still uncertain about so much and all I can bring you is uncertainty. Not reasons to do, but reasons to not do. A totally useless philosophy. Or so I hope. :D

For my part I'll say I'm not even a guru, because I'm still uncertain about so much and all I can bring you is uncertainty. Not reasons to do, but reasons to not do. A totally useless philosophy. Or so I hope. :D — Moliere

Beginnings of wisdom? I feel similarly. It's funny - in life I do not reflect much or agonize over decisions. I don't tend to have any burning questions about 'meaning' per say. I'm not really in the market for a guru or philosophical approach to help with anything. I find I am not generally dissatisfied and it seems to me that dissatisfaction is a major springboard into speculative thinking. In my case, I see a separation between philosophy and life. Although I am well aware that every person is an agglomeration of suppositions and values that are derived from philosophy, culture and socialization. Is unpacking this and reassembling our belief systems even possible or useful?

Is unpacking this and reassembling our belief systems even possible or useful? — Tom Storm

Do you think of that as some kind of exemption others do not?

Exemption? What do you mean?

You presented the matter as varying levels of concern. The differences others dwell upon are not your problem. That leads me to wonder what is your problem.

Wonder all you like. You sound irritated. @Moliere and I were discussing personal reasons for an interest in philosophy or gurus.

In my case, I see a separation between philosophy and life. Although I am well aware that every person is an agglomeration of suppositions and values that are derived from philosophy, culture and socialization. Is unpacking this and reassembling our belief systems even possible or useful? — Tom Storm

I tend to agree with you, although I acknowledge this is not a good fit for many others. It seems to me that questions that you or I may find merely interesting are critical and central to crises of faith in some others.

I've toyed with involvements in spiritual organizations, but I have never been a committed believer in any of that. I came to it, because I hoped, via meditation or other exercises for the kind of transformations, only more sustained, that I had experienced via painting, drawing, writing, reading, playing and listening to music, hiking and camping in the wilderness, lovemaking and of course psychedelics and entheogens, but I was ultimately disappointed.

I've come to see personal transformation and altered states as being quite independent of philosophical thought, so I don't really think it matters so much what you think, metaphysically speaking, but I do think it matters, from an ethical perspective, what you do, because that both conditions and reflects your state of mind. Is my state of mind contracted and closed off to life or open and expansive, that is what really matters, it seems to me. The rest is just window dressing.

I am not irritated. I was considering my own personal reasons.
I will keep my wondering to myself, as requested.

I think that resonates quite well with me.

I've toyed with involvements in spiritual organizations, but I have never been a committed believer in any of that. I came to it, because I hoped for the kind of transformations via meditation or other exercises that I had experienced via painting, drawing, writing, reading, playing and listening to music, hiking and camping in the wilderness, lovemaking and of course psychedelics and entheogens, only more sustained, but I was ultimately disappointed. — Janus

Sounds like you put in a lot of field work. That's good. I spent much of the 1980's and early 1990's with Theosophists and various groups in my city - mediation, New Age, Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti, Buddhist, Gnostic.. I was often struck by other's passion and certainty. I wanted to see if there as more to life than what I felt and saw around me but was never to transcend my own reality.

I am not irritated. I was considering my own personal reasons.
I will keep my wondering to myself, as requested. — Paine

Apologies if I was rude. I thought you were wondering 'what my problem was' and found this a curious reaction.

Do you have a way to relate philosophy to living and what makes you so interested in the subject?

This may be sloppy reasoning, but I tend to think that things like a belief in god and an interest in philosophy are dispositional or akin to sexual attraction - you can't help what you're into.

I wanted to see if there as more to life than what I felt and saw around me but was never to transcend my own reality. — Tom Storm

Something like this was pretty much my motivation for involvement with a Gurdjieff group, but the "more" I was looking for, I've come to realize is right there in what I feel and see around me, not in some transcendent realm. It's just a matter of making a shift whenever possible.
I think we all want more than just glimpses, but I've come to think that is a vain, and ultimately, ironically, egoically driven form of greed.

Again - I find only profound agreement. :pray:

I think we are all peculiarly situated to have problems. And the tools we have to deal with them are also odd. So, I tend to be amazed we can function at all.

:cool:

Yeah, I can see that. Humans are such emotional creatures, so attached to our own experiences and projecting these upon others that I also wonder how it is we can also collaborate so well and care for each other.

Just for yourself or others? Don't you think the world is already awash with well-meaning or messianic others providing us with gratuitous advice on how to live?

I see your point. But I think the idea of “well-meaning or messianic others” is exactly what I think the problem is. There needs to be a rational inquiry into what constitutes a good life, a life that knows how to navigate suffering and find meaning rather than the fads that we find in the self help community. This is, of course, irrespective of religion, if any at all; I personally see theism as an aid to living well but I don’t blame people who don’t believe in a Supreme Being. This task would be for my own interest, not necessarily for the interest of others but I’m sure some would take an interest in these ideas.

This task would be for my own interest, not necessarily for the interest of others but I’m sure some would take an interest in these ideas. — Dermot Griffin

That makes all the differnce.

I see your point. But I think the idea of “well-meaning or messianic others” is exactly what I think the problem is. — Dermot Griffin

The problem for me is it is not readily apparent how one determines one from the other - except in the most obvious and egregious of examples.

I personally see theism as an aid to living well but I don’t blame people who don’t believe in a Supreme Being. — Dermot Griffin

I get this. I guess theism can bring you to Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Donald Trump, so it's not always clear what theism implies. Most theists think they have the right reasons.

There needs to be a rational inquiry into what constitutes a good life, a life that knows how to navigate suffering and find meaning rather than the fads that we find in the self help community. — Dermot Griffin

You make it sound easy.. :razz: