Lectures on the Philosophical Life by Mostafa Malekian

Background of the Lectures on the Philosophical Life by Mostafa Malekian: My speech on World Philosophy Day at the University of Tehran was about philosophy in everyday life [a talk titled Philosophy for Life]. There, I encouraged the audience toward a philosophical life. Afterward, friends asked me to elaborate on the characteristics of this kind of life. Rakhdad Tazeh Institute / 2013–2014

.

What Is Meant by the Philosophical Life

I must state that what I mean by the philosophical life is my own conception of this way of living, which differs from the views of others—especially those who have worked on the philosophical life and have writings on it, such as the contemporary French philosopher Pierre Hadot, who has a book with this very title, The Philosophical Life, or Montaigne, La Rochefoucauld, and others.

In order to express my own conception, I have tried not to refer to the works of these individuals for this session, although I have read them before.

Rivals of the Philosophical Life

First, the rivals of the philosophical life must be set forth to help in understanding the characteristics of the philosophical life. In my view, the philosophical life has two rivals:

1 – The religious and faith-based life.

2 – The mystical life.

The Active and the Passive Life

From the earliest days, a person’s life can be passive, taking whatever comes—that is, without reflection or pause. Such individuals fall outside the scope of our discussion. But those whose lives are accompanied by reflection and are not passive encounter two great questions in their lives, and until they answer these two questions, they cannot devise a plan for their lives.

The Fundamental Questions in an Active Life

1 – What world do I live in?

2 – How should I live?

The first question is a theoretical question, and the second is a practical question.

Note that I said “I,” not “we,” because “we” once again means seeing oneself under the rubric of others and living a passive life, following the path that others have trod.

Types of Active Life, in Relation to Answering the Fundamental Questions

Now, depending on from whom they seek the answer to their questions, individuals are divided into three groups:

The Religious Life

1 – The religious and the faithful, who seek the answer to their questions from the founders of religions and creeds—such as Muhammad (PBUH), Jesus (PBUH), the Buddha, and so on—lead a religious life.

The founders of religions and creeds answer the aforementioned questions based on religious experience and revelation, and the faithful and religious accept these answers out of devotion or faith.

The Philosophical Life

Another group, who seek the answers to these questions from themselves rather than others, and consider the way to the answer to be the use of their own reason, lead a philosophical life.

Of course, the philosophical life is not necessarily the life of those who do academic philosophical work, for individuals can be engaged in academic philosophical work yet not have a considered life. Just as it is possible for those who do not do academic philosophical work to lead a philosophical life.

The Mystical Life

The third group are those who also turn to no one but themselves, but not to their reason; rather, to their mystical experiences, because they do not believe in reason.

This group turns to spiritual wayfaring and conduct to answer their questions.

Commonalities Between the Mystical and the Philosophical Life

First characteristic: Belief in a kind of equality among human beings

In the philosophical and mystical life, individuals believe in a kind of equality among human beings; but in the life of the faithful, individuals see some human beings as being of a higher rank, and that is why they refer to them.

Second characteristic: Not referring to others except by sharing in the original experience

In these two types of life, especially the philosophical one, there is no referring to others, because they do not consider the knowledge, understanding, etc., of others to be superior to their own, and if they do refer to others, they first understand their findings themselves and then accept them.

In the philosophical life, even if individuals accept something from others, they pass it through the channel of their own thought and acceptance. Because it is not based on faith and submission. For example, if I consult with people on a matter, even if they all have a single opinion, I still will not act until I myself reach a conclusion after assessment and reflection. And this very kind of referring to others saves time, which is one of the requisites of the philosophical life.

What is meant by reason and reasoning

It was said that the foundation of the philosophical life is reason.

Reason has about sixteen different meanings, by which I mean the six cognitive sources upon whose status as sources all epistemologists in the present age have consensus.

Sources of reasoning

First source: Sense perception

Sense perception, which is attained for a human being through the use of one of the five organs. In ancient times, they believed in five organs and five corresponding sense perceptions, but today they believe in twenty-one perceptions, although they still believe in those same five organs.

Second source: Introspection

Introspection, which the ancients called the inner sense. The sense through which we know our own mental states, such as love, hatred, detachment, and so on. And it is called introspection.

Third source: Memory

Memory is also one of the sources.

Fourth source: Testimony

Testimony. Such as that the capital of Mexico is Mexico City.

Fifth source: Intuition

5 – Intuition, not in its mystical sense, of course, but in the sense that a proposition is presented to you and you are compelled to accept it and incapable of not affirming it.

Such as:

Everything that has color has shape,

or whatever is entirely white does not have a single black spot.

or everyone is the same age as themselves, and the like.

At the foundation of all sciences, whether human, empirical, etc., there are intuitive propositions.

Sixth source: Reasoning

6 – Reasoning. This sixth source provides premises from the five previous sources and draws conclusions. That is, the rest are its raw materials.

Types of reasoning:

First type: Deductive or inductive

In deductive reasoning, we derive the conclusion from two premises according to certain conditions.

Second type: Inductive or deductive

Inductive reasoning is like this: I know that A is both p and q, I also know that B is both p and q. I also know that C is both p and q. But I know that D is p, yet I do not know whether it is also q or not. Because it is p, I say that it must also be q.

In other words, we know of two characteristics in n cases that occur together, and in one case, we know that one of those two characteristics is present in n but we have no knowledge of the presence of the second characteristic; however, because of those other cases, we extend the second characteristic to the case under discussion as well.

Third Type: Inference to the Best Explanation, or Abductive Reasoning:

Most arguments throughout history have been of this third type. However, it was not explicitly articulated until the 19th century and the time of Charles Sanders Peirce.

I will explain this third type with an example. Suppose you have been at home for several hours and have had no awareness of the outside; then, when you go out, you see that all the streets and alleys are wet. Here, three hypotheses come to mind:

1 – All the water pipes in Tehran have burst and their water has flowed into the streets.

2 – The government has sprayed the streets with water using helicopters.

3 – It has rained.

In terms of probative power, all three hypotheses are equal, but the third hypothesis is more acceptable. Therefore, our conclusions in the third case are provisional, valid until further notice. If our chosen option becomes doubtful, we must select another option from the remaining ones that has gained greater confirmatory power in light of new circumstances and evidence.

Most of our judgments, such as in a court of law and the like, are of this third type.

Now, reason is applied to these six sources of cognition. And those who lead a philosophical life answer the two stated questions with the help of these six sources. And, of course, this is their constant practice.

Breaking Down the First Question into Smaller Questions in the Realm of the World

In the first question, both the world and I, as one of its components, are under consideration, and the first question breaks down into a series of smaller questions. Such as:

Is the universe of existence confined to nature, or does it also include the supernatural and the sub-natural?

When and how did the natural world begin?

When and how will it end?

Is the universe finite or infinite?

What are time, space, etc.?

What do the differences among natural beings consist of?

These are questions that arise in the realm of the world.

Breaking Down the First Question into Smaller Questions in the Realm of the Individual

But some of the questions that arise in the realm of the individual and the self are these:

Did I exist before being born, or did I not? If I did exist, where was I?

After being born, will I continue to exist, or will I not? If I will exist, where will I be?

Am I only my body, or does a mind also exist within me?

Or do I, apart from body and mind, possess a soul and a spirit?

Is life after this world different from life in this world, or is it similar to it?

An Explanation Regarding the Second Question

Regarding the second question, which is how should I live, this second question, in my opinion, is more important than the first question. However, some consider the first question more important. The answer to the second question seems to require a logical order that the first question does not possess.

Prelude to Answering the Second Question: An Explanation of the Different Realms of the Human Being

To answer the second question, one must refer to the different realms of the human being. The personality and character of a human being are composed of five realms.

First Realm: The Realm of Belief or Cognition

The first domain is the domain of belief or cognition. Whenever I use verbs such as “I believe that,” “I hold that,” “I have reason to,” I am referring to the first domain.

The Second Domain: The Domain of Feelings, Emotions, and Passions

This is the domain of feelings, emotions, and passions, and its indicator is the use of verbs such as I like, I love, I hate myself, I hope, I am concerned about, and so on.

The Third Domain: The Domain of Wants

The third domain is the domain of wants. Such as, I want to enroll at the university, I want to break off relations with my friend, I had no intention, and so on.

The Fourth Domain: The Domain of Speech

The domain of speech: which includes the words I utter, encompassing, of course, speaking with the tongue or through gestures, and so on.

The Fifth Domain: The Domain of Action

The domain of action includes my external deeds.

Mind and Behavior, and the Criterion for Each

The first three domains, which are internal, are called the mind, and the other two domains, which are external, are referred to as behavior.

The difference between behavior and mind lies in the externality of one and the internality of the other. And that is why psychology is considered the study of the human mind and behavior.

The first three domains are called internal because only personal access to them is possible, and the latter two domains are called external because access to them is not necessarily personal, and impersonal access to them is also possible.

Hence, since my knowledge of others is always through tunneling into their interior, it is therefore accompanied by error.

Answer to the Second Question

The answer to the second question, namely, what must arise in my mind for my behavior to change. And my desirable life, that is, to achieve equilibrium in all three domains mentioned.

The Nature of Equilibrium in the First Domain

Equilibrium in the first domain means that I can establish a balance between certainty and uncertainty, conviction and doubt, and so on, and not extend one to the other. That I can establish a balance between my innate skepticism and my innate dogmatism and rigidity.

For example, we have a series of self-evident propositions whose affirmation is innate, such as the impossibility of the conjunction of contradictories, and so on... but we must not extend this, for instance, to the principles of religious beliefs.

On the other hand, we also have a series of skepticisms in certain areas, such as before the Big Bang and the end of the universe, and so on... and we must not extend these to the goodness of truthfulness either.

The Nature of Equilibrium in the Second Domain

The second domain, which is the domain of feelings, emotions, and passions, equilibrium in it means that I establish a balance between my attachments and my detachments. Not to be entirely detached because of an emotional failure, nor completely attached because of a practical success. Because life requires both detachment and attachment.

The Nature of Equilibrium in the Third Domain

In the third area, I must establish a balance between action and inaction. Where it is the place for action, I act, and where it is the place for inaction, I do not act. My entire life should not be spent in agency, nor should my entire life be spent in passivity. In the philosophical life, we seek the equilibrium among these three from reason.

A Mention of Two Error-Inducing Points[1]

First Point: The Non-Exclusivity of the Devotional Life to the Religious

The devotional life is not exclusive to the religious; followers of other schools of thought can also have a devotional life. Such as Marxists.

The Absence of a Statement on the Preferability of One of the Three Types of Life Over the Other Two

Merely describing three types of life does not demonstrate the superiority of one over another.

Although if you pay close attention, you will understand for yourself which one is preferable. And in my own case, of course, the philosophical life is preferable.

The Components of the Philosophical Life

The Components of the Philosophical Life in the Realm of Knowledge and Belief

Now we turn to an exposition of the components of the philosophical life in the realm of knowledge, which, in my view, have an order of priority and posteriority.

First Characteristic: Dealing with Appearances, Not Things-in-Themselves

In the world, we deal with appearances, not things-in-themselves. This idea has existed since ancient Greece, but Kant gave it a logical formulation. Although it is proven that humans do not look at an object identically, suppose that all humans looking at a wall see it as white, and this depends on the human structure. All dogs, with the structure they possess, see it as yellow, and cows see it as red.

Here, speaking of the real color is meaningless, because each group sees with its own structure, and without a structure, we have no access to reality as it is.

Two Analogies for Dealing with Appearances, Not Things-in-Themselves

First Analogy

Suppose we mix pepper and salt together, which becomes gray. Now, a being with human perception sees it as gray, but a being that is tiny, as it passes over the grains of pepper and salt respectively, sees the contents of the container as white or black. In the world of this tiny being, there is no gray. Just as in our world, there is no white and black. And whether we are the noblest of creatures or not, our structures for perceiving the world differ. Therefore, perception is the reception of the appearance of the world.

Second Analogy

Like that fisherman whose net had three-centimeter holes and, after fishing, decreed that no sea creatures smaller than three centimeters exist. Whereas this was attributable to his net, not the reality of the sea.

In other words, perception is the transformation of the thing-in-itself into appearance for the perceiver. And this is the case with certainty, let alone with supposition, conjecture, etc. Therefore, we should not seek certainty.

Second Characteristic: The Limitation of Human Knowables

Our knowables are limited.

In one division, the world is divided into two parts: one is the unknowables, which humans lack the capacity to understand and are mysteries, and the other is the knowables, which humans have the capacity to understand. And the knowables themselves are divided into two parts: 1 – the knowns. 2 – the unknowns. The knowns are matters we currently know, and the unknowns are matters we currently do not know.

So our knowledge is limited; because one part is fundamentally beyond our capacity, and another part we simply do not know.

A person's life differs depending on whether they believe in mystery in the world or not.

The Manifestness of Truth and Its Implications

In contrast to the assertion of the limitation of our knowledge is the assertion of the manifestness of truth. Believers in the manifestness of truth hold that they themselves, or the leader of their school or religion, know everything.

If someone believes in the manifestness of truth, they consider the rest to be obstinate opponents of the truth, and then tolerance becomes meaningless. In contrast, one who believes in the limitation of knowledge will have a more humble and gentler life.

Third Characteristic: Avoidance of Wishful Thinking in the Realm of Unknowns

Is there a source for knowing the unknowables and the unknown knowables? There is no necessity whatsoever to hold such a view, so that followers of various schools can claim it for themselves. And this is a fallacious wishful thinking. Expressed as: since we want to know everything and do not, there must be someone who has the answers.

Fourth characteristic: not seeking every piece of knowledge

Now that we do not know everything, we also do not need to know everything. That is, if it is not possible, it is also not desirable. [2]

This is an idea found in the works of Ghazali, Rumi, and certain other thinkers. Rumi says:

The foundation of this world, O soul, is heedlessness;

Wakefulness is a blight upon this world.

The gist of these thinkers' words is that our lifespan is limited, yet the things we do not know are vast. This includes both what we cannot know and what we currently do not know. And the knowable things that we currently do not know are themselves vast. Hence, we need a criterion for selection. And this criterion must have three features:

Criteria for the usefulness of a piece of knowledge

1 – Your practical life before and after posing the question should be different.

2 – Our life before and after answering it should be different.

3 – If you give answer x to it, your life should be different than if you give answer y to it.

Therefore, knowing every fact is not a gain; one must see whether it is of use to us or not. For instance, the amount of dust in a room is a fact, but it is of no use.

This wisdom of "what is that to me?" is best manifested in our culture in Shams Tabrizi and his Discourses.

The wisdom of "what is that to me?" only in the realm of knowledge, not action

Of course, the wisdom of "what is that to me?" applies only in the realm of knowledge, not action; in the realm of action, my primary moral duty is to be concerned for others as well.

Fifth characteristic: not seeking certainty

Another characteristic is that even in what we must know and do know, we only have access to conjectures close to certainty, not certainty itself.

Abu al-Ala al-Ma'arri is among those who pay great attention to this point in their works.

What is meant by certainty

Certainty means that A is B and it is impossible for A not to be B. Impossible, not that your mind is incapable of affirming its contrary, for our mind is not molded from the reality and truth of the universe.

For example, 50 years ago our mind could not accept that steel could be cut with water. Yet today, this is done. Therefore, from the mere lack of mental assent, one cannot infer impossibility.

Sixth characteristic: speaking about the world only through laws discovered so far

One can speak about the world only through the laws discovered so far.

There is a difference between discovered laws and the laws governing phenomena.[3] It is not necessarily the case that every law we suppose governs phenomena actually governs them. Perhaps we assume one law, but another law in reality governs the phenomena. Indeed, one of the signs of progress in any science is realizing that something we thought was a governing law is not.

Hence, we always have access to epistemological laws, not ontological ones. And our latest achievements in any science are valid until we discover their falsity.

Seventh characteristic: the only principle concerning realities is the principle of instability.

7 – To express the next point, a preliminary remark is needed.

The difference between laws and realities:

What is the difference between laws and realities?

Various opinions have been expressed here, and various books have been written, one of which is What is a Law of Nature? by Armstrong.[4]

Armstrong on the Difference Between Law and Fact

In this book, Armstrong says: the unique reality is fact, and the recurring matter is law.

For example, this pen, with its particular characteristics, is no more than one in my mind. But the law that water boils at one hundred degrees is multiple, and each time water boils at one hundred degrees, it both confirms the truth of this law and confirms the falsity of water boiling at ninety degrees.

The nature of laws was explained in the fifth point.

Facts, in the Philosophical Life

But regarding facts, in the philosophical life only one thing is a fact, and that is that the sole principle governing facts is the principle of instability.

Facts have no stability or permanence. Every unique matter is, moment by moment, subject to change and transformation. This point has been noted by many people since ancient times, such as the Buddha and others.

The Pervasion of the Principle of Instability Throughout the Entire Universe

This fact, whether it belongs to the category of substance, like water; or quality, like the coldness of water; or event, like two people reconciling; or process, like rain; or relation, like my falling in love with you—all of these are subject to the principle of instability.

The Philosopher's Peace as a Result of Belief in the Principle of the Instability of Facts

The philosopher has peace because he knows that nothing is permanent, as Rumi says:

All your restlessness is from your quest for rest

Become a restless seeker, so that rest may come to you

Since facts are not permanent, my claim to knowledge lasts only as long as the known does not change. For example, if you had a clock and wanted to state its time precisely to the second, you could not, because it changes every second. Belief in this matter itself has five practical benefits, which I will not go into now.

The Changeability of Facts

In the previous section, we spoke of the distinction between laws and facts, and we said that laws are unchangeable and should not be opposed, and these laws include sociological, psychological, physical laws, and so on. But regarding facts, one must note that facts are changeable. And if we do not like the facts, we must strive to change them; indeed, laziness is nothing other than not changing the facts.

The Eighth Characteristic: The Unpredictability of Life[5]

Belief in the unpredictability of life, although this is a belief and a piece of knowledge, also has effects in the realm of feelings, emotions, and desires.

Reasons for the Unpredictability of Life

Regarding the unpredictability of life, numerous arguments have been presented since ancient times. But I will state four reasons that I prefer and accept more. First, a necessary introduction must be given.

The Difference Between Prophecy and Prediction

In English, we have a word for prophecy, which is "prophecy," from which "prophet" is derived, meaning a messenger[6]. But the word for prediction is "prediction."

Prediction and Its Components

For every universal proposition, there is at least one prediction. For example, the universal proposition that all water boils at 100 degrees gives us a prediction about other instances of water.

Therefore, two things are considered in a prediction:

1 – There must be at least one universal proposition.

2 – A prediction must always be in the form of a conditional proposition.

For instance, in the stated example, it becomes: if this water reaches a temperature of 100 degrees, it will boil.

Prediction is the work of empirical scientists, both natural empirical, such as physics, chemistry, etc., and human empirical, such as psychology, economics, etc.

Prophecy and Its Components

Prophecy is always in the form of a categorical proposition. For example, the Quran says: "My righteous servants shall inherit the earth." This categorical proposition is not bound by any condition, whether the number of men or women, the nature of their faith, or anything else.

Or similar to Marx's statement that the proletariat will triumph, and he did not mention any conditions for this victory.

The Absence of Prophecy in the Philosophical Life

Prophetic statements are the work of prophets or false prophets. Since we are fortunately not false prophets and unfortunately not prophets either, we have nothing to do with prophecy.

Returning to the Reasons for Life's Unpredictability

But as stated, for four reasons, we cannot make predictions about the future, whether for ourselves or for others.

First Reason: The Lack of Universality in Each Individual's Life

We said earlier that prediction always requires a universal proposition, and my life is always unique and fundamentally unrepeatable, so it cannot attain universality.

Second Reason: The Uncertainty of Life's End

The end of my life is not known when it will be. For example, if we have a universal proposition that every human's teeth will fall out at the age of 90, well, it is not at all clear whether I will reach the age of 90 or not. Therefore, unpredictability is not only a matter of 7 years or 70 years, but it is also impossible regarding the next 7 seconds.

Third Reason: The Multiplicity of Factors Involved in Life

My life does not depend only on myself; it depends on billions of other things, one of which is myself. Other human beings, the conditions of time and place, etc., are also among the factors involved in my life.

Fourth Reason: The Inconstancy of the Human Person and Their Criteria in Life

My own tastes and preferences are not necessarily constant and change. My plans are always based on my current beliefs, and as an Italian proverb says, be careful what you wish for, it might come true. Here, it should be said: be careful what you plan for.

Some Implications of Believing in Life's Unpredictability

Living a Here-and-Now Life

What is the benefit of this belief? Some tell us to live your here-and-now life as much as you can to reduce your pain and suffering.

Three Accounts of the Here-and-Now Life

First Account: Unconsidered Hedonism

Just as your body is always in the present, try to keep your mind, and your psyche, in the present as well.

According to psychologists, our mind dwells either in the past or in the future. And these very associations of the future and the past in the present multiply our pain and suffering several times over. Therefore, I must only attend to my present.

This conception of being here-and-now is called unconsidered hedonism.

The Problem with Unconsidered Hedonism

But it seems that although not living in the present has its harms, living in the present also causes problems for a person in some cases. For instance, if I currently crave three kilos of ice cream and eat it, I will suffer a stomachache in the future. And finding a doctor, the stomach pain, getting through traffic, and so on—the problems are such that it is not worth it for me to merely attend to the present.

Prudent Hedonism

Therefore, I must also take into account the sum total of the future results and consequences of the action. And consider the sum of the pleasure here and now plus all the future pleasures and pains and sufferings of it.

This conception of being in the here and now is called prudent hedonism.

The first state is referred to as imprudent hedonism, and the second is called prudent hedonism. Some hedonists, like Aristippus, believed in imprudent hedonism, and some, like Epicurus and his followers, believed in prudent hedonism.

Problems with Prudent Hedonism

First Problem: Deprivation of Present Pleasures

It seems that the prudent state is not without its problems either, because the prudent state also deprives me of present pleasures.

Second Problem: The Uncertainty of Attaining Future Pleasures

Even if we overlook the first problem and the deprivation of present pleasures can be compensated by attaining future pleasures, the success of a person's efforts for future pleasures is not at all certain, because, as was said, the span of human life is not known.

Suppose, for the sake of my future career, until I obtain my desired job, I dedicate myself solely to study and discussion and deprive myself of all pleasures. But it is possible that my life may not even last until the final exam, or I might encounter a problem at the time of the final academic exam and be unable to take it.

Third Problem: The Multiplicity of Criteria for Goal-Oriented Thinking

On the other hand, for the prudent person, one truly cannot set a final goal or endpoint. Moreover, if you are a believer, this consideration of the future becomes much more distant.

Philosophical Hedonism or Somewhat Prudent Hedonism

The philosophical life says neither imprudent hedonism nor prudent hedonism, but rather somewhat prudent hedonism, meaning the criterion for our consideration is only the near and conceivable future.

Ninth Characteristic: Disregard for Common-Sense Understanding

The philosophical life does not value common-sense understanding.

The Meaning of Common-Sense Understanding

Common-sense understanding is the set of beliefs that all human beings, regardless of being educated or uneducated, and regardless of living in a particular society, and regardless of any other specific characteristic, usually all hold.

Hasty Generalizations, the Basis of Common-Sense Understanding

The propositions of common-sense understanding are usually made from hasty generalizations. That is, when we have found n entities possessing two attributes, in the n+1th entity, which has one attribute, we also project the other attribute onto it because of the previous n instances. This is a generalization, because it is a projection, and it is hasty, because the n instances were not sufficient.

For example, we have seen a few friends who have not betrayed their friend, then we create a universal proposition that a friend does not betray a friend. Now, if our friend betrays us once, this causes us to be shocked. Because we had assumed that universal proposition was a law, whereas it was not a law at all. Many of our failures are due to these hasty generalizations. Therefore, the past is not necessarily a lamp to illuminate the path of the future.

Among Western philosophers, Schopenhauer is the greatest opponent of common-sense understanding.

The Secret of the Persistence of Incorrect Common-Sense Generalizations

The persistence of incorrect generalizations in custom is due to the failure of those who have been defeated by them to admit it.

For example, even if parents are not successful in their own marriage, they still recommend marriage to their children, and try to justify their own lives by saying they were unlucky and the like.

The World: A World of Laws, Not Values

In the realm of the philosophical life, values do not exist in the world; the world is a world of laws. Through all sources of knowledge, one can understand:

1- What exists,

2- Or what possesses characteristic A,

3- And what relation something has with something else, and what relation something does not have with something else.

For instance, I see in the world that water exists; metals are heavier than water; some elements have a chemical affinity for each other and some do not.

I cannot know that having a chemical affinity is good and not having one is bad, and so on.

Therefore, in the world, neither moral values like good and bad exist, nor legal values like crime, possession, etc., nor religious and doctrinal values like being forbidden, permissible, pure, etc., nor aesthetic values, nor economic values. Values are our constructs and should not be valued beyond the measure of their validity. Hence, a kind of pluralism, tolerance, and forbearance must prevail regarding the values of the world.

The Eleventh Characteristic: Living in the Purgatory of Doubt and Certainty

Explaining the eleventh characteristic requires a preliminary remark.

No Statement is Without Presuppositions

No proposition or viewpoint is without presuppositions, and every presupposition is itself based on further presuppositions.

For example, some of the presuppositions of this simple speech of mine are:

1 – That you and I are not in a vacuum, as it is assumed my voice reaches you.

2 – That you know Persian, as it is assumed you understand my words.

3 – That, from your perspective, I am not performing a play; since, for example, you are taking notes on my words. And many other cases.

On the other hand, if I were to provide evidence for each of these presuppositions, that evidence and its status as evidence would also be based on a series of presuppositions.

The Philosophical Life in Relation to Types of Skepticism

Given the preliminary remark about the presuppositions of speech, it must be said that in the philosophical life, there is no choice but to accept shared presuppositions and not cast doubt upon them. Therefore, the philosopher is never a Global skeptic, but a local one. Because Global skepticism is incurable. Its ultimate form is like the brain-in-a-vat doubt, which cannot be answered or cured.

Local Skepticism and Some of Its Types

Local skepticism has various types, and up to 60 types have been enumerated, including:

Doubt regarding propositions concerning the future,

Doubt regarding propositions concerning the past,

Doubt regarding religious propositions, and so on.

The Philosopher and the Avoidance of Dogmatism

However, the philosopher is not opposed to the dogmatist either, and resides in a purgatory between local skepticism and dogmatism. The reasons for negating dogmatism were stated in previous sections.

The Components of the Philosophical Life in the Realm of Feelings, Emotions, and Passions

First, a few preliminary remarks will be made.

Human Weakness in the Realm of Recognizing One's Own Feelings and Emotions

In the realm of emotions and feelings, philosophers possess certain emotions and feelings that we do not, and lack certain emotions and feelings that we do.

Unlike the epistemic and doxastic domain and that of desires, human beings are very weak in understanding the realm of feelings and emotions.

A discussion on the number of feelings, emotions, and affects

Years ago, in the introduction to my book Me and the World of My Feelings[7], citing Robert C. Roberts in his book Emotions, I mentioned 65 feelings and emotions; after writing that article, I identified about 25 more, and therefore, it seems to me that human beings have about 85 feelings and emotions.

Two points concerning the discussion of feelings, emotions, and affects in the present context

First point: Primary and secondary among feelings, emotions, and affects

In the present discussion, we will only address the primary feelings, which number around 20; the remaining feelings are either instances of these or arise from the combination of these elements.

Second point: The return of the discussion of feelings, emotions, and affects to the discussion of beliefs

Each of the feelings, emotions, and affects traces back to one of the beliefs in the first domain; the referent of some of these will be mentioned.

Demarcating each of feelings, emotions, and affects

Of course, feelings, emotions, and affects are distinct from one another and are not the same.

Feelings

If we imagine three concentric circles, the first and largest circle is that of feelings. The second circle is that of emotions, and the third circle is that of affects.

Emotions

Feelings are more general, whether they have a specific object or not; the former, like anger, and the latter, like pessimism. If it has a specific object, it is an emotion, and if not, it remains a feeling.

Affects

Emotions, in turn, are of two kinds: those that have a bodily effect, like anger, and those that do not, like despair; the first kind is called affects.

It should be noted that in Persian, emotions usually carry a positive meaning, but in psychology and the English language, they also include negative matters, such as hatred.

Love, the supreme human emotion

The greatest emotion that manifests bodily is, without doubt, love. And much has been said about this in our literature.

Love in the philosophical life[8]

It was stated that in the realm of the philosopher's emotions and feelings, there is an oscillation between attachment and detachment, though of course, their attachments and detachments, and the criteria for them, differ from those of the believer and the mystic.

In this realm, the most conspicuous attachment is love, in contrast to which is hatred, which is a detachment. Our literature has discussed love extensively.

Types of love

Love, in terms of its object, has several types:

1 – Love of God

2 – Love of self

3 – Love of other human beings

4 – Love of nature

Each of these types also has varieties. For instance, the first form has at least six types, the second form at least three, and the fourth form at least two.

Examining the philosopher's relation to the types of love in the philosophical life

The relation of the philosophical life to the love of God

It should be noted that not all types of love are relevant to the philosophical life. For instance, not every philosopher necessarily believes in God; that is, by virtue of being a philosopher, one does not necessarily believe in God, and therefore love of God is not necessarily present in the philosophical life.

The Relation of the Philosophical Life to Love of Nature

We will also not discuss love of nature, because love of nature does not differ greatly among philosophical, mystical, and religious perspectives.

The Relation of the Philosophical Life to Self-Love

Self-love, which is expressed as self-regard, the philosopher possesses like any other human being.

The Philosopher's Differences from Others in Self-Love

First Difference: Viewing the Self as a Dynamic Identity

The philosopher's difference from others in self-love is that the philosopher views the self as a process, not a product; views the self as dynamic, not static.[9]

The Meaning of Static Identity

A static existence means that I have stepped into being in a completed, though not perfect, form. I possess completeness, even if I am not perfect. For example, if a table is missing a leg, we do not consider it complete. However, if it has not been sanded well, we call it complete, though we do not call it perfect.

Self-Regard in the Static Image of Human Identity

Those who conceive of themselves as a product say they have come into existence in a complete form and must try to make the best use of this entity and ensure it suffers the least harm.

Dynamic Identity and Its Implications for Life

Opposite this is the dynamic or processual identity, which views the human being as a current or a becoming, not a product.

We first see this in the Buddha, and in modern philosophy, the existentialists hold such a view.

Dynamic Identity According to the Existentialists

The existentialists say that in the human being, unlike other entities, existence precedes essence, and one's essence is in one's own hands; and their view goes to such an extreme that Sartre says if a person born with a congenital disability does not become a champion sprinter, it is because they themselves did not want it.

Self-Regard in the Dynamic Image of Human Identity

Self-regard toward the self in the image of it being a process means preventing oneself from being wasted, and its preservation from annihilation lies solely in being on the path of truth-seeking. Since it is in a state of becoming and constructing itself, its foundation must be truth-seeking and being oriented toward truth.

The processual image of the self, unlike the product image, does not consider beliefs as belonging to the self, and therefore wherever truth may be, it gravitates toward it, and the same applies in the realm of feelings, emotions, and desires. Hence, it never remains in a state of stasis and immobility.

As Rumi says:

In whatever form you are, by God, that is not you.

A necessary consequence of this image of the human being is openness to everything. Therefore, in a process, there is no dogmatism, no prejudice or pre-judgment, and not even wishful thinking or disregard for reasoning. And since truth has no end, the philosopher's openness will also not be temporary.

Second Difference: Convergence Toward Other Human Beings

2 – Processes can converge and diverge with one another, unlike products. Processes, while separate, possess a kind of unity and entrust their characteristics to one another. Hence, they never consider themselves the owners of truth, because they never consider themselves completed; therefore, they are constantly in a state of exchange with others.

Third Difference: The Connection Between the Domains of Existence

When truth and its pursuit are important to me, the meaning of truth’s importance is that;

First: the realm of my existence is overshadowed by the realm of my beliefs.

And second: there is a connection among the realms of my existence, and they are like communicating vessels. That is, there is no separation between the realm of my beliefs, feelings, emotions, and desires, such that one is unaffected by the other; rather, any change in the realm of beliefs is effective in changing the rest. In other words, I behave as I think.

The Relation of the Philosophical Life to Love for Others

The characteristic of a romantic relationship is that each of the lover and the beloved is connected to the other according to their current attributes; therefore, if either possessed different attributes, this relationship would not have arisen between them. On the other hand, once we consider everything, including human beings, as unstable, we must also regard this relationship as subject to the possibility of change—a change that is either in the direction of weakening or intensification, or of decay and transformation, that is, the transformation of one kind of love into another.

Of course, the claim is not that a romantic relationship necessarily changes, but rather that it is not the case that it necessarily does not change.

Here, the explanation of the quality of fidelity in the philosophical life becomes important; to understand it, one should refer to the works of Gabriel Marcel, who has discussed this matter, which we will not address, and we will enter into the discussion of the characteristics of philosophical love.

Characteristics of Philosophical Love

First Characteristic: The Lover’s Solicitude for the Beloved

When you love someone, you must not forget your duty towards them for even a moment; and the sign of the truth that you love them is that you do not forget their best interest under any circumstances.

Second Characteristic: The Lover’s Enjoyment of the Beloved in All Circumstances

The lover should derive all possible enjoyment from the beloved’s presence, though the attainment of this characteristic, of course, differs among the various kinds of love.

It should be noted that here the discussion of the lover’s duties was raised first, and then enjoyment of the beloved, because any kind of pleasure and enjoyment derived from the beloved must fall within the circle of the lover’s moral duties. In other words, the lover must offer goodness to the beloved, and the beloved, enjoyment to the lover; though, of course, if the love is mutual, each will have these same duties towards the other.

Third Characteristic: Forgetting the Romantic Relationship Upon Its Demise

This characteristic, which to the general public seems like a somewhat hard-hearted act, is that with the demise of the romantic relationship, absolute forgetfulness replaces it. This demise is either through the beloved’s distance, losing them, or their death.

The Source of Human Pain and Suffering in the Demise of Romantic Relationships

The reality is that the bulk of our suffering in losing another is due to a lack of attention to the first and second characteristics of philosophical love that were stated. That is, the possibilities we had for enjoying them and did not use, and the good deeds we could have done for them and did not.

In other words, upon losing another, we find three states: regret, wistfulness, and sorrow. The first two of the three mentioned are caused by our not being good and not behaving correctly, and they relate only to us; the third, which is sorrow, relates to the beloved. If the first and second are absent, which cause associations of matters for us, sorrow is bearable.

Regret and Wistfulness, the Most Excruciating and Burning of Pains and Sufferings

No pain and suffering is more excruciating and burning than regret and wistfulness. And regret stems from not being good to others, and wistfulness from not being happy with others. Of these, regret is even worse than wistfulness.

Romantic Relationships and Their Demise in the Fixed Image of Self and Others

Of course, everything that has been said so far pertains to the philosophical or dynamic image of the self in romantic relationships with others, and in contrast, someone who considers themselves and their beloved as a finished product certainly cannot endure changes and falls into crisis.

In the static image of the self, the individual sees that the pleasure of love ultimately did not outweigh its harm for their mental health.

It was in contrast to the static image of the self in romantic relationships that the Buddha said: whenever you part from any person, try not to be in their debt, for it might be your last meeting. On the other hand, do not leave any joy for tomorrow, for you do not know if you will have the opportunity for it tomorrow. Of course, these words of the Buddha also apply outside of romantic relationships.

Tranquility and Anxiety

Philosophers' Accounts of the Tranquility Attainable by Humans

First Account: The Account Acceptable to Many Philosophers

The philosopher's life, as far as possible, possesses the most tranquility and the least anxiety. Because the philosopher knows that the world is in flux and that both calamities and joys are transient.

Second Account: Spinoza's Account

Spinoza has another expression for enduring calamity. He says that calamity in this world has no end, and if your calamity were truly a calamity, it would have killed you; but it has not, so your calamity falls short of the ultimate limit of calamity.

Of course, the tranquility depicted by Spinoza stems from pessimism about the world, and, as Schopenhauer would say, from realizing the evil essence of the world. And regardless of its truth or error, it makes life far more bearable for a human being than the notion that humanity is the noblest of creatures, beloved of God, and so on.

Examining Spinoza's Account

As for the truth of Spinoza's statement, it must be said that, apparently, the philosopher has no other path to tranquility. Of course, mystics describe another kind of tranquility that is much deeper, but their discourse rests on a foundation that cannot be accepted by the philosopher.

Joy and Sorrow

The philosopher experiences joy and sorrow, but neither the philosopher's joy nor their sorrow is deep.

Some Reasons Why the Philosopher's Sorrows and Joys Are Not Deep

First Reason: The Transience of the World

The philosopher's sorrow and joy are not deep because they see the world as transient. They consider neither joy nor sorrow to be lasting. And they view sorrows as compensable by the joys that follow them.

Second Reason: The World Being Pregnant with Events

Of course, some calamities, such as the loss of loved ones like one's parents, cannot be considered replaceable by a joy that comes afterward and is similar to them. Regarding such calamities, what can be said is that, from the philosopher's perspective, the world is pregnant with events, and a joy may well arise that not only compensates for the present sorrow but whose pleasure outweighs the pain of the calamity.

On the other hand, life too is pregnant with events. As Spinoza says, this world of ours is one of the infinite possible worlds that has been created. But even within this very world, at every second, relative to the next second, an infinite number of events have the possibility of occurring. And because it has been this way until yesterday, there is no reason it should be this way today. That is, any event that occurs in life for the first time is occurring for the first time. Meaning it did not occur in the 40 years prior. And from the fact that it did not occur in those 40 years, we did not infer that, now that it has occurred for the first time, it should not have occurred. This is one of the very clear matters to which we usually pay no attention.

Hope and Despair in the Philosophical Life

Hence, every calamity could be the last time, and every joy could be the first time. For this reason, the philosopher never loses hope, even in the most difficult circumstances. Because despair is only warranted when one has a scientific grasp of the world's affairs, and we do not have this grasp. Therefore, hope is recommended by all thinkers, except the Buddha. Our despair stems from the fact that we claim a knowledge that we do not actually possess. And that is knowledge of the future, which was elaborated upon in the beliefs section regarding the unpredictability of the world. It was stated that only our very near future is predictable.

The Reason for the Buddha's Opposition to Hope in Life

The Buddha, who opposes hope, does not, in contrast, recommend despair either. The Buddha's point is that hope causes you to turn to something other than yourself and to have expectations of something other than yourself. Whereas, in life, a person should have no expectations of anything or anyone other than themselves.

The Buddha said: Becoming disappointed in something or someone is fundamentally a consequence of having had hope in that thing or person. And when a person has no expectations of anything or anyone other than themselves, then both hope and despair lose their color.

The Third Reason: Ignorance of the True Nature of Affairs and the Unfolding of Time

In many instances, human beings do not know the truth of the world's affairs: what that which is currently a calamity for them is in reality, and what that which causes their joy is in reality and ultimately. This is distinct from the mutability of the world, which was mentioned earlier. That is, the unfolding of time alters our perception of joys and sorrows.

Resentment, Gratification, and Anger

Resentment and Gratification

Resentment occurs when you have an expectation of someone and it is not fulfilled, hence you feel resentful towards the other party. For your expectation of someone to be justified, a universal proposition about that individual must exist in your mind, namely, that whenever I ask that person for something, they will give it to me. But such a universal proposition does not exist. And this goes back to what we said in the area of beliefs, that we do not have access to universal propositions. And when no universal proposition exists, I lower my level of expectations from others as much as possible, so if someone does not lend me money, I feel no resentment. But if they do, it brings me gratification and joy.

Anger

Anger goes beyond the non-fulfillment of my expectation; from my perspective, a principle has been violated. And the violation of a principle is because, in my relationships with others, I assign titles and labels to myself and others, such as teacher and student or husband and wife.

For example, I say I overlook my own interests, but why shouldn't a student maintain respect for their teacher?

The Solution for Dealing with Anger, from the Perspective of the Philosophical Life

Gabriel Marcel says: The remedy for not having anger is that in our interactions with others, we deal with one another solely under the title of human being. Because no matter how similar and equal the titles are, such as fellow students, they still cause anger when expectations are not met.

Regret and Shame

Both of these feelings arise in a person through their turning towards the past.

Earlier, in the discussion of beliefs, it was said that the philosopher is present-oriented, and their gaze is not upon the future or the past. But ordinarily, human beings look to the past.

Shame arises in a person's relationship with another, and regret is in relation to oneself. If a person does not look to the past, they have neither shame nor regret. But since we usually look to the past, a substitute must be found for these two states.

The Solution for Dealing with Shame and Regret from the Perspective of the Philosophical Life

The First Level: Shame and Regret Resulting from Harming Another

Shame and regret are undoubtedly harmful to the person experiencing these states, and on the other hand, they are of no benefit to the person who has been harmed; therefore, it seems that compensating for the harm done to another is a substitute for and a way of dealing with the feeling of shame.

The second stage: Shame and regret as a result of harming oneself

Sometimes this regret stems from an injustice I have done to myself, whether in the area of the good life, where I have not lived morally with others, or in the area of the pleasant life[10], where I have not enjoyed others as much as possible. And both of these can undoubtedly be compensated for by changing one's behavior and not returning to the previous way.

Envy and Jealousy

Envy (Ghibtah) is when I see something good in another, but I want to elevate myself. In contrast, jealousy (Hasad) is when I want to bring the other person down.

All ethical schools consider jealousy to be reprehensible, but there is disagreement about envy.

In both envy and jealousy, a theoretical comparison and a practical competition are at work, and to eliminate these two states, one must abandon this theoretical comparison and practical competition.

Components of the philosophical life in the realm of wills and desires[11]

We now arrive at the discussion of the philosophical life in the realm of wills and desires, which leads to actions and speech. We said earlier that in this realm, the philosopher oscillates between action and inaction, act and passivity. Now, the discussion here concerns what matters the philosopher must take into consideration when acting and deciding to act.

First characteristic: Limitation of action

The first principle in the realm of action is the limitation, as much as possible, of one's own actions in the world of action; as a member of humanity and a specific member of humanity with one's own particular characteristics.

An allegory for the limitation of human action

As an example, imagine you have lit a fire in a pitch-black desert, and this fire creates a sphere of light around you. You only see the limits of the sphere that the fire has illuminated for you and have no knowledge of what lies outside the sphere. Therefore, you must keep two points in mind in your actions:

• I do not know what beings exist outside the illuminated sphere, or whether any being exists there at all.
• What effect do my actions have on other beings? Do they attract them or repel them? And so on.

Of course, the idea that I should try to enlarge my sphere is undoubtedly accepted.

Now, in this allegory, the lamp signifies reason, and that luminous sphere is the domain of reason, and my actions are limited to the extent of the light of the lamp of reason.

Components of the limitation of action

Limitation of action in relation to other human beings

First component: Disregarding the past

Here, the first thing that is eliminated is the past, because it does not exist. Many of our actions are oriented toward the past.

Because individuals in the past, for example, failed or succeeded in a task, we take a stance on doing or not doing something based on their situation in the past. This is incorrect, and as long as a person looks to the past, they are not living in the present.

Second component: Disregarding the future

The second case is the future, and the future also does not exist. And we said earlier that only the very near future can be of concern to us. That is, to the extent that my reason considers it part of the consequences of my present actions.

On the other hand, I myself might not be present in the very near future. Therefore, disregarding the future, my sphere of action became even more limited.

Third Component: Limiting One's Relations with Other Human Beings

Others are, after all, within the circle of my reason, but the question is to what extent I should take my relations with others into account.

Types of Human Relations with Other Humans in the Philosophical Life

My relations to others:

• I can serve them, and I must do so,
• I can help them, and sometimes I must do so and sometimes I must not,
• and I can interfere, and I must not do so,
• and I can guide and reform, but I must not do so.

The Difference Between Serving Others and Helping Others

Service and help are usually considered synonymous, but upon precise consideration, there is a difference between them.

Defining the Meaning of Helping Others

If you have a goal in your life that is pleasing to you, and I assist you in achieving this goal and compensate for your shortcomings, I have helped you, whether this goal that is pleasing to you is also in your best interest or not.

Defining the Meaning of Serving Others

But service is when a goal is in your best interest and I assist you in achieving it, whether that goal is pleasing to you or not.

The Philosopher's Relation to Others in the Realm of Service and Help

Now, having stated the difference between the two, I must always serve others, according to my moral duty, but regarding help, I can only help when the goal towards which I am helping the other person is also in that individual's best interest.

So, satisfying what is pleasing to you is help, and fulfilling your best interest is service to you.

Defining the Meaning of the Concept of Interfering in Others' Affairs

There is usually disagreement over whether someone is interfering in another's affairs or not, and the criterion for it is ambiguous. If you have chosen a goal and ask me for the means to achieve it, whatever I do, whether service or help, is not interference, but if I give you a goal, that is interference.

For example, you want to buy a house, you ask me what kind of house to buy, and I state the features I have in mind; this is not interference, because you had already chosen the goal yourself beforehand. But if I tell you: you must buy a house or a property, this is interference, because I have given you a goal.

The Relativity of the Criterion for Interfering in Others' Affairs

Of course, with the stated criterion, some statements can be both interference and not interference. For instance, if you ask me whether you should buy a house or rent, and I say you must buy, here my answer resembles the state of interfering; yet it is not interference, because your goal, which is to gain more profit, was chosen by you yourself, and you are asking me for guidance.

The Difference Between a Request and a Question, and Examining the Relationship of These Two with the Concept of Interfering

Your referring to me, after choosing your goal, can be both a question and a request, and neither constitutes interference on my part. If, after choosing your goal, you ask me for theoretical help, this is a question. But if you ask for practical help, it is a request. Practical help means you also ask me for the means to achieve the goal.

The Philosopher and Guiding and Reforming Others

Guiding and reforming others is far worse than interference.

The Difference Between Interference and Reform

Intervention involves smaller-scale goals, whereas guidance pertains to grand goals and ideals.

Semantic Delimitation of the Concept of Guiding and Reforming Others

If I want to steer you toward a set of grand goals, that is guidance.

Reforming Others: A Result of the Philosopher's Action, Not Its Goal

In the philosophical life, reforming oneself is the individual's goal, and reforming others is its result.

If a person succeeds in reforming themselves, to whatever degree they have achieved success, they are effective in reforming others. And reforming others is the result of their action, not their goal.

For example, if a teacher reforms themselves—meaning they are at an appropriate level scientifically, their behavior with their students is just, and moreover, compassionate and loving—on the whole, this leads to an improvement in the students' lives, and the students, in turn, perform their duties better.

In my opinion, this is the meaning of the Prophet's (PBUH) saying: "Be callers to goodness for people without your tongues."

The betterment of others also occurs in three directions, which I will not delve into here.

The Impossibility and Undesirability of Reforming Others

On the one hand, if reform were the goal, it would be neither possible nor desirable.

Reasons for the Impossibility of Reforming Others

It is impossible because:

First Reason: The Inability to Confront the Entire Universe in the Aspects Opposed to Me

Reforming others requires that I constantly keep the person in question under surveillance, but on the other hand, in life, you are not only influenced by me; thousands of other individuals and factors also affect you.

Reforming another means confronting the entire universe in those parts that oppose me, and this is not feasible.

Second Reason: The Human Inability to Confront Oneself, Let Alone Others

Human beings do not even have freedom in their internal confrontation with themselves. We are not successful in eliminating the internal matters that deprive us of our freedom, such as envy, obsession, etc. That is, a person is not even successful in confronting their own inner drives, let alone reforming others.

Third Reason: The Lack of a Clear Prediction of the Individual's Actions

Fundamentally, I cannot have a prediction of your state, and reform is based on predictability.

Reasons for the Undesirability of Reforming Others

But it is also not desirable because:

First Reason: The Limitation of Human Awareness of the Reality of Matters

What I consider to be guidance may, in reality, be misguidance, because the scope of my knowledge and awareness is limited.

Second Reason: The Undesirability of Uniformity Among Individuals in the Characteristics Desired by the Guide

Even assuming I were successful in reforming others, the uniformity of individuals in the characteristics I desire is not at all desirable.

In other words, becoming uniform, the world becoming uniform, does not make the world interesting at all. The world is sustained by the differences among its people.

The Quranic verse stating that if God had willed, He could have eliminated differences, but this is not desirable, could mean this: "And if your Lord had willed, He could have made mankind one community; but they will not cease to differ."

As Rumi says:

Vein by vein is this sweet water and bitter brine,

Flowing in creatures until the blast of the Trumpet.

Diversity is a necessity of the human ecosystem. And God, in the Quran, says something even higher than this: He states: "We have made for every prophet an enemy.".

Even without considering the guidance of others, the circle of actions is still limited.

Limiting Action Regarding Non-Humans

• Disregarding Abstract Concepts in Action

What has been said so far concerned the limitation of action regarding other humans, but another limitation of human action is that one's effort should not be spent on abstract matters, such as nationalism, secularism, Islam, etc. These are abstract concepts.

Humans must try to reduce the suffering and pain of other humans. On the one hand, the philosopher must separate truths from illusions and falsehoods and not expend effort on unreal matters.

By disregarding efforts directed at abstract concepts, the circle of human actions becomes even more limited.

• Disregarding One's Unreal Selves in Action

I have a real self, but I also have unreal selves. And in our history, mystics and sages have always tried to confront these unreal selves.

Many of my actions are aimed at constructing an image of myself in the minds of others. Whereas I should strive to construct my own self.

Views on Unreal Selves

Mystics posit at least three unreal selves, and American empirical psychologists posit at least four unreal selves. Of course, other views also exist.

Rumi's Allegory for Attending to the Unreal Self

Rumi has a fine allegory in this regard; he says a man spent his entire life acquiring a piece of land and building a house on it. In middle age, when he wanted to move to his new house and spend the rest of his life there, he realized that his land was adjacent to the land on which he had built his structure; and he had spent his whole life tending to another's land. After recounting this story, Rumi says:

Do not build a house on another's land,

Do your own work, do not do the work of a stranger.

It must be noted that this construction of one's image in the minds of others is not limited to one degree, because unreal selves are multiple.

An Illustration of Some Unreal Selves

The first stage: is my image in the mind of another.

The second stage: is my conception of my image in your mind.

The third stage: is your image of my image in my own mind.

Some other instances have also been mentioned.

Disregarding the Value Judgments of Others in the Philosophical Life

When I disregard others, I can understand my real self and its problems; therefore, I no longer care about the value judgments of others. I care about reports of facts from others, but not about value judgments.

For example, that I am lazy is a value judgment of others, but that I am overweight is a fact.

Everything that has been said so far pertained to limitation in the realm of actions.

The Practical Fruit of Limitation in the Realm of Actions: Attending to the Real Self

This limitation in the realm of actions grants us insight and brings us closer to our real self. Without this limitation, there is no time at all when an individual is not preoccupied. From the beginning, one is pursuing a livelihood, forming a family, and a career. After that, one is busy with children and settling them; and at the end, one is occupied with grandchildren, old age, and so on.

In the words of the Quran, "Those whose efforts are wasted in the life of this world."

A few concluding remarks

Three points will be made at the end of the discussion:

The objection of proponents of the religious and mystical life to the philosophical life

The objection to the authority of reason

Some object that when you speak of relying on reason, reason's achievements are constantly changing, and it is fundamentally not something stable upon which one can rely. This is said both by proponents of mysticism and intuitive unveiling, and by proponents of religions and denominations. That is, the first group relies on intuition and the second on revelation. Here, there is a definitive answer and a counter-argument,

The definitive answer: The fallacy of seeking a non-existent perfection

The definitive answer is that if there were a medicine that you knew, while beneficial for health, also harms you, and you also knew that with future medical advances, this medicine would no longer have harmful effects, you would not wait until that time and would use the currently available medicine. The use of reason, despite its progress, is just like this. Therefore, the basis of the stated objection is the fallacy of seeking a non-existent perfection. At any given time, I must pursue reason in the form of its latest achievements, and there is no escape from this.

The counter-argument: The absence of any guarantee regarding mystical unveilings and revelation

The counter-argument is: is there any guarantee in your own foundations regarding mystical unveilings and revelation? The sacred texts themselves indicate the instability of revelation. There were things that were forbidden in Christianity and made lawful in Islam. And fundamentally, if you want to prove the validity of revelation and mysticism, you prove it with reason. How can reason, which now accepts the validity of revelation and mysticism, have validity? It is this very reason that has proven the validity of revelation and mysticism.

The possibility of the philosopher's accompaniment with revelation and mystical unveilings

The philosophical life does not necessarily mean disregard for revelation and intuition; but it necessarily means that if it is to grant validity to revelation and mysticism, it must do so by the decree of reason.

Final word: Identifying the finer instances of the philosophical life based on the stated general principles

In conclusion, it must be said that what was discussed in these sessions were the most important instances of equilibrium in the three domains, and you yourself can, with careful attention, identify the finer cases.

Wassalam

[1] - Second session

[2] - I have elaborated on this matter in detail a few years ago under the title "What is Wisdom to Me?" at the Institute for Knowledge and Research.

[3] - Of course, in my opinion, the term "governed" (mahkum) is correct, not "governing" (hakim), which I have addressed elsewhere.

[4] - This book has been published by Mofid University of Qom, translated by Dr. Amir Divani, and is one of the good books on this subject. The translation of the book is also good.

[5] - Third session

[6] - Because the characteristic of prophets among the Children of Israel was prophecy.

[7] - Elisabeth Zöller, Brigitte Kölle / Translated by Maliheh Shokouhi, with an introduction by Mostafa Malekian. Publisher: Asman-e Khial, first edition, Ordibehesht 1392.

[8] - Fourth session of the Lectures on the Philosophical Life

[9] - I have spoken on this topic under the title "Dynamic and Enduring Identity" at Tarbiat Modares University a few years ago.

[10]  - In the Persian language, 'khoshi' has a negative resonance, with connotations of carelessness, vulgarity, and the like, which is not what I intend. And in my view, the great virtue of human beings is, in fact, cheerfulness.

[11]  - The fifth and final session of the Lectures on the Philosophical Life

.

---

.

Audio files for the Lectures on the Philosophical Life:

First session of the Lectures on the Philosophical Life

Second session of the Lectures on the Philosophical Life

Third session of the Lectures on the Philosophical Life

Fourth session of the Lectures on the Philosophical Life

Fifth session of the Lectures on the Philosophical Life

.

---

.

PDF file of the Lectures on the Philosophical Life:

Download from Server One | Server Two | Server Three

.

---

.