On the Path to Philosophership -- Public Ethics Guide
Updated: Dec 22, 2024
On the Path to Philosophership -- Public Ethics Guide
Philosophership series
Forging True Connections: Why Mental Toughness Makes For Better Companions
If you, as a philosopher, decide to publicly publish your content, and not within private circles, you have a chance to get readers, who are more distinguished than "regular" readers. In the language of digital marketing, these distinguished folk can be called "buddies". Examples of that can be found online.
What makes them special is the fact that they wish to communicate with you, beyond the content you provide to your general audience. They are more than just readers, they are people who want to be your companions, thanks you your philosophership.
Don't expect them to respect you all the way, however. Because should you make certain slips that will displease them, some of them will treat you like garbage, and some of them will treat you as deserving to be disposed, regardless of your contributions. That's what happens when a short-term feeling biases our perception of the general, long-term value of things.
As such, you might feel disrespected, and see a person as dishonorable, despite their contributions to your life and efforts. Giving in to these emotions makes you less trustable when you put the feelings of offense as more important than the essence of loyalty. After all, you might be compelled to commit the whole-person fallacy, based on a single situation among your most loyal of companions!
This starkly shows the self-interest nature of human beings. Because all it takes is one or more -- or even one -- mishap on your behalf, that will make the most sensitive and weak of them to get rid of you.
However, they are doing it to protect themselves. And as such, a person who does not need much mental protections, if at all, they are the ones who deserve to be your "buddy" more than others. It is them who are more deserving of your own time, because without these protections they will be more than willing to go alongside you, through thick and thin. Never underestimate the power of endurance.
And as such, internal vulnerabilities are weakness. Should we become more tougher, therefore, and learn to see the world beyond the tyranny of our emotions, we will be able to be more loyal to one another, and create a more compassionate, tolerating world. A world that understands and listens to one another's pains. A world where intimidation by intellect, is nothing more than a feeling, unless that feeling actually tells us there's a danger.
In an age of treachery and remorsless self-protecting cowardice, the best thing you can do to your sanity is to try and depersonalize your feelings from you. Then, unlike them, you won't be so hasty to act on petty emotion, for your emotions are then experienced as something's external to you. Not as something that hinders your decision-making. Decision-making deserves being more rational.
And with each rejection, you'll remain more unfazed. For adversity's a natural part in societal life.
Philosophy vs. Fanaticism: Protecting Your Integrity
Pythagoras had many "buddies", to the point that he founded a cult based on mathematics. His example represents the dark side of having "buddies". It all depends on you, the philosopher, to decide what to do with your "buddies". It is a dark example because cults could lead to dark temptations that could result in things such as manipulation, brainwashing, and even actual crimes that will not be mentioned here.
That is one of the few dangers that await you if you wish to become a philosopher -- the tempting possibility of converting your "buddies" into a self-recognizing group, called a cult. Pythagoras, although he contributed significantly to mathematics, might as well have been a power-hungry cult-leader. And that defies the very purpose of philosophy, which ethically compels us to overcome the Trial of Power.
What is a cult? It is basically a miniature version of religion, controlled by a single "dictator" so-to-speak, which is the cult leader. Major religions, such as Christianity, began as cults, until they gathered enough followers to become established enough to be powerful on the political and cultural scales.
And I quote Khan Academy:
Originally, Christianity was a small, unorganized sect that promised personal salvation after death.
But "Buddies" are, in short, people who see you as someone they wish to communicate with you in private, thanks to what you have to offer to the world. They aren't necessarily came to you to worship you or anything of that sort. The formation of cult worship is a slow process that can be prevented.
Thanks to the wonders of modern communication, every reader nowadays can become a "buddy" of yours, as long as they have the means to communicate with you privately. The more "buddies" you have, the more you can indicate that your work is supported, which is excellent by itself, but not when you use your power unethically.
Cultivating Ethical Fandom
Once a private communication is established and developed, these readers will only become even more willing to read your content whenever they have the energies to do so. The more "buddies" you have as a public figure, the more it is good for your public credibility. As said in similar articles, they are in no way your servants or henchmen. Their loyalty to you does not mean they deserve to be expendable, because doing otherwise means that you should not be trusted. You should be trusted, correct? They are just friendly people who enjoy your content, and thus should be treated as such -- with gratitude and with appreciation.
Socrates, after being imprisoned by the Athenian government, was eventually approached by his buddies in order to rescue him. Should Socrates desired to oppose his suicidal philosophy (he preferred to die as long as the law demands it), he could've escaped prison and lived a free man. That is merely an example of how having these kind-hearted followers can help you in life. They won't necessarily bail you out of jail, but connecting with them could inspire new ideas or even lead to collaborations.
The world is filled with what I'd like to call "pseudo-cults". These are groups of people who admire a certain person and show so by following them on social media, while cultivating an identity behind doing so (as given by example in the world of pop). They are pseudo because you don't exactly worship them as a divine figure. You simply really, really admire their work.
Actual cults, on the other hand, are built on three main things -- manipulation, isolation from the external world, and adoring the head figure as divine (or more than a human being). Should you manipulate people into adoring you, and have them only read your own content, then you've damaged your credibility as a philosopher, just like Pythagoras did.
Why? Becaue their loyalty to you does not diminish when they do anything else with their time, including supporting other philosophers. They're fans, buddies, not fanatics.
Ethics, Manipulation, and the Perils of Charismatic Leadership
For the honest philosopher, the attainment of power over others isn't the main goal, if at all. The main directive is to discover the truths of existence, study reality and so on. Anything else is an addition. Other goals could be possible, but only as secondary, and not the creation of dogma. And not using that dogma to make people adore you. Dogma, if anything, is an anti-thesis to the truth, for it leads to the "Same Result Problem" and must endure debate.
Ultimately, what cults usually exist for is to deceive people into paying you money for delusions. They might even create original viewpoints just for that very goal. That goal contradicts the path of the moral truth-seeker, whose material gain is but a secondary aim compared to the discovery of insights. Should you ever manipulate your "buddies", (and I'm talking about those who have proven your worth to you, not the emotionally weak that lack loyalty because they are victims to their own feelings) you will lose your objective credibility as a philosopher.
Therefore, you see, there is a monastic element to being a philosopher. Corrupt philosophers, who downgrade their oath to finding the truth, are technically no longer actual philosophers. It all begins with whether or not you're going to manipulate or deceive those who support you, want to help you, and are loyal beyond what their own emotions tell them (for they compromise their own ethics by doing so). Once the main goal becomes secondary, the motivation for philosopherhood becomes corrupt.
Don't Build a Cult, Contribute to Knowledge
The message of this article is this: don't make a cult out of your work, not only because it will make you a manipulator, but also because it could end up becoming a disaster. Scientology, the People's Temple -- all are examples of philosophies that were integrated into cults, which ended horribly. No honest philosopher would wish to destroy their image and legacy, just due to the temptation for power.
So, if you happen to force people to call you "master", or give away their property, perhaps philosophy is not for you. Philosophy isn't about the ego of the philosopher, but about their contribution towards the truths in their respective fields.
%20(1).jpg)
Comments