It's a sad but true fact that for most people philosophy is a fairly dry and uninteresting discipline. I've often thought that was strange, because philosophy--more than any other discipline that I know--deals with the most important questions that any human being could have: What's the meaning of life? What's the right way to live in community with other individuals? What happens to us after death.
Perhaps the problem is not with the kinds of questions that the discipline of philosophy asks, but the approach that philosophers often take to asking these questions. Let's be honest: The ideas of Immanuel Kant are probably as relevant today we when he developed them, but who wants to wade through The Critique of Pure Reason to get at them? For most ordinary folks that would be a fate worse than death.
But there are other ways than important philosophical ideas can be presented--using fiction for example. And that's exactly the approach that Robert Edward, author of the new Phoenix Cycle, takes to philosophy. The Phoenix Cycle is a dystopian series in which many of the main character are famous philosophers and deals with philosophical questions in a way that many people may find compelling.
Here is an excerpt from Edward's book for those who are interested:
I have been an avid book reader ever since I was a child. Over the years I gained more interests in the literary world, such as Philosophy and psychology. These interests have lead me to read stacks of philosophy books and Essays, such as the Plato Republic and The Rebel. These types of books are now stacked around my room, no longer able to close and covered in scribbled ink and washes of highlighter.
Now I am writing a book that makes philosophy come to life.I hope that with my series, “The Phoenix Cycle.”I can make philosophy cool.By making it cool I believe more people will become interested in learning about philosophy.
I’ve spent the past twenty years thinking about happiness.
My Master’s Thesis was on focused Stoic ideas about happiness, my doctoral
dissertation dealt with the evolution of Augustine’s understanding of
happiness, and more recently, I’ve been doing some work on Hindu and Buddhist
conceptions of happiness. You’d think
that, after almost 25 years fixated on the question of happiness, I’d know by
now what happiness is and what the best way to become happy would be. The sad truth is that the more I explore this
question, the more my own thinking about happiness evolves and mutates. Happiness, I’ve discovered, is one slippery
concept and there’s a reason why philosophical questions about its attainment
have been debated since ancient times.
But the more I study the problem of happiness, the more I come
to realize that we Americans have some particularly screwy ideas about
happiness that may in fact get in the way of our own long-term happiness. In particular, we seem to think that real
happiness is measured almost exclusively by our present economic conditions
(stuff + now = happiness). Happiness is
typically linked to GDP (Gross Domestic Product), a measure of how much we are
producing and consuming at a given time.
The presumption is that the higher the GDP, the happier the people of a
nation must be. Americans have one of the
highest GDPs in the world, so naturally, we must be among the happiest people
in the world, right?
But what if the very lifestyle that we are living in the
present is a threat to our long-term sustainable happiness and well-being? Imagine that we Americans are like heroin
addicts. An addict needs his fix all the
time in order to be happy, but the approach that he takes to achieving this
happiness (abusing drugs) all but ensures that he can’t sustain his happiness
in the long-term. What if our happiness
is like the happiness of the heroin addict?
In fact, using GDP to measure a
people’s happiness is like asking a drug pusher whether an addict is happy
while he is dwelling in a drug-induced state.
The addict may think he’s happy, and the pusher would say he’s happy,
but would anyone of sense really believe that this is sustainable happiness?
Fortunately, there’s another way to measure the happiness of
people rather than simply by using GDP. Nic
Marks of the New Economics Foundation has developed what he calls the Happy Planet Index. Marks takes for granted
that things like a person’s present perception of happiness and his or her life
expectancy are important criteria of happiness.
But he also takes into consideration the impact that an individual’s
lifestyle has on the planet when determining whether that individual’s
happiness is ultimately sustainable. The
formula he uses for making this determination looks like this:
Experienced
well-being:people around the world are
asked to describe on a scale of 1-10 their experienced state of well-being,
with 0 representing the worst possible life and 10 representing the best
possible life.
Life
expectancy:based upon the 2011 United
Nations Development Report.
Ecological
Footprint: basically examines how much of the world’s resources are used by individuals
in different nations to sustain their lifestyles.
Here’s the way Marks explains his approach to happiness
during his 2010 Ted Talk.
So, if instead of thinking about happiness purely in terms
of the ability to consume in the present, we think about happiness in a more
sustainable way, how does the United States rank compared to other nations of
the world? The Happy Planet Index has a
nifty traffic light score to rank individual nations: green (good), yellow (middling), and red
(bad).
As you can see, the results are radically different
depending upon which criteria for well-being we are looking at. But if we’re really concerned with
sustainable happiness, we need to look in particular at the HPI map. As you explore this map, consider which are
the best countries to live in for sustainable happiness and which are the
worst.
I’d like to propose that what Marks says about the happiness
of different countries applies to the happiness of individuals as well. Think about your own life, for example. Do you perceive yourself to be living a happy
and healthy life? If you do, that’s
terrific, but, as Marks points out, you also need to consider whether your
happiness is ultimately sustainable.
To determine this, take a few moments and complete the
following Ecological Footprint survey.
Try to answer the questions to the best of your ability, and, if you’re
uncertain about the answers to any of the questions, just make the best
educated guess possible.
At the end of the survey, see how many hectares it takes for
you to live the lifestyle that you do.
1.9 hectares would be ecologically ideal, but anything under 2.5
hectares would indicate a more or less sustainable lifestyle. What was your score on this survey? How many planets would it take to sustain the
kind of lifestyle that you live if everyone on the planet chose to adopt it?
The question that we all need to ask ourselves in the end is
whether the perceptions we have about our own happiness correspond with the
reality of whether or not our happiness is ultimately sustainable. Marks seems to suggest that, if there’s a
real dichotomy between the two, our happiness is based upon delusion—a delusion
that I would argue is similar in many ways to the delusion an addict would have
about his own happiness. At the very
least, becoming aware of this dichotomy should make you start to ask some very
fundamental questions about the validity of our Western, materialistic notions
about happiness in a world characterized by an ever-increasing scarcity of
resources.
