Philosophical Fridays: Rethinking the Rules
Why Philosophy Isn't Just for Academics
I want to start a new Friday series this week that I’m calling Philosophical Fridays: Rethinking the Rules. Every Friday, I’ll share a philosophical idea or concept that challenges societal norms and what I call the “human rules” around how things are supposed to work in the world. I want to start rethinking some of these rules and norms—ones most of us never really question and that even some philosophers trip over in their own work.
For the first Philosophical Friday, I want to explore why I feel that philosophy isn’t just for academics—it’s not just a theory or some pie-in-the-sky idea. Philosophy has a valid place in the world, and when combined with something like spirituality, it opens the door to an entirely new way of being. It allows spiritual principles to actually work the way they were intended.
What if the only reason philosophy is considered purely academic is that people are afraid to live it?
If existentialism is true and experience has no inherent meaning of its own, then it’s possible that how I see my life experience isn’t necessarily true. That’s probably a scary thought for a lot of people—especially those with very defined perceptions of their experiences.
If nihilism is true and the things I believe about the world around me aren’t, then I have to completely change my worldview. That’s a scary prospect. Most people don’t like to question their worldviews—doing so often comes with a bit of an existential crisis.
If neutrality is true and my judgment of the experience isn’t, then I can no longer blame the experience for how I feel and think. That means I have to take full responsibility for every thought, feeling, word, and action I have or take—and that sounds overwhelming.
If duality is true and I have to stop categorizing everything as “right” or “wrong,” seeing them instead as tools for understanding my experience better, then I can no longer make life about getting rid of everything I don’t like. I would have to accept everything without resistance or judgment. Releasing human judgments is one of the more challenging things we can do in this lifetime.
The philosophers who explored these concepts originally struggled to fit them into their own lives. What I've found from reading their texts is that they weren’t questioning the human rules or societal norms enough. If we accept societal norms and then try to make existentialism work, we run into trouble, because society tells us what our experiences should mean. Society dictates which experiences are good and which are bad, and if we don’t agree with that, we’re often made to feel like there’s something wrong with us.
Soren Kierkegaard struggled with existentialism. In order to accept the weight of his choices and the freedom to make those choices, he used his faith. He created the idea of the "leap of faith," which was essentially giving himself permission to make choices that went against the human rules, while blaming God for doing so.
There is one key thing that people must do in order to fully accept their own choices: drop the stories of blame, shame, guilt, and victimization. Neutrality and acceptance are required to take full responsibility for every thought, feeling, action, and word we have or take. It’s impossible to fully embrace responsibility for ourselves existentially if we corner ourselves in a story of blame, shame, guilt, or victimization when things don’t work out the way we hope they will.
We also have to be able to accept the limits of our own power. We can’t control everything, nor are we meant to. Jean-Paul Sartre believed we were supposed to take responsibility for everything, including the things that weren’t directly within our control. I believe this perpetuates the stories of blame, shame, guilt, and victimization. It doesn’t recognize or accept the limitations of human control. Humans can have radical freedom, as Sartre called it, and still stay within their bounds at the same time. This is necessary to keep life’s choices from being paralyzing.
Life is about making choices. Our job is to make the best choice we can in order to achieve the outcome we desire, while accepting that we don’t have control and releasing the stories of blame, shame, guilt, and victimization, regardless of the outcome.
Our only true responsibility when it comes to our choices is to try to avoid intentionally causing harm. It’s perfectly reasonable to end a relationship that no longer serves you, but causing deliberate harm should be avoided. Ending the relationship respectfully and compassionately is within your control, and while it might hurt the other person’s feelings, how they choose to handle that is not your responsibility. If you intentionally go out of your way to cause harm you're stepping outside of what is within your control.
The goal here isn’t to label actions and choices as “right” or “wrong,” but to highlight the concept of personal responsibility and its limited scope. Personal responsibility means acknowledging what is within our control and making choices that align with our true nature, while recognizing that we cannot control or be responsible for how others react or how things unfold beyond our intentions.
To make these philosophical constructs work we have to be willing to:
Accept our limited scope of control and awareness.
Release stories of blame, shame, guilt, and victimization via becoming more neutral.
Release our judgment of the experience as good or bad, right or wrong. By accepting the duality of reality, we can understand that experience falls on a spectrum and that the spectrum is not meant to be judged.
Create our own helpful meanings of experience. I use my experience to understand myself.
Question the human rules that tie us into seeing things a certain way or accepting responsibility for things that are outside of our control.
When we do this in this way we don’t have to use God as a scapegoat for our choices. Our choices don’t have to be heavy or paralyzing. We don’t have to worry about control or whether or not we have enough information to make a “good” choice. We can simply make choices and live our lives, while creating meaning that offers us freedom instead of pain
I just don’t believe it needs to be that complicated. When we uncomplicate it and simplify it, I believe that philosophy moves from academic thought to reality very easily. It is the overcomplication of ideas that makes the ideas a problem to be solved instead of a possibility to be explored and lived.
Life just doesn’t have to be that hard. Philosophy can help make that your reality when you’re ready.
How do you personally navigate the balance between taking responsibility for your choices and accepting that there are things beyond your control? I'd love to hear your thoughts and experiences in the comments! Don’t forget to share and subscribe!
Love to all.
Della
Della, the thought of starting this series looks amazing to me.
I liked reading this. As a new writer on Substack, I would love to connect with you.