Book Review-A Guide to the Good Life by William Irvine

I came upon this book in a somewhat unusual manner. I had read How to Be A Stoic by Massimo Pigliucci and he not only referenced Irvine’s book profusely but he recommended that his readers read this book as well. The kudos worked its magic with me and I bought this book on line. I eagerly attacked this book as soon as I finished Pigliucci’s book, and I am very glad that I did.

Irvine’s tone is different than Pigliucci’s not better, not worse, but different. He is more laid back and truly lived up to the Stoic goal of tranquility. The descriptions and arguments has a very tranquil quality to them, even as he discusses difficult questions like dealing with anger, death, grief, et. al. His voice is that of a gentle guide through the various knotty arguments that is so typical of anything philosophical.

The book starts with a good historical background of Stoicism, we meet the philosophers who make up the bulk of what we are about to read, and we are introduced to both the Greek and Roman Stoics. The second part of the book is devoted to the psychological tools used by the Stoics in order to practice Stoicism. This can be considered as teaching the reader to use the tools and to becoming comfortable wielding the weapons of great import.

The third part of the book is devoted to specific topics which have proven to be difficult for people to navigate as they attempt to live a Stoic life.  The aforementioned topics of anger, death, grief, insults, social relations, etc. were covered in short compact chapters detailing the ways a philosopher could approach the discussion and ensuing argument.  This section was a touch pedantic but it was a necessary exercise because it allowed us into the mind of a practicing Stoic and gave us a glimpse of what practicing philosophers do: state problems, formulate arguments and most importantly guide us through his reasoning.

The most impressive and important section of this book to me is the last section: Stoicism for Modern Lives. Three excellent chapters proceed from the description of the fall of Stoicism in the public eye and throughout history, to reasons why we should reconsider Stoicism as a personal philosophy, the meaning of having a personal philosophy, and finally he describes his own journey through making Stoicism his own personal philosophy. The last two chapters made the most impact on me personally as Dr. Irvine drew us into his personal experience and allowed us to look behind the curtain into how he was able to explore Stoicism in his own way. His chapter on reconsidering Stoicism is particularly impactful as he made some very salient arguments for taking the personal journey into investigating the practice. 

Even though I had committed myself to practicing Stoicism on my own, this book made the act seem much less dramatic and much more matter of fact for someone to partake in this most personal of journeys. I am at a beginning stage obviously, but I feel reassured and comfortable in knowing that I can always reach back and gain wisdom from this remarkable book.

To Run or Not To Run

As hurricane Florence spirals her way towards the Carolina coast, all the weather prognosticators are predicting massive waves, winds, and disaster. The storm is expected to wreak havoc with North and South Carolina, as well as Virginia. This is supposed to be a super storm to end all super storms. The state and local governments have declared mandatory evacuations and the weird sight of all lanes of traffic heading in only one direction is filling up the screens.

But, there are also people who are defiantly staying, managing to hoard bottle water, batteries, food and fuel and hunkering down in their homesteads. The news outlets are of course focusing on some of these people. While not overtly lauding them for the independence and their expressions of rugged individualism that American society find so commendable, the tone of the reports all seem to observe the action of these folks as an act of defiance in the face of officialdom and the inevitable acts of nature.

In some ways they are putting the lives of potential rescuers in peril if they end up changing their minds, usually at the worst time, i.e. when the options for evacuating them are nonexistent, even though the rescuers are always willing to put themselves on the line to save another human from certain peril.

The thing that I find interesting is the decision making process that these folks undergo in order to make that decision. The primal consideration might be driven by the fear of forever losing what they had. This thought process elicits in me the Stoic tenet and nothing is forever, and that material things are transient and temporary. Losing material things seem to be an inconsequential consideration when compared to a life.

Another consideration is the idea of a personal probability. The idea is that people have an ability to calculate a personal probability of failure or success for different situations. In this case, and I am projecting my own prejudices on this conjecture, that they probably have a belief in that nothing can happen to them because they are who they are, or that they have such abilities that they are able to survive the natural forces of our world. In short, they have the hubris to believe that they are immune to the forces of nature, whether it is by their won ego or by their belief in their capabilities, so they put a thumb on the scales of survival and increase their personal probability of survival.

Another way to look at it is that they are risk averse in their own way. People behave differently when faced with the same option but presented differently, as Kahneman and Tversky had discovered through their work. Given the same circumstance, people will inevitably be more conservative in their decision making if the proposition is made in terms of potential losses, whereas they will tend to be more aggressive if the proposition is made in terms of potential gains. Although the options of either losing a house versus gaining a life seem to be clear cut to me, it may not be to them, and their defensive response is to be conservative in terms of clinging to what they have materially. Of course coupling the aforementioned biases in the calculation of the personal probability in combination with the human proclivity to respond to more drastically to losses may explain this.