Can a hermit Flourish?

Andrea: [00:00:00] Not that Aristotle necessarily got it right. We don't have to agree with him. But Aristotle thought that it was good for everyone to pursue courage. He thought it was good for everyone to be engaged in civil society. He thought it was good for everyone to have a sense of friendship with people.

Craig: Hi, folks, this is Craig Van Slyke. Welcome to the Rational Ignorance Podcast. 

Andrea: Hi, I'm Andrea Christel, a philosopher and outdoor enthusiast who lives in Sedona, Arizona. 

Craig: And I'm a business professor, author, and rancher who lives in the middle of the woods in Eris, Louisiana. We're here to help you live an excellent life, a flourishing life.

Andrea: Flourishing means not only living according to virtue and reason, but also living a life that includes the things that enrich our existence, such as friendship. health, creativity, pleasure, and a connection to and appreciation for the natural world. [00:01:00] We will explore what it means to have a flourishing life.

To say that virtues are relative to a person does not mean that all virtues are relative. This might sound confusing or even contradictory at first, but upon reflection, it does make sense. We'll explain in this episode. 

Craig: Before getting into today's topic, though, we wanted to let you know that we're making some changes here at Rational Ignorance.

After some feedback from listeners and some reflection and discussion among ourselves, we've decided to do a reboot, as the cool kids might say. So, Andrea, what are we changing? 

Andrea: The biggest change isn't really a change. We're going to have an ongoing focus on flourishing. We believe that one of the best things we can do to serve you is to help you move towards a more flourishing life.

So we're going to focus exclusively on topics that relate to flourishing. Every episode will be intended to help you better [00:02:00] understand how to live an excellent 

Craig: life. We think this will help us stay consistent with our content, but it still gives us plenty of flexibility. Flourishing is just a huge landscape.

Andrea: We're also going to try to be true to the name rational ignorance in two ways. First, We're only going to talk about things that really matter with respect to flourishing. There are many interesting things in the world on the podcast. We're going to kind of stay rationally ignorant of things that don't relate to flourishing.

We're also moving to shorter episodes. Most episodes will be around 20 to 30 minutes long. We're cutting the chit chat and diversions and just talking about what really matters. Craig probably won't be able to resist the odd mention of his, of his animals though. 

Craig: Yeah, I think we can count on the occasional mention of an animal, but I'll really try hard to weave them into the discussion.

Kind of Craig's fables, maybe. Speaking of getting to the point, let's go on to today's topic. So after our episode on human flourishing, one of our listeners from Cottonwood, Arizona, Stuart Shupak, wrote us, [00:03:00] He said, and I quote, I just listened to the August 4th podcast. It was a very good introduction to what I'm sure will be an enjoyable season.

I do have this problem slash question. On the one hand, you speak of flourishing as being an individual virtue, something that will not be the same for everyone at every time, a kind of moral relativism. But then you go on to assert that a hermit cannot be flourishing, implying some absolute standard.

Similarly, at one point you speak of acting in the right way. Well, who's to say that the hermit is not leading his or her best life at that time? Who's to say that Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates or Donald Trump or some unknown living in a Hogan on the reservation without running water are or are not flourishing?

How does one know what the quote unquote right way is? It does seem to me that there are some absolute standards that can be applied here, though I certainly don't know exactly what they are. So we really appreciate this, uh, this message that we got from Stuart and I, I think he [00:04:00] really, um, he really brought up a couple of interesting issues.

So if we can kind of parse this out, he brings up two really interesting issues. So the main issue is whether or not a hermit can flourish, or to put it differently, do we need connections to others in order to flourish? But we inferred a second issue. And Stuart kind of said this, so I guess we didn't really infer it.

Are there absolute standards regarding virtue? In order to address the first question, we need to first discuss the second issue. So Andrea, are virtues absolute? Relative? Or does even that depend? Well, 

Andrea: first we'd really like to thank Stuart for raising this seeming inconsistency and giving us the opportunity to talk about an important distinction between different uses of the term relative.

We can talk about a virtue that is relative to a person, and then we can also talk about moral relativism. And these are really not the same thing. A virtue that is relative to a person just means that the way a virtue is manifest can vary from individual to [00:05:00] individual. However, it can still be maintained that the virtue is worth pursuing for all people.

Let's consider my all time favorite, courage. What it means for a soldier to be courageous is different from what it means for a child. The courage of a whistleblower in the Trump administration is different from the courage of an underpaid teacher who walks into an inner city school day after day. So, on an Aristotelian model, just what courage looks like varies from person to person, but what remains constant is the fact that courage is good and worth pursuing, no matter if you are a soldier or a school teacher.

In each case, we can imagine someone going too far, being rash. We're not far enough acting like a coward. 

Craig: Moral relativism is an interesting topic. We're not going to really get into that a lot here, but we do need to go far enough to acknowledge that there's often a confusion among moral relativism, moral pluralism, and all out [00:06:00] nihilism.

So one of the reasons for that confusion is that there's no firm consensus on how these terms differ. And Andrea, can you give us how you view those three terms, because I'll admit I don't really know the definitions, any kind of strict definition of those. I 

Andrea: would say that, you know, moral pluralism is the view that you can simultaneously accept that there is more than one morally acceptable model for evaluating human action.

For example, a pluralist might allow that utilitarianism or maximizing value is a plausible way to understand evaluating human action or determining right and wrong, and a moral pluralist might also allow that emotivism or the moral feeling that is engendered by someone's action Is a, a guiding light or a guidepost that can tell us [00:07:00] about the moral quality of an action and whether we should approve or disapprove or as David Huma always like to say, have moral approbation or disapprobation.

Yet, another moral theory is Aristotle's. virtue ethics, which tells us that we should cultivate certain forms of excellence. Um, and, you know, one of the moral theories that we're most comfortable with on a day to day basis is Kant's deontology or duty based ethics saying that there's an absolute standard of right and wrong.

And the truth is that in our daily lives, we usually draw on some combination of these theories and rather than saying that deontology definitively trumps utilitarianism, pluralism says that there is value in each of these theories and sometimes we draw on one rather than another. Moral relativism would say that really what makes something moral is relative to the culture, to the time and [00:08:00] place where you are.

There is no absolute moral standard and that differs from pluralism because pluralism is saying there are different theories or conceptual models such as deontology, utilitarianism, motivism. But these standards apply across all times, cultures, people, and places. So maximizing utility is as good in one country, time, or place as it is in another.

Of course, the way we understand utility might vary. And so as you can see, these things, um, can be difficult to untangle. Moral, moral relativism says. says that really, if you're maximizing utility, that is only a value because of the particular culture in which you find yourself. And, and it's that culture and nothing necessary about the world that makes that valuable.

And nihilist is probably, uh, the easiest to understand, but the most depressing view, which basically says that there is no morality, it's an illusion. And so you might as well [00:09:00] do what you want. 

Craig: Let me see if I can kind of bring that together a little bit in the context of Stuart's question. Really smart people who study these things really carefully can't even agree on what these different views are entirely.

Andrea: That's what keeps philosophers in business, are their disagreements about these points. 

Craig: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, these are, these are tough issues, uh, and I, I think that's important to keep in mind. We're going to give you our view, but that's, I guess, this is moral pluralism. That's not the only valid view. We recognize that there may be other views.

So, uh, feel free to write us with yours. I mean, we're at rationalignoranceatpm. me. Now, we'd love to hear what you think about this. All right, so there's no firm consensus on this. But they do kind of allow for different moral standards. So, for example, in one scenario you might want to be compassionate, in another scenario you might want to get [00:10:00] retribution, retributive justice.

Without, and we're not necessarily saying that any particular behavior or action is always as good as any other. So, you know, you can't just go up to some stranger and smack them in the head. But, you know, if some stranger is attacking somebody else, it may be totally justified to walk up and smack them in the back of the head with a two by four.

Not that we advocate violence, but you know, sometimes it might be in some people's view the morally right thing to do. And so it does get from, from a non philosophers perspective, it does get confusing because you have this bundle of, I don't know, almost absolute statements that you sometimes read here, here, but with clear.

Uh, relativism or pluralism in there somewhere, and it's all wrapped in some kind of a bundle of common sense. It seems to me. 

Andrea: Yeah. And Craig, just one more alternative that we didn't bring up, but I think is relevant as I, you know, hear you discussing these examples is moral [00:11:00] absolutism. And you know, that's the view that there is a moral absolute.

That is the case across all times and places. And you know, for example, non-violence might be one of those tenets. Some people might say that, you know, irrespective of culture, irrespective of time and place that uh, violence is never called for Now, you know, you raised a scenario where, you know, we can easily imagine that it might be justified, but I think that we also need to consider that possibility of that, that there could be right.

Some enduring and absolute. 

Craig: Well, I think justice is one that gets kind of close to that, but, um, I feel like maybe we're drifting a little bit from Stewart's, um, question, but so what does all this have to do with flourishing? Well, 

Andrea: flourishing is, uh, really about achieving happiness and, and trying to cultivate and cultivate virtues.

And so, um, One of the things that we can [00:12:00] do to try to understand Stuart's question is to think a little bit more carefully about what a virtue is. And that's translated just as an excellence. And according to Aristotle, a virtuous mean or an excellent middle point lies somewhere between an excess and a deficiency of a particular trait.

The exact location of the virtuous mean is inherently situational. Um, Aristotle believed that this golden mean is a function of the person, um, the situation, um, even the timing of which something occurs. So an act that may be courageous in one scenario, uh, may be foolhardy in another. 

Craig: So let me see if I can add to that a little bit.

So a virtue might be... universally worth pursuing, but where that virtue sits between the associated excess and [00:13:00] deficiency is relative. So I know this is going to sound like a hedge, but I don't think it really is. So if we look at Stewart's kind of a message that some things are, you know, are some things absolute, are there absolute standards or are there, there, um, Is everything relative?

Well, I don't know my view and maybe I'm wrong here, but my view is that there are virtues that are reasonably universal to pursue. In fact, if you, if you kind of look at this, do a little bit of research into this, you see a lot of overlaps between what Aristotle talked about with virtues, Eastern philosophical and religious traditions, Christianity, uh, Islam, you know, there are some places where they all kind of converge.

But exactly what it means to have that virtue in any particular situation at any particular time for any particular person. That's where it's [00:14:00] relative. So I don't know. Do I have that right? I 

Andrea: think so. I mean, I think Stuart's question about does having a virtue be relative to a person equate to moral relativism is not the case.

I think that's the bottom line to make because moral relativism is an overall position that Any that different moral theories could apply in in different situations and contacts and that there are no absolute virtues worth pursuing. And, you know, that certainly wasn't Aristotle's view. Not the Aristotle necessarily got it right.

We don't have to agree with him, but Aristotle thought that it was. Good for everyone to pursue courage. He thought it was good for everyone to be engaged in civil society. He thought it was good for everyone to have a sense of friendship with people. And so that is not relative for him, right? He thought that those things applied across time and space.

Now he thought the [00:15:00] way that gets manifest is different for different individuals. So what a good friendship. Looks like for you may be different than what it looks like for me and similarly with courage. And so having a virtue be relative to a person just means that it's context dependent while you could still maintain that it's not relative, that it's good for all people.

To have friends and engage in civic society, and that is where being a hermit, at least on Aristotle's view, would not be a virtuous or flourishing life because Aristotle thought, rightly or wrongly, that human fellowship and society and caring about your community and engaging in politics was part of living a good and flourishing life.

So, on his view, um, You know, flourishing requires a certain type of social interaction that, um, would, would exclude hermits from leading the good life. 

Craig: All right. That's an excellent segue, by the way, but before [00:16:00] moving on to the hermit question in more detail, we have a small request. You know, Andrea just mentioned having friends.

Well, we would really appreciate it if sometime this week. You could share your favorite episode of Rational Ignorance with one of your friends. Uh, we, we truly believe that the topics we discuss can help you and your friends flourish. We, we think that these ideas can help you live a better life. So please give us a hand by sharing the love a little bit and letting other people know about our podcast.

So, Andrea, let's go further into the hermit. According to Aristotle, it's a hard no, a hermit can't live at least the most flourishing life. I mean, flourishing is kind of a matter of degree, or it's a 

Andrea: process. It's a process. It's um, it's, it's certainly not like an. an end state or like an on off switch, right?

It's, it's, it's a quality or a [00:17:00] way of, of being, you know, Aristotle's term was eudaimonia, which really meant like having a good spirit, but this is, it's really, you know, and we talk about this activity of the soul in accordance with excellence. So, you know, what is that an activity in your soul, but it's really a kind of way of.

Being all the time or disposition that habituates you towards and, you know, not happiness in terms of a jubilant mood, but in terms of a really, uh, a contentment and a satisfaction with, with your own life, including, you know, the way you understand and conduct yourself with respect to your own thoughts and ideas, as well as your behavior towards others.

And 

Craig: so that sounds like that too. I don't want to say achieve flourishing. Maybe 

Andrea: practice.

Sorry. No, I said maybe practice, practice [00:18:00] flourishing. 

Craig: Okay. All right. Practice flourishing. So having social connections with others is part of that. Is that what I'm? Hearing you say or, or 

Andrea: whatever Aristotle would say, you know, I think that, that, that would be Aristotle's view. And I, I just wanna make sure that I don't, I don't wanna, um, you know, bow to Aristotle too much or say that he necessarily got this right.

Although I, I do think it is a, a pretty compelling model and it's, you know, we paid some attention to it for a few thousand. years because it is a pretty compelling model. But the foundation of philosophy, I think, in real flourishing is that we can assess for ourselves whether we think that's a good model for us or perhaps not.

And perhaps things have changed. So what's really great about Stewart's question is that, you know, he he's wondering legitimately if Aristotle got that right. And I think he's imagining some conditions, especially in the part of the world where we live in North. [00:19:00] Arizona where it's really beautiful. It can be very restorative and also inspiring, uh, to be in these natural desert landscapes.

And I think he legitimately wonders if that's not a way of flourishing. And, you know, I think that perhaps it can be, so it's not a way of flourishing on Aristotle's model, but it might be a way of flourishing for some. Although 

Craig: I think that gets back to the idea of the mean. So, if we take it to the extreme and go to a true hermit that, you know, never has any connection with any other human, I think it's pretty hard to argue that that person can flourish.

But that doesn't mean that you need to have 10, 000 friends to flourish. I mean, I think you can satisfy that part of your soul with a relatively small number of people and maybe even some infrequent interactions with them. It doesn't mean that you have to be around a lot of people all the time. Mean...[00:20:00] 

Remember is, is dependent upon the person. So, I mean, I've got friends who are just really gregarious. I love being around people, you know, and, and if they, they've really struggled with COVID, you know, they can't be around people all the time. Look, I like living in the middle of the woods. You know, I, I have a relatively small number of friends, but you know, I've had some of them for going on, well, really for over 60 years or over 50 years now, I'm not that old.

So I think where that mean is may be different for Stuart or, and for me and for you, Andrea, and for each one of the listeners. But you. But I think if it's you never see anybody, I just can't imagine how that's flourishing. 

Andrea: But I think you hit on a key point, which is, you know, you can't imagine it, which means that it probably wouldn't be flourishing for you.

And I think that that's really where. Every person has to do their own work, because I think for many people, living a life of isolation is [00:21:00] probably not right. A good mean. And most people do crave social social interaction. I mean, we know, for example, that we crave social interaction in the same part of our brain where we crave food.

It is part of our biology. Having said that, you know, some religious traditions or some, you know, um. Pursuits for people involve a sort of striving for transcendence or overcoming the human condition, and that's certainly not a popular way of life, but it can be a way of life that involves flourishing sort of monkish disposition or going out and trying to overcome.

These human conditions of, um, social interaction or even, you know, food and water to try to attain some spiritual state, um, again, I don't think that's common, but I think that could be flourishing for some people. So what is really required is for people to understand themselves and to know what kind of life they're seeking and then pursue [00:22:00] that.

But I think merely to get, um, disgruntled with society, you're irritated with people and lock yourself away and be antisocial when you probably have what is the more common psychological profile, which is that people enjoy getting together with people, then, you know, we have to figure out how to do that.

to do that well. But anyway, that's the fun and the hard work is like, at least on Aristotle's model, we can't just say, you know, what amount of human interaction and political participation is necessary for a flourishing life. It's up to each person on the basis of reason and reflection to determine that for themselves.

Craig: I think that's one of the key takeaways here is everybody has to decide where that mean is for themselves. And it takes, as you said, it takes practice. It takes reflection. It's work to figure that out. I know for me, I don't, like I said, I don't need to have interactions with [00:23:00] a lot of people, but when I was thinking about all this, it, uh, Reminded me of the dedication to the third edition of one of my textbooks and that dedication read in part to Tracy, you brought life to my existence and so to me, doing more than simply existing means connecting with others, but you know, who knows?

I might be wrong. You know, that's. Just for me. But I think that's the thing. It's it is for me. And each one of you out there has to decide where that mean is 

Andrea: for you. I think that's it. And I think that we do that. We have to make that final determination for ourselves. But, you know, one of the principles is that we don't have to think it through on our own.

And so that's why friendship is so important in this model, too. And I think that's what's so great about our conversations. Transcribed I mean, it's one thing if you're in an echo chamber, you know, reinforcing your own opinions or talking to people that think in large part the same way you do, but to have good friends who will push back [00:24:00] and challenge you and really expand your way of thinking, who you also have a sense of really have goodwill and care about you, right?

That's when we can really start to explore, you know, the edges of these sort of difficult questions. And navigate and figure out like what will really help us flourish and what is just comfortable because there's aren't always the same thing, right? Just to do what is comfortable in some cases might lead to more isolation or social disconnection, because it can be hard to go out in society and connect with people.

And it can be disappointing because people aren't always kind or friendly and don't always have goodwill and it's easy to get jaded and frustrated. But if we are the sorts of people. Like most people, I would submit who enjoy socialization and interaction, then, then we have to find out, you know, what that midpoint is for us.

And it can be helpful to talk that through with others and our friends. [00:25:00] And I mean, sometimes we need to talk things over with a therapist and they are great resources. Absolutely. Mental health professionals contribute so much to society, but, you know, some things we don't have to see a clinician sometimes.

Just talking to a good friend, someone who you respect can be, um, quite enough to help us try to make the best decisions for ourselves. And I just have to say, thank you, Craig. I think you've saved me a lot of, of psychotherapy. Just having these, these conversations helps. All 

Craig: right. You are most welcome.

Likewise. 

Andrea: We hope that clarifies and thanks again to Stuart Shupak of Cottonwood, Arizona for raising this question and thank all of you for joining us. We love listener questions, so if you have any questions, we hope you will write to us at rationalignoranceatpm. me. 

Craig: Well, that's it for this episode. Next time, we discuss why Caturday, which is a real thing, by the way, is good for flourishing.

Thank you. [00:26:00] The Rational Ignorance Podcast is sponsored by Sedona Philosophy, a completely unique tour company that uses Sedona's amazing natural environment to unlock personal growth and insight. Explore nature, culture, and history with a philosophical twist. Visit SedonaPhilosophy. com to learn more.

Andrea: Thanks, Craig. If you enjoyed this podcast, hit the subscribe button, please rate, review, and tell your friends. Until next time.