Joe Folley

The fragmentation of the ancient unified mind Ancient intellectual traditions did not view the search for truth as a segmented academic exercise. For thinkers like Aristotle and the early Stoics, metaphysics, logic, and ethics were inextricably linked. They operated under the assumption that how one should behave in the morning depends entirely on what one believes the universe is made of at its core. Joe Folley notes that modern philosophy has largely abandoned this integrated approach, opting instead for highly specialized silos that often fail to communicate with one another. This fragmentation has led to a landscape where ethics is often practiced in a vacuum, stripped of the metaphysical grounding that once gave it weight and direction. In the ancient world, the Stoics believed their ethical resistance to suffering was a direct consequence of a rational, providential universe. They didn't just "choose" to be calm; they believed the world was inherently reasonable, and thus, resisting reality was an act of irrationality. Today, many individuals adopt Stoic practices like a buffet—picking up the "hacks" for resilience while ignoring the cosmic claims. Without the underlying belief in a rational universe, these ethical commitments become mere suggestions or "vibes." This shift toward the purely practical, while seemingly useful, actually weakens the philosophy by making it susceptible to the whims of personal preference rather than objective truth. Aristotle’s lost roadmap for human connection While Stoicism enjoys a massive cultural resurgence, other ancient frameworks that offer perhaps more realistic paths to flourishing remain neglected. Joe Folley argues that Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics remains the most useful philosophical text ever written, specifically because of its grounded realism. Unlike the Stoics, who claimed one could be happy even while being tortured on a rack, Aristotle acknowledged that human flourishing requires certain baseline physical and social conditions. He famously identified the "Golden Mean," the idea that virtue is the stable point between two extremes—courage, for example, is the midpoint between cowardice and recklessness. Perhaps the most urgent lesson for the modern era lies in Aristotle’s deep dive into the nature of friendship. In a world increasingly organized around the binary of the individual and the romantic partner, the Aristotelian concept of "friendships of virtue" has nearly vanished. These are not merely friendships of convenience or pleasure, but partnerships where two people hold a mutual duty to help each other become more virtuous. Aristotle viewed these bonds as a foundational pillar of the "good life," yet modern culture places significantly less emphasis on friendship than almost any other point in Western history. Reclaiming this communal responsibility is not just a social nicety; it is a psychological necessity for resilience. Navigating the seductive pull of pessimistic realism Philosophy is often caricatured as a gateway to depression, a reputation fueled by the works of Arthur Schopenhauer and Emil Cioran. These thinkers suggest that suffering is the fundamental characteristic of existence. Joe Folley highlights Emil Cioran as a philosopher who, despite his dark outlook, managed to find a bizarre, comedic levity in the absurdity of despair. There is a psychological "U-shaped curve" to suffering: a small amount is agonizing, but an overwhelming, comical amount of misfortune can actually trigger laughter and a lowering of stakes. By accepting that the world is "meaningless," some find a paradoxical sense of freedom. However, this line of thinking reaches its most rigorous and challenging conclusion in Anti-natalism. David Benatar, in his work Better Never to Have Been, presents the "Asymmetry Argument," which claims that while the absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not necessarily bad if there is no one there to miss it. From this logical standpoint, bringing a child into the world is seen as an immoral imposition of guaranteed suffering for the sake of only potential, unneeded pleasure. While Alex O’Connor and Joe Folley express skepticism toward the robustness of this view, it serves as a stark reminder of how purely analytical logic can lead to conclusions that feel intuitively abhorrent to the human spirit. The Panpsychist revolution in consciousness For decades, Materialism has been the default setting for the scientific and philosophical study of the mind. This view suggests that consciousness is an "emergent" property of complex biological matter—essentially, that if you arrange enough neurons in the right way, the "lights turn on." Yet, as Alex O’Connor points out, this fails to explain how non-material experiences, like the "feel" of a triangle in the mind’s eye, can arise from grey matter. This "Hard Problem" has led to a surging interest in Panpsychism, the view that consciousness is not an add-on, but a fundamental building block of the universe itself. If consciousness is fundamental, the difference between a rock and a human brain is not the presence of consciousness, but its complexity. Alex O’Connor uses the analogy of the Empire State Building versus a pile of bricks: both are made of the same matter, but one is arranged to perform complex functions like elevators and lighting. In this framework, the brain is the "Empire State Building" of fundamental consciousness. This shifts the focus from "how does matter create mind?" to "how does fundamental mind combine into a unified self?" This "Combination Problem" remains the greatest hurdle for Panpsychism, especially when considering Split-brain patients whose hemispheres can seemingly operate as two distinct conscious agents. Morality as the echo of human emotion If we strip away divine commands and objective moral facts, we are left with Emotivism. This theory, championed by A.J. Ayer, suggests that moral statements are not factual claims about the world, but mere expressions of emotion. To say "murder is wrong" is not to state a truth like "the sky is blue," but to say "Murder—Boo!" with an angry emoji. This "Boo/Hurrah" theory of ethics suggests that what we call morality is actually our brain’s way of labeling unique emotional reactions to social stimuli. Alex O’Connor points to the near-universal taboo against incest as a prime example of Emotivism in action. When asked why incest is wrong in a sterile, consequence-free scenario, most people struggle to provide a rational, secular justification. Instead, they eventually settle on the fact that it is simply "gross." This visceral disgust—the Westermark effect—is an evolutionary mechanism, not a logical proof. While this might suggest morality is "just vibes," it does not mean it is arbitrary. Our shared evolutionary history and the pragmatic requirements for social survival provide a stable, if not objective, foundation for what we feel is right and wrong. The burden of the philosophical communicator As philosophy moves from the ivory tower to the digital arena, a new question arises: what is the ethical duty of the "philosophy influencer"? Alex O’Connor and Joe Folley wrestle with the responsibility of discussing high-stakes topics like Suicide and Nihilism to an audience of millions. Unlike academic philosophers, their words may reach someone in a moment of genuine crisis. This requires a delicate balance between intellectual playfulness and a "healthy dose of agnosticism." True philosophical growth happens one intentional step at a time, often starting with the realization that even the "experts" don't have the final word. The goal of public philosophy is not to provide a definitive set of answers, but to equip individuals with the tools to navigate their own existence. By front-loading their own fallibility, communicators can encourage a form of self-awareness that is both empathetic and motivating. In the end, philosophy is not a destination but a process—a way of staying curious about the mystery of being alive and recognizing the inherent strength required to face it.