 My friend Philip just doesn't get enough calcium in his diet. I'm starting to worry about his bones to be honest. I bought him some supplements just to get Phil ossified. Let's say that you have a friend who you've never seen wear anything but this outfit. Cargo pants and a plain t-shirt, sneakers, maybe a jacket if it gets cold. No matter what the context whether going out to a bar or a show or a party it's always the same. When you finally break down and ask why he never mixes it up with a dress shirt or jeans or maybe a hat or something. He rolls his eyes at you. Ugh. You sound like those fashion shows on TV. Look, this clothing is perfectly functional. It keeps me warm and hides my bits. It's what I've been wearing since I was a kid and I'm fine. I'm not going to fall down some wackadoodle rabbit hole of fashion and end up like Lady Gaga. You'd probably agree that your friend is missing something. It's certainly possible that cargo pants really are the best choice for him, but he hasn't explored his options enough to really make that choice. Maybe he'd look great in a suit. Maybe he'd look great in a track suit. Maybe deep down he's a nudist at heart. Who can say? But how could you suggest that investing a little extra thought in what he's wearing might benefit your friend, especially after that response? Don't know, don't care is a hard thing to combat already, but there's also a sentiment that a certain level of analysis isn't just unnecessary, but hazardous. That leads to a sort of persistent confusion. That once you start thinking about these things you'll be drawn ever deeper into a well of increasingly bizarre ideas until you're wearing a meat dress. If you were to suggest that what you wear expresses something to the world, even if you don't choose the message, he'd probably wave it off and say it only matters to those crazy people who shop somewhere other than Walmart. This is an apt metaphor for the problem of philosophy. Everyone lives according to some philosophy. You might not know what it is exactly or think about the decisions we're making in those terms, but our actions and choices all reflect certain judgments about what exists, what it means, what we ought to do, and similar aspects of our experience. Like your friend, if you don't really want to invest in making those decisions consciously, you were probably born into a situation where you don't have to reflect on any of it. You can simply live by the general attitudes that have been curated by history and evolution, and you'll probably be fine. Many people have reservations about engaging with philosophical literature that echo the Lady Gaga comment, citing the wacky conclusions some philosophers come to as a clear indication that some, or all of them, must be somewhat deranged, disconnected from reality, and that becoming familiar with it or taking it seriously might impart the same madness. If you were to suggest that adopting the default philosophy you were born into is making a philosophical decision, even if they don't explicitly pick that philosophy for themselves, they'd probably wave it off and say that that only matters to those crazy philosophy people. In both cases, there's little you can raise in the way of objections that might change someone's mind. You can say they're missing out on something fun or something that you found enriching or rewarding, that might grant them insights that aid them in interacting with others and the world, but you can't compel them to care about a subject that has little in the way of quantifiable practical benefits, or to learn enough to get a sense for its value. Cargo-Panson, correspondence theory until they die, I guess. Still, let's say that you can coax someone out of a position of deliberate ignorance into something like a grudging acknowledgement that it's not all BS, that there might be something of value in learning some philosophy. Now we run into a different problem. Many of the ideas in philosophical discourse are ideologically charged, having far-reaching implications for our beliefs. While someone who's just getting into fashion might try on a few different things to find a style they like, those who are testing the waters in philosophy often feel some sort of threat from theories that conflict with their preconceptions and end up approaching the subject looking for tribes, for causes to rally behind and misguided idiots to make fun of. When I first started reading about epistemology and theories of mind, I went looking for well-established positions that supported my existing attitudes, and let me tell you something. If you thought confirmation bias was bad, loading it up with arguments that have been developed, cold, and reinforced over centuries of continuous dialogue and debate was like driving a ratchet with an impact wrench. I celebrated with the folks I agreed with and gleefully cheered them on when they dunked on others who challenged my worldview. Yay, our side. That's a tough hurdle to overcome, but thankfully the nuance with which philosophers pursue their inquiries poses a challenge for even the most dedicated wannabe zealots, so long as they stick with their studies. Maybe you've decided from reading the Wikipedia definitions that deontology is baloney, and consequentialist ethics are definitely the way to go. But what kind? Straight, hedonistic, or more pluralistic? Preference consequentialism? Rule consequentialism? If so, is it acceptance, public acceptance, or obedience rule consequentialism? To figure out where you should set up camp, you have to navigate a labyrinth of complex decisions, and at some level of detail you're going to realize that you simply don't have any preconceptions about which side you're on. It was a curious and slightly uncomfortable feeling to not have damning convictions about something, simply because I'd never thought about it at that level of detail. I sheepishly realized that I hadn't looked very closely at many of the items I'd already checked off, and on revisiting them discovered complications and implications I'd never considered, reasons to doubt my naive assumptions. More and more I found myself not firmly committed to any particular answer, able to appreciate excellent points made on all sides and not urgently needing to dismantle or defend some argument. I could pick up an idea, appreciate it, maybe change my mind or change it back, and move on. It was nice. It still is. As a dude who's so pathologically opinionated that he makes videos on the internet, that attitude, what a Peronian skeptic might call Adaraxia, was hard won, and I consider it to be the greatest practical benefit that I've gained from my study of philosophy. That's not to say the other benefits aren't significant. I've obviously enjoyed thinking about this stuff, my life is richer for having considered it, and I feel like knowing the historical background and evolution of certain concepts makes me better at dealing with their modern-day echoes. Of course, when I have a firm conviction about something, I still go to bat for it, with the benefit of those well-honed arguments. But I've also gotten into the habit of working through unfamiliar concepts and seeking out their fun or valuable aspects, even if I don't ultimately agree with their conclusions. And I've internalized the possibility that, even in urgent issues with drastic implications, there may not always be an indisputably correct answer. It's almost like philosophy has become more like fashion than deeply held in unquestionable facts of the universe. I might wake up tomorrow feeling a little more deontological or virtue-ethicy. I might try on stoicism for a week, just to see if it suits me. When I see people who endorse some weird and alien philosophy, maybe something radical like panpsychism or anti-natalism, I don't look to shoot it down. I try to figure out what it's doing for them, if there's anything of use or of interest there. That print is just freaking outrageous! What would I need to pull it off? That's what's working for me, and I think it's probably the best way to approach philosophy. I could be convinced otherwise. Do you agree? Please leave a comment below and let me know what you think. And with yet another message that thinking hard about things is both fun and rewarding, happy sixth thunk-aversary. I wanted to say here that I've just recently started a thunk discord server, and it's been phenomenal. I've wanted more community interaction with my audience since the very beginning, and I've tried Reddit and some other things, and it just wasn't working, and the thunk discord channel is exactly what it needed to be, and it's just the people there and the conversations have been phenomenal so far. So if you have any inclination to come by and say hi, definitely check out the link that's in the description, and I'll see you there. Thank you very much for watching, however long you've been watching. Don't forget to bottle subscribe while I share, and don't stop thunking.