Earth 1

 With a nod to Rachel Maddow, I will designate Earth 2 as the place where Donald Trump won the 2020 election but it was stolen from him by any number of factors. Back on Earth 1, we regard these "factors" as having one thing in common. They are imaginary.

For the sake of discussion, I will lump all imaginary universes into Rachel's Earth 2. In Earth 2:

• Jesus is the son of God
• We have a soul that survives death with various fates according to which continent of Earth 2 you inhabit
• Numerous observations about the real world or the nature of human beings (such as evolution or the distressingly meaty nature of the human) must be overlooked or outright denied.

The reader can readily see what I mean by Earth 2 and perhaps guess how easy it is to travel from one portion of Earth 2 (where Trump is saving children from Democrat pedophiles) to another, where Jesus reads our thoughts and helps us find our car keys.

In philosophy, Earth 1 is a place where "It is that case that ..." makes sense. It is the case that the Earth is billions of years old and that Trump lost the 2020 election. It is the case that I have 1,231.32 in my banking account, although I am free to debate about what "money" actually is.

There is a vast space between Earth 1 and Earth 2 since all of us are forced to live in a world with gravity (Earth 1) and, to some extent, believe that the lives have more meaning than a frozen pork chop (Earth 2). We live, so to speak, with one foot in both worlds. But this is a matter of degree. For example, about 1/3 of the American voting public lives quite comfortably in Earth 2, believing not only in conspiracies that robbed Trump of the election but in Jesus who read their thoughts, hates Democrats, and helps with the car keys.

Such considerations lead me to the broader question of how we might classify what passes for our "philosophy of life". By this, I mean philosophy in the ancient sense: the theory behind the way we act in life. The ideas that determine our goals and our ideas about who we are or perhaps who we should be. I seriously doubt that 75% of humans now alive have anything like a coherent philosophy of life. It's not essential and they don't miss it.

Nonetheless, I  find a remarkable distinction between philosophies based on Earth 2 and those with roots in Earth 1. "Western" readers will immediately recognize Christianity as beating an Earth 2 philosophy, with a fundamental world view at odds with Earth 1. Everything is created by a spirit called "God" who has a recognizably human personality. God stands in the place of Earth 1 physics. All serious Christians are forced to place a heavy weight on their foot that lives in Earth 2.

But Christianity is far from the only comprehensive philosophy. In fact, its place in history seems to be an accident of circumstance. As philosophies go, it is narrow and threadbare, almost childish. Beyond the imaginary quest for eternal life and the stunningly flexible set of rules to get there, it offers little of substance.

The philosophy that inspired this essay is "Stoicism", more precisely the Stoicism advocated by William Ervine in "A Guide to the Good Life".  Stoicism is an interesting set of ideas hardly deserving the name of a "philosophy" since in Ervine's view, it's mainly a set of mental tricks to maintain a calm mental state in the face of the trauma of life. As such, it belongs more in Earth 2 than Earth 1. It quite consciously attempts to alter the stories we tell ourselves about what is happening to us.  The language is, as far as I can tell, more or less what psychiatrists would call "Cognitive Therapy". It lacks the psychological depth of Zen (which offers radical Earth 1 procedures for observing the nature of thought) but simply acts as if we can just overcome such thoughts by reason alone. In fact, the awesome power of reason is coopted to the task of telling ourselves counter-factual stories about what life is.

In this aspect, Stoicism (Ervine version) renders itself to be indistinguishable from broader, more effective programs for self-improvement such as Stephen Covy's "Seven Habits of Effective People", the latter including the tricks of the former but much more besides.

This is a shame because the original (Greek) version of Stoicism seems to have been more comprehensive with ample room for Earth 1 consideration. According to Ervine himself, this school offered instruction in logic, physics, and ethics. 

"Logic" refers to the Greek advances in logic, geometry, and mathematics that eventually became the vast field of modern mathematics underlying, for example, computer science. Philosophers may nit-pick about the issue, but most of us regard mathematics as having a foundational place in Earth 1.

"Physics" refers to an interest in how things work in the "real world". This would eventually expand into what we now call "Science".

"Ethics" was concerned with virtue, not exactly what was sold to the Romans, mere peace of mind.

Even in the case of "Virtue", we can see the roots of the vast field of Law, which (effectively or not) attempts to reward virtue and punishes the lack of it. For example, in a court, it makes sense to ask if A intentionally misled B, thereby committing fraud. A jury is charged to determine the facts of the case - i.e, what is the case ...

I am left with the impression that Ervine has rather dropped the ball. in packaging Stoicism for sale and therefore must face competition with the vast category of self-improvement books which fail to rise to the status of "philosophy". The "Greek" version seems to have a shot at being comprehensive though possibly incomplete. It needs to be taken seriously and updated to the present state of knowledge. There is something appealing in the attempt to structure a student's education (for Stoicism was a school) in this way.

I am left with curiosity about the Greek insights, which seem to augment and complement the foundational concepts behind Buddhism, Taoism, and Zen.  All of these begin with observation of the human condition. All attempt to provide a framework for daily living. None of them can be boiled down to pop philosophy in the self-help section of the book store.