“Is Logical” is Not “Will Act Logically” – So What’s a Philosopher to Do?

In my book Breaking the Free Will Illusion for the Betterment of Humankind I make a logical case against free will (I prove a negative through proof of impossibility). I then go on to explain that if (the majority of) people understand this logical case, and if they understand what follows from such and act accordingly, the world will be a much “better” place than it currently is in many regards.

Saying something “is logical”, however, is not the same as saying someone actually “will act logically”, or hold a logical belief, or even care to educate them-self on the topic. For example, if I say that a certain type of fairness and equality follow logically from the rational understanding that there is no free will (and give the case as to why), that is not the same as saying that someone who believes there is no free will will act fair or equal  – which implies they took the time to learn about it, and care enough to act on it.

It’s important to point this out, because it’s not enough that we “put the information out there” about the lack of free will. It’s not even enough that people become educated on the lack of free will and what logically follows from the understanding. Just as important is to get people to want to align with what is logical or rational. To care enough about philosophy and what is true.

This is easier said than done. In a world where people have their own personal lives to contend with, it’s no easy task to ask people to analyze their beliefs and actions logically and care about such. People are caught up in their job (or obtaining one), family or friend drama, cleaning the house or apartment, worrying about taxes or bills, getting groceries for the week, walking the dog, illness, a crying baby, and an endless list of demands their very existence requires. The last thing they want to do with their spare time is worry about the world or analyze a hard philosophical problem. Most would rather just veg on the couch and let the television carry their personal problems away for hours (or play video games, or surf YouTube for funny vids, etc). They don’t want to have to think too deeply about things in their “relax” time. I can sympathize with this.

It seems the best a philosopher (or scientist, etc.) can do is make the logical case in hopes that some people do care enough about the topics the philosopher has concerns over, and that those who do can find the information. But to get most people to actually care, and even when they might, to get them to find the pertinent information easily, one needs to move outside of the actual philosophy and into “marketing”. And that’s not done entirely on the logic scale.

“Marketing” often carries with it a negatively connotation that reminds people of gimmicks, late night infomercials, sales calls during suppertime, advertisements with half-dressed people on them, unsolicited emails, and even things such as malware. People who stoop to “marketing” to obtain a larger audience are often told they’ve “sold out”. This leaves a conundrum for the person who thinks it important to educate as many people as possible on a topic.

The problem with much of philosophy is that it often doesn’t reach out to those outside of academic circles, and it’s often built on philosophical language and jargon that is outside of the reach of the lay-person. Even with the Internet and new media, and the ease at which someone can put their words where people can technically find them, without marketing – such often becomes buried in a place where little to no one can or will actually get to it. For some philosophers that is fine. For some, their only consideration is for those academic circles and to boost their own academic credentials.

For others, however, philosophy is only as important as the people it can reach. For some, philosophy isn’t about mental masturbation, or academic praise, but entirely about changing the world. And such a philosopher needs to become a proponent for getting that information to others, and that means working outside of their philosophical box and into marketing their ideas. And to do that they need to take up valuable time creating a platform. They need to be on social media. They need to have a website/blog and try to get it to show up in search engines using optimization. They need to create easy to digest memes, infographics, videos, and so on. Whatever they can build in time for. It’s not as simple as submitting a paper, writing a book, or even creating a blog (none of those being an easy task either) .

Sure, those are all ways to have your words “out there”, but there needs to be some mechanism that will draw people to read such and to care about such. There needs to be something that makes philosophy easier for the general public to digest. One can’t just expect someone to turn off the television and read a long, drawn out, and perfectly logical post. To get someone to read that article, their interest needs to be peaked on the topic to begin with.

So philosophers, scientists, and anyone who wants to educate the public, need to become versed in “marketing”. And they need to try to do so while avoiding those negative ways to market. They need to offer useful, easily digestible, and related content and not spam. They need to try to spread their content with social media, and find time to interact with people on a personal level.  They need to remove some of their ego and pride and not be afraid to ask others to help spread the word, or help spread their articles and graphics on social media or websites, or help fund the time and expense it takes the philosopher to create and market these important ideas.

When it doesn’t follow from “X is logical” to “people caring about X enough to become educated and acting accordingly”, philosophers need to change their mindset about philosophy. It needs to become something that we help build a passion for in others. At least if we are looking for larger leaps of change in the world which keeping things within academic circles doesn’t offer.

And understanding the way mind-sets and ideas are causally changed, means that we simply need to assess the best causal ways to reach the largest number of minds in a number of different ways that allow for those ideas to be absorbed efficiently and create passion about the topic. But again, this is easier said than done. When I say “for the Betterment of Humankind” in my book, that assumes if the “Free Will Illusion” does end up causally broken within the minds of the masses. It doesn’t necessitate that such is the actual outcome that “will happen”, only that I hope I and others, now and in the future, can reach enough minds that such will be our causal future. But considering we can’t know the future, and the uphill battle needed, there is never a guarantee!

The following two tabs change content below.

• Bio
• Latest Posts

'Trick Slattery

'Trick Slattery is the author of Breaking the Free Will Illusion for the Betterment of Humankind. He's an author, philosopher, artist, content creator, and entrepreneur. He has loved and immersed himself in philosophy since he was teenager. It is his first and strongest passion. Throughout the years he has built a philosophy based on analytic logic and critical thinking. Some of the topics he is most interested in are of a controversial variety, but his passion for the topics and their importance drives him to want to express these ideas to others. His other passions include pen and ink line art and digital artwork.

Latest posts by 'Trick Slattery (see all)

• Semantic Shift Day, August 31 – REMINDER! Mark your calendar! - August 1, 2020
• Debunking Dennettian Diatribe - May 2, 2018
• Compatibilism: A Parable (comic) - December 7, 2017