What is your Philosophy?

I normally write about business and marketing and what is wrong with both. This leads me into economics and its more recent lack of social purpose – I blame Behavioural Economics – and I end up with a bit of philosophising. A good friend who is always gracious enough to read my work commented on a draft of my latest eBook and asked if I had been influenced by the philosopher Hannah Arendt. I hadn’t, I’d never heard of her but am now reading some of her work (we are more than just a production or consumption unit, we need to be socially engaged). His comment prompted me to try working the other way around for a change – start with the philosophy and work back to business and marketing. So here it is, strap in, it’s a long read (10,000 words).

If there’s something strange
In your neighbourhood
Who you gonna call?

If there’s something weird
And it don’t look good
Who you gonna call?

Is it time to call for the Philosophers?

The lyrics of Ray Parker Jr. taken from his song ‘ Ghostbusters’ for the film of the same name. If we’re unhappy about the state of the world, things look strange and weird, we’re concerned and worried about the future, it don’t look too good, we are about as likely to call for the philosopher as we are to call for the Ghostbusters. But we should (call for the philosopher that is, not the exorcists).

When we meet someone who we want to get to know we might ask them what they do. If they told us they were a philosopher what would we think? Most people would not have a clue what being a philosopher really meant or what it involved but notwithstanding would assume it related to some kind of naval-gazing academic job. QI – quite interesting but not really relevant to everyday life or global challenges.

There was a time when being a philosopher was a very big deal. Plato, Aristotle, Socrates were the rock stars of their time, as important if not more important than Kings and Emperors because the most powerful force in the world was, and still is, ideas and philosophers had ideas about life and how those ideas should govern what we do. The ideas that came from a long line of philosophers have shaped our world. Ideas from  the Greek philosophers like Plato (Demo-cracy, the power of the people) and many of the ideas that followed from some well-known names like Machiavelli (the end justifies the means), Karl Marx (class conflict) and perhaps, outside academia,  the less well known like Rousseau and Locke (nature versus nurture), John Stuart Mill (freedom means doing what you want as long as it does not harm others), Wittengenstein (the world is not ordained, it is what we make it), Jean Paul Sartre (belief in God is a distraction,  life is absurd, our choices define our lives) remain highly relevant to the challenges we face. Do we believe in the power of the people and what do we mean by that (what political system works best)? Do the ends justify the means – in an emergency like a pandemic are governments free to do whatever they think right even if it curtails our human rights? Are we free to pursue any lifestyle, any gender we want? What does ‘not harming others’ mean? As people are we able to break free of our background, is how we’re nurtured and taught more important than our basic nature? Is God a distraction, is life whatever we choose to make it, can we change the course of nature and history? Or is there a higher force with a pre-ordained plan?

Philosophers are very careful with language. They need to deal in precise definitions because misunderstandings can undermine an idea or argument. This accounts for the naval-gazing reputation because philosophers will take a long time to debate the meaning of everything, even the meaning of the word ‘idea’ or ‘argument’ let alone morality, ethics, nature (Wittengenstein was particularly hot on this). There are many rabbit holes down which one can disappear as one wrestles with different philosophies.

However, there is one definition that does need to be made clear, the difference between philosophy and religion. Philosophy is concerned with ideas about life, its meaning and how it should affect behaviour, what we do, in all aspects life. The product of philosophy is therefore an ideology, a system of beliefs. Theology is the study of God and religion, a system of beliefs based on ones understanding of God is what you get from a theologists and religious leaders.

Philosophers and their ideas were once more powerful than Kings and Emperors (philosophers like Socrates were killed for their beliefs) but arguably more powerful than either were Religious Leaders.

It is not true to say all philosophers were or are atheists. The majority have been either atheists or agnostics, at the very least they have questioned religion and religious belief, it was their job to do so. Aristotle and Plato believed in God (define God – a higher power?). One of the things that got Socrates into trouble was that he was more inclined to believe in one god rather than ‘The Gods’ which contradicted the prevailing religion in his day. Jesus, whatever else one believes about him, son of God, Messiah, prophet, was also a philosopher and he definitely believed in God.

Philosophy is neither framed nor constrained by religious belief. Theology is both framed and constrained by whatever one believes about God. It might offend the religious to say so but any set of ideas by which one lives is an ideology or a philosophy however, in theology or religion any challenge to the ideology, any gaps in knowledge, any inconsistencies, any lack of evidence or proof is explained away by faith. One might say that a religious theology is basically a set of ideas full of holes plugged by faith. There is nothing wrong with faith, it is essential to us, we cannot function without it. If we trust nothing and no-one we are unable to do anything. We cannot live our lives questioning everything. We need some faith in our relationships and the future to make life worth living. On the other hand we have to question some things, we can’t just rely on trust and faith, we have to require proof on occasions. No-one would trust a scientist if they just guessed. No-one should trust a philosopher if they plug the holes in an argument with faith or religious belief. But that is an atheist’s point of view.

Religion in all its forms is still the dominant ideology in the world. The majority of people on the planet identify with one or other of the major religions such as Christianity (30%), Islam (25%) or Hinduism (15%). So if you believe in God and Religion then in times of trouble who are you going to call? Ghostbusters, or  Priests, or Imams or any religious leaders and they will have a point of view on how to deal with life’s challenges. But it might require faith and might be light on proof. Their thinking will not be as intellectually rigorous as a philosopher and yet most people no longer seem to appreciate the importance of philosophy and philosophers. A casual search on Google threw up the following list of modern day philosophers.

  • Sally Haslanger.
  • Daniel Dennett.
  • Linda Martin Alcoff.
  • Martha Nussbaum.
  • David Chalmers.
  • Jennifer Saul.
  • Noam Chomsky.
  • Jürgen Habermas
  • Steven Pinker
  • Jordan Peterson

All are highly respected in academic circles and among the bon pensant but none are exactly household names. Jordan Peterson and Steve Pinker have a wider notoriety but they were added to catch the reader out. They are psychologists not philosophers.

It could be that contemporary philosophers haven’t added much to the thinking of ‘the great philosophers’ but as has been pointed out beyond Plato, Aristotle and Marx few of ‘the greats’ are well known outside academia. Speaking of which, in American universities Philosophy is the 89th most popular major accounting for less than 0.2% of all students (one in every 500) so not that popular.

Philosophy is not seen as mainstream, it is seen as academic in the popular sense of the word which is to say not relevant to real life and real life problems and this at a time where we face some very big real life problems.

  • We are just emerging from a global pandemic and the biggest shock to the global economy ever seen.
  • The gap between ‘the haves’ and ‘the have-nots’ is wide and getting wider
  • The Geo-political tectonic plates are shifting, we are closer to global conflict than at any time since 1945
  • We face potentially disastrous climate change
  • We are just starting to see the impact of AI and robotics which will have the biggest impact on society since we invented the wheel using opposable thumbs

Now more than ever we need philosophy, a belief system with fully joined up thinking to guide our actions and decisions but now more than ever we think philosophy is academic, irrelevant. We have religious ideologies but as ever they seem conflicted and literally in conflict, with each other and with political ideologies (essentially totalitarianism or democracy).

We could do with a modern day Plato or Aristotle or Socrates.

Where did it all go wrong for Philosophy?

The answer is ‘The Enlightenment’, the period that roughly spans the 17th and 18th centuries. This is also known as ‘The Age of Reason’ an explosion in the pursuit of knowledge that spread ideas across the world from science to human rights and liberalism. At the epicenter of this were people like Sir Isaac Newton and Adam Smith. The culmination of it was the French (and maybe the American) Revolution. Not everywhere and to varying degrees, the Age of Reason saw the further separation of State and Church that had begun in the Renaissance. This is very important because it gave space for ideas to develop outside religion and the old world order. It was also the period where philosophy started to fragment.

We think of Sir Isaac Newton as a scientist but in his time he was known as a mathematician and natural philosopher. He saw himself as pursuing a branch of philosophy, one that sought to make sense of the natural world and the physical universe as part of general exploration of the meaning of life and the way the world worked. His particular area of philosophy placed value on observation, measurement, experimentation that would become known as Science. Just before Newton died Adam Smith was born, he went on to write ‘The Wealth of Nations’ and is known as the father of economics but he too saw himself as a philosopher focused on a branch of philosophy that was becoming known as political science (the word ‘economics’ as we know it came along 100 years later, until then it was an aspect of political science).

In ‘The Age of Reason’ philosophy fragmented into a lot of other disciplines and it continues to do so today. By the time we entered the 19th Century we were paying far more attention to Science (in all its forms), Politics, Economics as well as Geography, Medicine and the Arts of course. By the end of 19th century and into the 21st Century we had Sociology, Psychiatry, Psychology, Anthropology –  Philosophy’s Big Bang expansion continued as all the other disciplines fragmented into further specialisations. To bring the fragmentation of philosophy right up to date we now have Behavioural Science and Behavioural Economics that have been enthusiastically embraced by politicians, economists, sociologists, psychologists (if not always enthusiastically embraced behavioural science is at least taken into account by any modern day thinker).

In all this complex and dynamic jigsaw of social and physical sciences Philosophy has lost its clout. The plethora of specific disciplines do not ladder up to a higher philosophical ideology, on the contrary they seem dislocated from philosophy. It is almost as if there has been another kind of Renaissance, a separation not between State and Church but between philosophy and science, both physical and social science. In plain English, by diminishing the role of philosophy we have diminished our ability to do joined up thinking. We know that politicians do not have all the answers, we know neither do economists or sociologists or psychologists or populists or despots. Some might believe religious leaders do but there is no evidence that they do. Another way to look at the difference between (most) religious ideologies and an atheists philosophy is that the latter deals with this life and this world, religion is as much, if not more, concerned with the next life.

However, both religion and philosophy trump the more dislocated, agnostic branches of social and physical science because they have a point of view, a belief system, an ideology not just about how the world works but how it should work. Both religion and philosophy have a purpose which is, to use a popular term, to be the best version of ourselves in the best of all possible worlds. The joined up thinking has a strategic objective.

What did the Renaissance do for you?

Historians will point out that the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment was only made possible by the Renaissance that preceded it. This is undeniably true, the period of cultural rebirth that took us out of the Dark Ages laid the foundations for the explosion of enlightened ideas and not just because of the separation of State and Church. Some very important things happened in the Renaissance that have echoes in the situation we find ourselves today. Guttenberg invented the printing press in 1440 which allowed the spread of ideas but what ideas? At the heart of the Renaissance, the catalyst, was a revival of interest in Ancient Greek philosophy. Without going into details there had been a major shift in the Geo-Political tectonic plates with the Fall of Constantinople as the Byzantine empire gave way to Ottoman empire. This forced the migration of Greek and Latin scholars seeking to flee the conflict and they took with them precious documents containing the writings of the ancient philosophers. Aristotle, Seneca and others and their ideas came back in fashion. Contemporary scholars in the West (that is West Europe) wanted more than just to understand the great ancient philosophers they wanted to exceed them and take the thinking further.

The traumatic wars of the past, the ones that followed in the 17th century and, as some have suggested, the Great Plague of 1665 shook people out of an acceptance of the old order, acceptance held together by superstition, fear and an unquestioning faith in God and King/Queen. It created curiosity about the possibility of a better way to live, better ideas to live by. It created the fertile ground where new ideas, founded in ancient wisdom, could take root, and Guttenberg provided the means to spread them far and wide.

Looking at the situation today, we have had major shocks – wars, plagues, financial crises – our tectonic plates are shifting. We have the internet which creates an ability to share, and access to, ideas on a far greater scale than print. We face existential threats, we are questioning the old order. Is it time to revive an interest in philosophy? Should we start by revisiting the ancient Greek philosophers?

The Wisdom of the Greeks

To defend the idea that the solution to present day problems lies in revisiting Ancient Greek Philosophy is going to require some simplification both in framing the challenges we face and summarizing the ancient philosophical insight that might be of relevance. The argument so far is that philosophy has been side-lined. Philosophy as an overarching ideology (or set of guiding principles and beliefs about how life should work) fragmented into a host of different and often dislocated disciplines such as politics, economics, sociology, psychology etc. The first two, politics and economics, are the dominant forces in shaping our world but they have lost any connection to an over-arching philosophy. This disconnection really began after the end of the Cold War, at the end of 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down. Up until then both politics and economics were connected to two opposing philosophies, Marxism and Liberal Capitalism (both of which trace their roots all the way back to the Greeks).

Marxist philosophy believes in a world with no class structure where everything is owned collectively and everyone receives according to their needs and contributes according to their abilities.

Liberal Capitalism believes in private ownership, letting the forces of the market determine who wins and who loses within a framework of personal liberty.

This is a very simplistic summary and it can be made even simpler. In Marxism the State runs everything for the greater good, in capitalism individuals are free to get ahead, free to get rich.

[The schism depends on ones view of human nature, the role nature versus nurture, what ‘social contract’ we should have with each other and the community or state, subjects that were central to the work of Philosophers like Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes.]

However, the Marxism versus Capitalism debate has been and gone. There are really only three political philosophies and they are in real time conflict because they are so very different.

  1. Democracy – power to the people: USA, Europe, India and others
  • Autocracy – power for the few: China, Russia, Myanmar and others
  • Theocracy – power in the name of God: Islamic States like Iran where State and Religion are united

In these three political systems we can see a connection to three different philosophies on effective government, and this was very clear to the Greeks. They understood autocracy and theocracy, they’d endured them, so they came up with democracy.

What is less obvious is the connection between these political philosophies and a philosophy or point of view on life and people.

  • Is life all about service or is it about seeking pleasure and having fun?
  • Do we work to earn the right to have fun?
  • Are we inherently greedy and selfish so we need a rule-based society?
  • Or are we basically decent and just need society to allow us to be free top grow?
  • Is there a ‘we’ – are we all the same or are we all different?
  • Is it inevitable that we form tribes based on self-interest and identity?

The Greeks understood and wrestled with these questions. Crucially they, the philosophers, believed two things. Firstly, it was important to think about how we should live, not just get on with living. Secondly, in thinking and discussing these issues it was important to do so constructively and with civility.

To create a bridge between the wisdom of the ancient philosophers and our challenges (as they did in the Renaissance faced with the same need to come up with even better ideas for a better society) let us break this down to 3 basic questions:-

  1. Is life about service or pleasure or both?
  2. What is the best political system (based on how similar or different we are)?
  3. What is the best way to debate this?

With this in mind let’s see what the Greeks can teach us.

Stoicism and Hedonism

We use the words stoic or hedonist to describe people. A stoic person is someone who soldiers on uncomplainingly in the face of adversity. A hedonist is someone just out to have fun, a person who thinks life is all about seeking pleasure. By inference a stoic puts their service to a cause or to others before themselves and their own comfort and happiness. A hedonist is all me, me, me.

In fact Stoicism and Hedonism are both schools of Greek Philosophy, there is a lot more to them and they do not necessarily contradict each other.

Stoicism was founded by Zeno of Citium and championed by other Greek philosophers such as Epictetus right through to Seneca, a Roman philosopher, and the philosophizing Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius. Stoics believed in living a virtuous life in harmony with nature. They saw nothing inherently right or wrong in wealth or pleasure but they believed true pleasure lay in virtue and because of this they believed one had to be emotionally resilient to misfortune – being virtuous is not easy. Would we, today, be better off living a more stoic life? Should we not be teaching this to our children? Is this not an antidote to the over-sensitive, virtue-signaling yet decadent and self-oriented culture some people perceive to be the root of our moral decline. Isn’t living in harmony with nature what it means to be green and sustainable?

What about Hedonism? The earliest champion of hedonism, earlier even than Socrates, was the Greek Philosopher Democritus although it wasn’t his main thing. He is better known for his theory that the universe is made up inter-connected atoms, so he was the world’s first atomic scientist. However, he also believed that we should be joyful and cheerful. Many different schools of Hedonistic philosophy followed with some differences of opinion but they all believed it was right to pursue pleasure and avoid pain and suffering. What is not so well understood about hedonism as a philosophy, a misunderstanding that accounts for it becoming synonymous with decadence, is that pleasure could be found in many ways. It could be found in doing work you enjoy, in serving others, in being virtuous. A hedonist believed for example that if there were two ways to travel to a destination why would you not choose the one with the best views? Again this seems very relevant to our world today and not in conflict with stoicism. Study after study shows that we find most pleasure and happiness in having good relationships with those we care about and not in stuff we buy and accumulate. Noel Coward famously said that work is more fun than fun, that the happiest people are those who get paid to do what they enjoy so much they’d do it for free. Is this not what we try to tell our children, find your vocation in something you care about, a job that brings you pleasure?

Lesson number One from the Greeks – pursue a life of stoicism and hedonism.

Fighting for Democracy

We give the credit to Plato for coming up with Demo-cracy – power of the people – as a political system but in fact it was an idea that percolated and circulated among several Greek philosophers, including his famous teacher, Socrates and his famous pupil, Aristotle. Plato just happened to write it up in a book, The Republic. Like stoicism and hedonism the true meaning of democracy has been corrupted and dumbed down over the years. Today it means everyone gets to vote for who they want to govern them, so government is, in theory at least, accountable to the people it serves. We skate over the issue of who gets to vote, it is all adults although maybe not those in prison. Adult means over 21 years old in some countries, 18 years old or even 16 years old in others (16 year olds can vote in Argentina, Austria and several other countries – they were allowed to vote in the Scottish Independence referendum).

In Plato/Socrates’ view only Guardians, the minority who were educated for much longer than the majority Artisans, should be allowed to vote. They voted on behalf of the less educated artisans but they were not an exclusive elite. The child of an artisan could become a Guardian if they showed the aptitude. In Plato’s democracy there was, crucially, equality of opportunity. It was one system of democracy and there are now many, many others. The USA, UK and France would all see themselves as the epitome of democratic political systems and yet the system for voting is radically different in each country. USA has a very bizarre and arcane system that dates back to the end of the civil war and the need to avoid the hegemony of the Northern States over the Southern States. It is a collegiate system where different states are allotted a different number of votes. The determination of this allocation is fairly opaque. This system means that a Presidential candidate can poll more votes than the opposing candidate but can still lose the race to the Whitehouse.

In France they take account of the voters second choice so you can become President by being a popular alternative choice but not most people’s first choice. The UK has a representational system, you vote for a candidate to represent your area and in effect you vote for their party or vice versa. This means a party can assume government with a relatively small minority of the total vote. So when we say, as many of us do, we believe in democracy, what exactly do we mean? Who gets to vote? Why? How do they vote? Why?

A lot of people will say they’re not interested in politics let alone philosophy. However, a lot of voters, close to half the UK population, were really upset by the Brexit result. A lot of people in America were appalled by Trump winning and the other half were disappointed he lost, an outcome that was reversed at the next election. Yet none of those people seem to question the political system. If the UK had used anything close to the USA or French voting system (and/or let 16 years old vote as they did in the Scottish Independence Referendum or insist on a 60% plus majority as they also did in that referendum) the result would have been to remain in the EU. If Americans are concerned about a choice between Trump and Biden they should question their democratic political system that delivers just these two alternatives.

Democracy needs to be debated, not the idea but the application. Perhaps Plato et al had it right all along. Giving power to people, making government accountable to the public, does not mean everyone gets to vote but if not it must mean everyone has the same opportunity to earn the right to vote. We are relying on our governments to address the issues of the day, we need to pay more attention to how we vote them in and out.

Lesson Number Two from the Greeks – democracy is better than the alternatives and worth fighting for, but we need to define precisely what we mean by democracy.

Civil Constructive Debate

The Greek philosophers seemed almost as concerned about how an argument was conducted as the issues being debated. In ‘Republic’ Plato uses a very specific technique to set out the arguments. It is written as a discussion between his mentor Socrates and various other people using constructive questions to stimulate critical thinking and advance the discussion. Examples of a Socratic question are:-

  • What did you mean by that, could you explain it further?
  • Could you give me some examples?
  • Are there circumstances where your argument would not apply?
  • Is there an alternative point of view?

This way of discussing, exploring and developing an argument is known as ‘Socratic Discourse’.

As time went by philosophers became even more precise about different types of argument.

Eristic This is where you seek to dispute someone’s point of view. You are not trying to find the truth, you are trying to prove you are right by proving the other side is wrong.

Didactic This method of debate is intended to educate someone. You know the truth and you are just trying to get the other person to see the light.

Dialectic This is a discourse between two or more people with different points of view who wish to arrive at the truth through reasoned argument.

In a dialectic argument one person sets out their point of view, their thesis. The person sets out their opposing view, the anti-thesis and the objective through constructive discussion and debate is to arrive at a conclusion, the synthesis, one that is stronger than either the thesis or anti-thesis (not a compromise, a better and more informed idea).

Having a number of ‘existential’ challenges – climate change, growing economic disparity, clashes of ideology, AI and robotics – is scary enough but what is even scarier is our inability to discuss them thoroughly, constructively and with civility. Social media, soundbites, echo chambers, fake news, identity politics have created an unhealthy polarisation of views and robbed us of our ability to discuss issues ‘Socratically’. With no dialectic debate we are left with eristic and didactic argument – ‘I’m right, you’re wrong, let me put you right’. Worst still if we disagree with someone (or an institution) on one issue our views on everything are cancelled, a platform for debate is removed from us.

That the world has problems is not the concern, problems can always be solved, if by no other means then by changing the rules and assumptions. That the world seems to be losing the ability to discuss and debate constructively and effectively is terrifying. It is often impossible to test out and prove a solution, strategy or proposed course of action, even in science and law, it is only possible to test the assumptions on which it is based. To do that you need to ask the right questions.

Lesson number Three from the Greeks – argument is good, not knowing how to argue and ask the right questions so as to get to better answers is bad.

Some important caveats

This is a very simplistic overview.

It only refers to Western philosophy, there is a wealth of forgotten wisdom in eastern philosophy. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are very important, so are Lao Tzu, Buddha and Confucius.

Neither the ancient Greek nor the ancient eastern philosophers had to contend with technology. In their day technology and scientific discovery progressed slowly, today their evolution is exponential.

However, the intention was to create a renaissance in our appreciation of the importance of philosophy and demonstrate the relevance of over-arching ideas not just about how the world works but about how it should work so as to solve the challenges we face,. The hope is we re-establish the idea of philosophy as the superior discipline able to connect and guide politics, economics, psychology and technology. Philosophy should guide all social, physical, natural and  technological science, it should frame everything, but these four are highlighted because our ‘playbooks’ predominantly come from them.

The importance of philosophy to everyone and everything.

If we meet someone and want to get to know them what do we do? If the meeting is face to face whether consciously (or cognitively) but more often unconsciously we look at them and weigh them up according to our assessment of their socio-demographics. Are they young or old, do they look well off or down at heel, male, female (or non-binary)? We also weigh them up by their appearance and demeanour – smartly dressed and smiling or tattooed, wearing a hoodie and sullen. We will take in lots of other visual cues as to which ethnic group they come from, any other signs or badges that indicate with whom and which community or interest groups they identify.

This takes just a few seconds and so far the person has said nothing. In the process of this initial assessment we will, with unconscious bias, have bought to bear all our prejudices whatever they may be. There is no point in trying to turn off prejudice we are primordially programmed to make hasty judgement based on heuristics or mental short-hands. Without this ability we could not live or survive – if you hear a rustle in the hedgerow you jump first, ask questions later.

So we will have an initial opinion of the person. Then we might ask a few questions probably starting with ‘what do you do?’ or ‘what’s your background’. We will use the answers to these questions to confirm, modify or challenge our initial assessment but unless we are an open-minded and self-disciplined person more often than not we will listen more to the answers that confirm our prejudice. Is this someone I can trust, someone I’d like to spend time with, is it someone I want to hire? Is it someone whose views are worth listening to?

It would be far better to cut to the chase and ask them:-

“What is your philosophy on life?”

Assuming they were prepared to answer you honestly and assuming they understood what the question meant you would know very quickly whether the person was someone you want to get to know, hang out with, hire or trust.

If the tattooed, hoodie wearing, sullen looking youth, with a Millwall Football Club scarf replied, “My philosophy on life is that you are happiest if you work hard at something you feel makes a difference to other people and you should not give in to adversity” you might warm to them.

If the smiley, besuited ‘gent’, with an MCC tie replied, “You only get one shot at life, I think you owe it to yourself to grab what you can and have as much fun as possible” you might not warm to them, or perhaps you might.

We tend to like people who have a similar outlook on life to ourselves even if their interests and background are very different. A shared philosophy is able to cut through prejudice.

From people let’s turn to business. A company will share their mission statement and often their values, they might even share their strategy. With credit to Simon Sinek who popularised the importance of ‘why’ in corporate endeavour it has become fashionable for a business to state their purpose. All of this allows us to infer a lot about their basic philosophy on business but it is still inference. Only a few corporations or institutions will share their philosophy on life and how that relates to their philosophy on business. If they don’t share their philosophy then they are hiding something or they haven’t thought about it deeply enough, so there isn’t really anything public or explicit or thought-through that guides their actions.

Some might think this is unfair, if a business shares its purpose and its values, does that not tell you pretty much their belief system, their ideology? No not really.

It’s been left quite late in this essay to define what philosophy really means but it is relevant now in order to highlight the difference between an individual and an organisation or collective. An individual can be expected to have a philosophy (which might come from their religious belief, we will return to that shortly). In this sense philosophy is a thing, an ideology, a set of beliefs by which one navigates life’s choices and challenges. You can have a philosophy without being a philosopher.

Literally philosophy is a ‘love of knowledge and wisdom’ and in this sense it is an activity, a constant search to understand more about the world, how it works, how it should work, one’s role in that. When it comes to an organisation like a business, they may have a philosophy in the same way they may have a strategy, but just like strategy, philosophy is also an activity, a constant desire to know more and adapt as the world evolves. For a business, if you are in any way a stakeholder, you want to know not just what is their philosophy now but also in what way are they trying to develop it. Philosophy comes before strategy and everyone knows that strategy evolves as circumstances and society changes. So philosophy should be an activity not just ‘a thing’.

Let’s use a real example, Vodafone, the European and African Telecommunications Business to illustrate the potential for philosophy in business. From their web site this is their mission statement.

Vodafone mission statement is: “To connect for a better future and our expertise and scale gives us a unique opportunity to drive positive change for society.” 

Vodafone believes in connecting and empowering people for the better. It also focuses on socio-economic progress and protecting the planet. Additionally, the company also focuses on becoming the favorite brand of its customer. It does so by continuously raising the bar in providing a delightful experience, cutting-edge service, and meaningful innovations. Here are the main components of Vodafone mission statement:

Inclusion of all: Vodafone believes in inclusion for all and providing a set of opportunities for growth to all. This includes bridging the boundaries in our society so that everyone can contribute to the best of their ability. The company also focuses on creating gender equality by opening opportunities to women. It also connects 10 million youth to learn digital skills educate themselves and get employment. It connects and empowers people and communities. 

Establishing a digital world– Through its digital services, the company wants to contribute towards growth, economic prosperity, and sustainable development. This is an important aspect of Vodafone mission statement. To ensure that everyone gets a fair opportunity in this fast-paced digital age, it wants to enhance the accessibility of technology so that everyone can take advantage of this change for betterment. 

Planet / Environment care- Further, it also makes efforts to become the most-valued company by leading smartly and meeting the government’s standards while ensuring minimal environmental impact. The company is working towards reducing greenhouse emissions by 50%, using renewable sources of electricity, and ensuring that e-waste is tacked in the best way minimizing environmental impact. These green initiatives of the company reveal that Vodafone takes its responsibility towards the environment is as important as its expansion plans and profitability. 

What does this tell you? Not much really. They are big, they think what they do, i.e. connectivity, can make the increasingly digital world a better place and they believe in diversity, opportunity and saving the planet. That is pretty much what their competitors say about themselves too

In 2019 Vodafone were rated as the worst mobile phone network in the UK for the 8th consecutive year. If they want to be the favourite brand and offer ‘a delightful experience’ they are not doing a great job in one of their biggest markets. On the other hand in the same year in South Africa, where they  trade as Vodacom, they were rated the best. So Vodacom/Vodafone are a bit patchy, their ‘mission and values’ do not seem to be working very consistently. Might this be because they are confected?.

We will leave that question hanging…………

Most businesses will set out the following:-

Our mission is…. and what will follow is some way of expressing what winning looks like

Our purpose is…. and what will follow is some expression of a higher purpose that makes the world a better place

We believe in…..

……and what will follow normally cover the following:-

  • We care about our customers
  • We care about our people
  • We care about our communities and the planet
  • We believe in opportunity and innovation

And of course we care about making money…..responsibly.

Now look at these 3 business philosophies.

Business A – We believe the most important thing in life for most people is to have a job that is fulfilling, where you feel valued and where you can develop your full potential. So as a business our focus is our employees, we care more about them than anything else. We believe that will make us a successful business (if you measure success in terms of long term market place success) because employees who feel valued, who believe in what they are doing, who feel they can reach their potential, give great service, come up with better innovations, are committed and loyal etc etc

Business B – We are a business and we are amoral as regards society or the planet. Not immoral, knowing the difference between right and wrong and choosing the latter if it suits you, we are amoral, we don’t care about right or wrong. We let the lawmakers deal with that and we just operate to the letter not the spirit of the law. Our only role is to make as much money as we possibly can for our shareholders, they can use the profits any way they want. Let them invest in the planet if they want, not our issue. We are a meritocracy, we hire and promote the best, we don’t care about diversity. We’ve found that high performance teams are more diverse but diversity is not our objective, performance is.

Business C – We make widgets, we love making widgets, we are passionate about it. Our only goal in life is to make the best widget we possibly can and we are never satisfied, we always think we can do better. We don’t care about making money as long as we make enough to keep on making better and better widgets. We don’t care about our people unless they are as passionate about our widgets as we are. We think the world would be a better place if everyone just did what they are best at and kept trying to get better at it.

Three very different philosophies on life and business. So here are three questions, ceteris paribus:-

  1. Which business would you want to work for?
  2. Which business would you invest in?
  3. Whose products or services would you be most likely to buy?

And here is a supplementary question –  do you think that these three businesses with these three very different but very clear philosophies would take decisions with more or less consistency than Vodafone? Of course they would, so in fact each one is a better investment and will deliver better products or services. They will also be a better place to work depending on one’s personal philosophy. The worst place to work is where the Senior Team say one thing – “we care about customer service” – and do another – “we make the most we can for us and our shareholders”.

What else would we want to know about a business beyond its philosophy? We would want to know how much they loved knowledge, how curious they were to learn more, in what way they invested in that in terms of people and money. How committed are they to the activity of philosophy? Do they for example have a head of Philosophy on the board (because if they are not on the board with the CEO’s ear they are not taken that seriously).

The job of Head of Philosophy in Business

Every business has a boss, typically given the title Chief Executive Officer, or CEO. Supporting the CEO is a leadership team with various organisational permutations comprising roles and titles. However organised and titled the key people will have accountability for the most important assets and capabilities of the business (in no particular order):-

  • People – Human Resources
  • Money – Finance
  • Know-how – R&D, Production and Operations
  • Reputation (often called Marketing)

So who is in charge of philosophy? There will often be a head of strategy either as a direct report to the CEO or reporting though the finance line, the CFO, chief finance officer. Given its importance there should be a ‘Chief Philosophy Officer’ unless of course, like Emperor Marcus Aurelius the CEO takes on this role themselves.

Does this sound fanciful or just plain daft? McKinsey don’t think so and they are very smart and not given to fancy. They have just launched a new publication authored by three of their partners. This is the introduction to the promotion for the publication:-

“There’s one question that guides the best CEOs as they build relationships with their organization’s stakeholders: Why? Why does our company exist? Why are we relevant to our stakeholders? Why are our stakeholders relevant to us?
Embracing the “why” mindset leads to practices such as clarifying and operationalizing a company’s social purpose, finding often surprising areas of common ground with stakeholders, and staying elevated during times of crisis, according to McKinsey senior partners Carolyn Dewar, Scott Keller, and Vikram Malhotra, as they talk about their forthcoming book, CEO Excellence: The Six Mindsets That Distinguish the Best Leaders from the Rest (Scribner, March 15, 2022).” 

Sounds like they are talking about philosophy.

So should the CPO, or the CEO if they assume responsibility for the big ‘why?’ questions, have studied philosophy at University? How would a degree or masters in Philosophy prepare you for the world of business? Very well indeed. The core activity in running a business or a function within a business is forming and critiquing arguments. “Were we to invest in this way, these would be the outcomes that support our overall goals”. The study of philosophy is the single best way to train oneself to break down an argument, understand and challenge the assumptions, debate and challenge meaning and intent in a constructive way. The philosopher is the best joined-up thinker (so strategy should report through them not the CFO) they are also the very best at considering unintended consequences. In business most attention is paid to the goals and objectives, the intended consequences, so every business, government, organization of any ilk should have someone who takes it on themselves to consider unintended consequences, since that is what causes them to underachieve or fail altogether.

The job of the Chief Philosophy Officer should be to develop the philosophy of the business, articulate it clearly, ensure it is informs every function and every decision (not least strategy), consider unintended consequences and lead the ongoing exploration into how the philosophy needs to evolve as the world evolves.

Yes, business leaders should have studied philosophy. Everyone should study philosophy, it should be taught in schools. Whatever else philosophy teaches you, it teaches you what woolly thinking is and how to avoid it.

Philosophy is relevant to business, to government, to any organization, even a football team. Sir Matt Busby was the legendry manager of Manchester United in the 1960’s, one of their most successful periods as a club, especially impressive as they had had to rebuild after the Munich Air Crash where many key players and staff lost their lives. In January of 1969, the unthinkable happened, Sir Matt Busby retired and left the club. The Guardian wrote an article paying tribute to the great man with the headline:-

“The most philosophical footballer”

The Guardian and many others recognized that what distinguished Sir Matt Busby was the deep thought he gave to the game, the foundation for his philosophy about football that guided everything he did. The same thing has been noted about some other successful sports coaches, it is not so much what they do as the philosophy behind what they do that makes them successful.

People will have a point of view about British politics and British Prime Ministers, including the current incumbent, Boris Johnson. Are our politics to be admired? Who were the best Prime Ministers? It’s debatable. What is factual is that for the most part they had a classical education, mostly in Public (that is to say the top Private) Schools. Most studied philosophy and history at some point, some majored in PPE – Politics, Philosophy and Economics. John Major did not, he was an exception being state educated and without a university degree. His predecessor, Margaret Thatcher also went to a state school in Grantham and from there graduated with a degree in chemistry at Oxford. However, she had a strong philosophy on life, a very clear ideology, that for better or worse was the compass by which she navigated every political challenge. It was a philosophy she inherited from her father, a Methodist Shop Keeper, and it was a philosophy recognizable as Stoic. Her philosophy strongly influenced Boris Johnson but not as much as his education at Eton and Balliol Oxford where he studied Classics and was a member of the Bullingdon Club. Boris knows his philosophy and history, both modern and ancient, and might be said to be more of hedonist than a stoic?

If a lot of British politicians and of course politicians around the world have at the very least an appreciation of philosophy, they are not woolly thinkers, how is it that so much policy is woolly and ineffective? The answer is that Politics is their guiding light, the acquisition and exercise of power which can distract from what is right, according to one’s philosophy, to what wins support and votes in order to retain power.

In criticism of Behavioral Science (and Economics) and in defense of Religion

Aside from Politics the other dominant forces in shaping our world are religion and economics. In the development of economics from as far back as St. Thomas Aquinas (who saw himself as a theologian) through to Adam Smith and Marx (who saw themselves as political philosophers) and Keynes or Friedman there was always an explicit social purpose. Economic theory was developed to create a better, fairer society based on a view about what that was, a philosophy. Today we have Behavioral Science, the study of actions and behaviour, that has spawned Behavioral Economics. The only purpose of economics is to create growth – make more, sell more, get more. A better understanding of what people do based on hard empirical data offers the chance to game the system to one’s advantage. Economics seems to have lost any connection to a higher purpose (to be fair this is not true of Islamic Economics). The word ‘behaviour’ says it all, it forces a bias towards the way things are rather than a philosophy for how they should be. We can argue the words, the order, the priorities but this is offered as Straw Man for a better world:-

Purpose – as far as possible everyone in society should feel they have some purpose in life. (Historically the economists described this as full employment based on an efficient division of labour.)

Well-being – we should aim to achieve a widespread sense of well-being that will in part be achieved through purpose but will also require social care. (In the past this would be expressed as adequately funding a welfare state)

Opportunity – create the means for self-improvement and the ambition to seek it. (AKA Education, which actually means ‘to bring forth’)

Protect the environment – Conservation, climate control, eliminating pollution – recycle, re-use, repurpose. (AKA Sustainability)

By now it should be clear that these have roots in philosophy, particularly those highlighted. Any economic theory should be oriented explicitly to these kind of goals. People’s current behaviour should not be accepted as a constraint – understand, measure, analyze behaviour by all means but use this as a window to a better world, a springboard not something to exploit and manipulate . When it comes to AI and Robotics do we want to upload Behavioral Science, this is how it works now, or philosophy, this is how it could and should work?

The 2021 BBC Reith Lectures were delivered by Stuart Russell, a British born Computer Scientist now at Berkeley and a leading thinker in AI. He painted a terrifying picture of the implications of AI and robotics on human society unless we act with moral purpose, which requires a philosophy on the kind of society we want to create, the best version of humanity. We will not get this from “Behavioural Economics” because it is devoid of philosophy and amoral.

As noted above Margaret Thatcher’s ideology came from her Methodist father rather an any study of or appreciation for philosophy per se. Islamic economics is neither capitalist nor Marxist, it is significantly different to either because it is guided by religious belief and ideology as to what society should be, not what it is. There is a role for religion.

In Plato’s Republic the majority of people were artisans, educated until they were 16 years old. The minority were Guardians who went on to be educated in philosophy (in the fullest meaning of this, the meaning of everything) until they were 30 years old. It must be re-emphasized because it is so important, that one’s parentage had no influence on whether one went on to be a Guardian, there was equal opportunity. (Studies have shown that children of the educated classes have an advantage in life but that is a failing of the education  system, with the same early education it does not need to be that way).

That split between the artisans, the people who get on with things, and the guardians, the shakers and movers, makes sense in today’s world. Most people have neither the interest nor aptitude to be deep thinkers, they just want to get on with life. This is where religion has a role to play. A study of comparative religion shows great similarities, almost a perfect overlap, between all the religions in terms of their values, their beliefs, their philosophy on life.

  • The importance of family and community
  • Helping those less fortunate
  • Respect for others  – treat people the way you’d like to be treated
  • Hard work and service over self-gratification

All religions also have a faith in a ‘higher power’ so while the importance of the beliefs the purpose of which can be rationalized if needs be, nonetheless they have to followed out of respect to a higher purpose whose purpose may not always be clear or explicable. Put another way most religions require either the humility to follow the rules or the fear of retribution if you don’t. Either way, just do it and trust it will work

The Zoroastrian Religion has a marvelously pure mantra – good thoughts, good words, good deeds. If you are not a deep thinker this works really well as a life philosophy. Just try it.

If, however, you are a deep thinker, an iconoclast, a potential shaker and mover, unquestioning religious adherence is not enough. George Bernard Shaw put it beautifully:-

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world, the unreasonable man adapts the world to himself, therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man”

Progress requires challenge and that cannot exclude religion or philosophy. Progressive people challenge everything, they are free-thinkers.

There is no study to prove this, but it seems fair to suggest that the majority of shakers and movers, today’s guardians, are not that bound by religion. Most are atheists or agnostics, not all but most. They need philosophy not religion because the former does not plug holes in knowledge or evidence with faith and it is not undermined or perverted by conservatism, extremism and outdated superstition and ritual. Again, this is an atheist’s point of view.

In conclusion

Philosophers are very disciplined about definitions. Language is the medium through which we form and share ideas so we need to be precise about the meaning of words, and we need to recognize that words often have more than one meaning. To save the reader the chore of looking it up here are the three meanings of the word philosophy:-

  1. The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence
  • A theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.
  • From Greek, the word ‘philo – sophy’ it literally means “the love of wisdom”

It would seem that now is a good time to revive interest in Philosophy, a new renaissance of enlightened thinking, if only among the guardians. We should have learned this from history.

Mark Sherrington – February 2022

Solving the Social Dilemma

The recent release of Jeff Orlowski’s documentary ‘The Social Dilemma’ on Netflix may prove to be an even bigger deal than their 2016 film ‘The Great Hack’. The latter left you feeling that the villains of the piece were the businesses like Cambridge Analytica who malevolently manipulated social media data to change the political narrative, influence elections and threaten democracy. TSD points the finger squarely at big tech who purposefully design social media to feed their commercial model and in the process fuck up society and the whole of mankind.

 “If you don’t pay for the product, you are the product”.

Social media is not just abusing their tech to sell us stuff, they are selling us – our attention and our behaviour – without us knowing and to our detriment. TSD paints a scary future with overtones of the human batteries in The Matrix and Skynet from Terminator – AI may have started as a technology tool we used but it might become us that are the tools serving the needs of higher artificial intelligence. You think this is fantasy? Watch the documentary.

“Only two industries call their customers ‘users’: illegal drugs and IT” said Yale’s Edward Tufte.

Marketers (who pay for all this with their ad budgets) are trying to wean themselves off calling customers ‘consumers’. (If you drop the ‘m’ consumer is an anagram for ‘con user’). I think ‘people’ would be the best word because it simultaneously captures diversity and common humanity – the ‘we’. But I don’t think the lexicon is the issue and in fact I don’t think marketers or even the titans of big tech are the villains. They are people. A lot of the contributors to TSD, people like Tristan Harris or Justin Rosenstein, are from big tech. They have a conscience and know that many of their former colleagues do too. Marketers are not evil svengalis. They are paid to promote their products but most recognize that this increasingly means doing so in a sustainable and socially responsible way because that is what society wants. It is what will make their customers happy and they like happy customers. So what makes good people in marketing and tech do bad stuff? Two things:-

  1. Not recognizing the unintended consequences
  2. Not having a commercially attractive alternative

On the heels of ‘The Great Hack’, TSD can address the former. As ‘Inconvenient Truth’ was for climate change, this is a tipping point in the debate about social media and the issues around the misuse of the data it generates for the ‘attention extraction’ industry. We all know that something is wrong, we all know this is seriously fucked up and heading in a bad direction – but what is the alternative? What is the antidote? TSD is incredibly powerful and disturbing, very disturbing especially as it leaves you in no doubt things need to change but not much hope they will and no real solutions other than regulation (of some sort not defined) to disrupt the business model on which big tech has thrived.

Just as I concluded in my paper ‘Naked Economics; the new laws of the jungle’ the easy conclusion is that governments need to fix this – ‘they’ need to regulate. Easy but wrong because even if ‘they’ wanted to, ‘they’ can’t. It’s too complex, there is too much vested interest and there is no ‘they’. The legislation would need to be intricately drafted to cover every issue and avoid every unintended consequence. There are $ trillions at stake so expect some resistance and every government would need to act in lock step which they won’t/can’t.

So, as with the new economics, let’s focus on ‘we’ –  what we the people can do about the social dilemma that is social media data harvesting, processing and commercial application. For the wider economic context the macro levers to pull were the attribution of cost and ascribing of value to enable us to make better choices. In the specific area of data the micro levers are platforms that allow us as individuals to own, control and transact our own data.

The solution lies not so much in regulating the current business model, although that might have a role to play, but rather in creating a new business model that empowers people.

At the heart of the current model is data about 3 things:-

  • What you think
  • What you do
  • The connection between these

The tech, the algorithms, the UI and the AI that are all designed to do this can of course then be applied to change what you think and do, to get your attention and to persuade you. The business model is then to monetize this by selling it to people who wish to promote their business. It can also be sold to people wishing to change your politics but that will only ever be a small fraction of the billions social media earns. The big bucks come from big business.

The global industry for advertising and research is roughly $1 Trillion. That is how much business will pay to find out what you think and present the best version of themselves to you at the most opportune time.

What if we just told them? What if we offered the information they want to know and stuck our hand up when they had the best chance to sell something to us? Because if we did, en masse, then the revenues for facebook et al would start to evaporate.

Who would be prepared to do that? We all would. We do it all the time for purchases that are important to us and about which we are unsure. Say we want a haircut, a new car, expensive cosmetics, a new home, a piece of home electronics, a suit for our wedding. We pitch up, tell someone we are interested and then proceed to tell them everything they need to know about our lives, quite often more than they need to know. Yes we may do some research on-line and then purchase on-line but there are still many things where we meet people face to face, people that we know are there to sell us stuff, we tell them we are interested and we answer pretty much any question they care to ask. Why? Because it is in our interest to do so and we get something in return – help in making our best choice.

As long as we feel in control of the exchange of our information, our attention, our data, and this has material benefit to us we are happy to give business what they want.

I have been thinking about this for the last 5 years and I have ideas for two potential tech based platforms that would allow people at scale to exchange their ideas and their data – on their terms – with businesses and brands. These could divert a big chunk of the revenue Social Media generates directly into the hands of us, we the people, and offer what business wants quicker, cheaper and more effectively.

It would not stop the potential of big tech to produce addictive, manipulative social  platforms with the power to affect peoples’ physical and mental health, to undermine truth with fake news, to divide society and swing elections but it would take away their incentive to do so. They would eventually be left with only one option which is to make you pay for their service – and if we pay for it then we control it. It becomes the product, not us.

Let me know if anyone is interested to know more……..

Value Signalling

In my article ‘Neo-Naked Economics’ (under EBooks) I set out a new economic model based on social purpose from which would come a new kind of marketing I define as purposeful value creation. (In the 30 years since I co-founded a marketing agency called ‘The Added Value Company’ it would appear that I’ve progressed from seeing marketing as adding value to creating value, subtle difference). In the article I had to skate over some big topics and I intend to use the blogs to expand on some of them. The core of the new value-based economics/marketing would be to let people ascribe all the value a product/service/business offers, not just intrinsic value, not just extrinsic value to the buyer but social value. And businesses would be required to carry their full costs, not just variable, not just fixed but social costs as well.

So how can you ascribe social value? It might sound hard but it really isn’t. It’s done all the time. There is the Kitemark, started in the UK but now operating in 193 counties. It uses a range of things to assess the safety of a product. Michelin Stars are awarded to restaurants according to how they measure up to a wide range of things not just how tasty the food is (you can lose a star if the wine cellar is too limited or if your loos aren’t up to scratch). In South Africa they calculate BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) scores based on a complex list of criteria, and the score has consequences for how you do business. Above a certain size a poor score will exclude you from doing business with government and a good score can give you an advantage in winning private sector business. We measure complex things and ascribe aggregate scores all the time.

There are only two challenges. Firstly, what do you measure? In the article I set out 5 social purposes for economics, just my point of view but I think the list would be well received by most people who care about society. For a business you could take that list to look at their performance against some desired outcomes that benefit society – diversity, equality of opportunity, conservation etc. The second challenge is the tough one – who makes the adjudication? For the Kitemark it’s the BSI (British Standards Institution), for the Michelin Stars it is a group of inspectors whose identity is kept secret, for BEE in South Africa it is a government department. Who would ascribe social value? It could be a government department, an independent global institution, it could include a people’s panel or board of governors.

Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock Investment believes “society is demanding that companies, both private and public, serve a social purpose” something he put in a letter to all the CEO’s of the companies in which BlackRock have an investment. He thinks this can be measured and intends to do so.

How easy would it be for people to just look for the social stars when purchasing? It could have one star or five stars. And people wishing to make a difference could try wherever possible to buy from companies with the most stars, all other things being nearly equal. I say nearly because some people would trade some part of intrinsic/extrinsic value for more social value.

There is a lot of virtue signalling going on – why not value signalling?