I agree largely! At a certain point we must build our own worldview, a functioning philosophy to traverse the world.
I disagree, though, that a microphilosophy should be inherently coherent without contradiction. I think we can have different selves within us coexisting, and not just one unified self. The tension between different ideas is what lets us learn and adapt and grow. Besides, I think it's ok to not have some things sorted out - to exist in uncertainty. I don't know if I believe in a god or not but I'm open to it. But nothing revolves around this mere idea shift, because I intend to do good with my life anyway. Something about contradiction is inherently human - we should not try to cut off all dissenting voices and go with the loudest one, we should instead support an internal dialogue.
Same thing with principles, no one thing will always be good. Say you're a governmental agent with codes to a nuclear bomb, and a criminal is threatening you. Should you be honest? No, millions of lives would be at stake. No one principal can provide a framework for all of the chaos of life, unless it's a principle of adaptivity, or one to describe *most* scenarios.
I am so glad that you recognized the need for building a worldview to make it through this complex world.
I appreciate you challenging me on the strict logical consistency requirements that I have built into the micro-philosophy concept. In practice, I agree that everyone will have some internal tensions and contradictions that may never get fully ironed out, but I still think we should hold logical consistency as an ideal to strive for. What is the alternative? I also think that logical contradiction is a bit more narrow and strict than what you seem to be describing as tension or differing viewpoints. I agree that we should embrace disagreement and alternative viewpoints.
We also have the option to suspend judgment on topics that exceed our knowledge. I think we must be careful to avoid asserting positive statements that are contradictory in particular.
Regarding the principles, to think that no one thing is intrinsically good is to simply deny a principle that many people hold. I certainly don't think an entire worldview can be reduced to a single principle (it lacks enough content to meaningfully say everything that needs to be said).
Thanks so much for raising these criticisms, they offer me a great opportunity to clarify how I am presenting these ideas and engage in a meaningful philosophical discussion with readers!
That’s right Emerson. Distractions and powerful forces that make it incredibly difficult to think for oneself. Your survival can be threatened by having the wrong ideas.
It takes great strength to craft your own path based on philosophy and ideologies that befit your circumstances.
The sad thing is that we are raised to be conformists - getting programmed on principles, some of which are outdated and while might have benefitted your ancestors, limit or at times set you up for failure.
Most people lack the strength to pursue an alternative path, as the price of non-conformism comes with alienation, abandonment (from the conformists), and even crippling despair and anxiety (as you don’t know what your non-conformism will lead to - whether it could lead to your annihilation)
Quoting Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor: “The mystery of human existence is not just in staying alive, but in finding something to live for. Without a firm idea of what he is to live for, man will not accept life and will rather destroy himself than remain on earth, though he have bread.”
Perhaps conformist concepts and spiritual themes have a purpose - to quell the otherwise existential dread and burden associated with forming your own path, by passing down dogma and routine to the general populace who can’t handle the burden of freedom.
I think the Grand Inquisitor had an accurate evaluation of human nature, and I guess to keep society stable his actions seem perhaps reasonable. Anyway, I have digressed far enough.
Despite the hurdles associated with true freedom, there are limitless possibilities that can be unlocked by adopting spiritual systems that best fit your circumstances aka non-conformity.
I happen to agree, just based on my observations, that the willingness to partake in conformist tendencies can certainly be found in the desire to escape existential dread. I'm sure you've seen the experiment where when given the choice between sitting bored in a room or electrocuting themselves for entertainment, many people chose the latter. Implying that even pain is preferred to nothing, then implying that conforming is more comfortable than being lost (existential dread).
Although I'm certain that there are many other factors that could contribute to conformist tendencies. You would probably have to study on a case-by-case basis to work them out.
Yes, I think human beings are different from other animals in the sense that we have an innate thirst - a thirst for meaning and that never silences itself unless quenched.
I admit that it is difficult for quench this thirst, and most people would rather partake in dirty water (which is readily available)than find a fountain with clear waters.
While there might be other factors, this innate desire is definitely the biggest contributor.
Thank you for the wonderful article! I have done this for many years and have drawn pictures of how I see it on my mind, and written thousands of pages of ‘epiphanies’.
I only recently started studying neuroscience and philosophy, and some of it felt more like validation of my own thoughts moreso than studying. My micro-philosophy came from pain, and from being naturally curious, naturally wanting to connect to other humans, naturally having a desire for peace. My struggle is how to share this very personal writing, art, and ideas. My hurdle is consistent execution.
Thanks for sharing. Pain can often be the greatest source of truth. I would love to learn more about your micro-philosophical beliefs that you have arrived at some time.
Love it. Imagine a world where job interviews were an exposition of the candidate's and the employer's micro-philosophy. I think we'd be in a much better place today.
Paul, we knew each other briefly in high school (I don't expect you to remember me, so don't worry if you don't). This year I started thinking about philosophy and I remembered that you were going off to Rutgers to study philosophy, so I was thrilled to see how far you have come! What you're saying about examining our own ideas is so important, and increasingly so in today's world. I think we live in a really troubling time where we are being conditioned to interact with media, information and the thoughts of others at such a fast pace that we are not given a chance to think about what is being presented to us and how that is shaping us. This is so dangerous since it decays our ability to think critically, thus creating an atmosphere where ideas are not challenged. I'm a public health student, and freshly getting involved in the workforce, and I've been trained to value practicality. What I would love to see is a practical approach to building spaces where everyday people are welcome to think critically and truly discuss "things." I've found that while the internet could be a perfect place for this everything has become a bubble, or "echo chamber." I think there would be immense societal value in rebuilding real physical forums for discussion and the challenging of ideas. We do not find novel solutions to problems by complaining or parroting the ideas of others - we find these solutions by challenging each other and ourselves.
Thanks for this note. It is great to hear from you!
I couldn't agree more with your idea of rebuildilng public forums for these kinds of conversations. My ultimate hope is that this platform is the start of a genuine community that eventually goes off platform to some extent and creates a space for real and impactful philosophical conversations.
Like it. Then I got to the four points and saw a gray zone. Values and principles. Values are fundamental principles...so your statement goes. Principles are fundamental guidelines...you get the point. If asked to tell the two apart, how would you?
Great post Paul, I always search for people who tries to think and build their own “perspective” or “idiology” in life instead of just mimicking or following others. Am glad I found this community!
I work with founders scaling faster than their systems can hold. And what I’ve seen, time and again, is this:
--> Without a personal philosophy, execution becomes extraction.
--> Without a worldview, speed becomes fragmentation.
Your concept of a micro-philosophy is deeply aligned with what I call Execution Intelligence: The discipline of building businesses from sovereignty, not hustle.
Because without a coherent inner logic, AI, strategy, even success… just amplifies incoherence.
Subscribed. Would love to see where this series goes.
Curious... how do you see micro-philosophies evolving in fast-changing contexts like business, leadership, or AI design?
Thanks for this comment. Your concept of execution intelligence is very interesting to me. I am not surprised my post resonated with you, given what you are actively working on.
Regarding your question, I want the micro-philosophy to be flexible and adaptable, so it would still be beneficial to apply it to the fast-changing industries you mentioned. It may even be more beneficial than an elaborate macro-philosophy because of how concise a micro-philosophy is. It really is supposed to force the user to distill their worldview into a manageable system of core beliefs and values that can be put into practice.
This idea of a “micro-philosophy” fascinates me, because it seems like what I’ve always just referred to as… a philosophy. I’m curious what your concept of a “macro-philosophy” is. Is it simply a philosophy that is not personally built? Or is it something more?
Thanks for this question. It is an important one that I think about a lot.
Before I came up with the micro-philosophy I also simply just thought of it as “a philosophy”, but you are right that it has some distinguishing features, the main one being that it is highly personalized.
Most philosophies already exist outside of you and came from other thinkers down through history. Many of these have become traditions, or general ways of thinking about the world — worldviews. They are typically all encompassing, or cover very large areas of the human experience.
They may influence your thinking, but they come from the outside and are not yours.
A micro-philosophy is much less ambitious and comes from within. It is more like a map of where you currently are at. It is a systematic statement of your current outlook, worldview, or belief system that is highly individualized.
Unlike other philosophies, it doesn’t attempt to justify itself (although I will explain how to do that later). Instead, it simply tries to clarify what ideas you identify with and live by.
It can turn into something else, but I really view it as a starting point for helping people live with more clarity and take ownership over the ideas that they live by.
I agree, Paul, that an unexamined life can still be worth living and can contribute to society in its own way. However, I also believe that true self-awareness is challenging and often painful, especially for those who’ve experienced significant trauma in their lives.
Response to Paul Musso's "Why You Need A Micro-Philosophy (If You Want To Become An Independent Thinker)" at "The Micro Philosopher"
This is a great article. I will steal the term "micro-philosophy" because I've been wondering what to call my own micro-philosophy (which I have named for various reasons "The Omega Concept.")
That's what my Substack "The Five Essentials" is all about. The Five Essentials are: 1) Philosophy, 2) Attitude, 3) Knowledge, 4) Skills, and 5) Technology. All are needed to achieve the primary goal of life: survival, continuity of existence. I write my Substack precisely to clarify my thinking about all this, like you do.
However, I still find myself : "read[ing] hundreds of books, watch[ing] thousands of videos, listen[ing] to endless podcasts and never be able to take that information and do something with it."
Richard, thanks for this. We are all working on it, haha. I don't want to suggest that we should not consume a significant amount of content to help us grow. I am usually pushing my mind to its limits every week. But the more you are working on clearly defined projects and WRITING, the more you will have natural ways to apply all of that information and organize it. I have been finding myself reading less and writing more recently, but the reading is more meaningful now.
This is really interesting. I couldn’t see anywhere where you recommend starting to build your MP. Maybe that’s coming. For me I think it would be easier to start with actions and go backwards to the core belief. I think the further towards the core belief that I go, the more uncertain it becomes
This is interesting. I actually have thought about whether a micro-philosophy can be built bi-directionally. I personally think it can. I talk about this a bit in my latest piece where you can work backwards from actions to discovering core values.
I talk about how to build your own micro-philosophy in most of my recent articles starting with "How To Discover Your Core Beliefs".
What a rich discussion, thanks to you both. I happen to be a huge fan of Wittgenstein, especially his late philosophy.
I agree largely! At a certain point we must build our own worldview, a functioning philosophy to traverse the world.
I disagree, though, that a microphilosophy should be inherently coherent without contradiction. I think we can have different selves within us coexisting, and not just one unified self. The tension between different ideas is what lets us learn and adapt and grow. Besides, I think it's ok to not have some things sorted out - to exist in uncertainty. I don't know if I believe in a god or not but I'm open to it. But nothing revolves around this mere idea shift, because I intend to do good with my life anyway. Something about contradiction is inherently human - we should not try to cut off all dissenting voices and go with the loudest one, we should instead support an internal dialogue.
Same thing with principles, no one thing will always be good. Say you're a governmental agent with codes to a nuclear bomb, and a criminal is threatening you. Should you be honest? No, millions of lives would be at stake. No one principal can provide a framework for all of the chaos of life, unless it's a principle of adaptivity, or one to describe *most* scenarios.
Azark,
Thanks so much for this awesome comment.
I am so glad that you recognized the need for building a worldview to make it through this complex world.
I appreciate you challenging me on the strict logical consistency requirements that I have built into the micro-philosophy concept. In practice, I agree that everyone will have some internal tensions and contradictions that may never get fully ironed out, but I still think we should hold logical consistency as an ideal to strive for. What is the alternative? I also think that logical contradiction is a bit more narrow and strict than what you seem to be describing as tension or differing viewpoints. I agree that we should embrace disagreement and alternative viewpoints.
We also have the option to suspend judgment on topics that exceed our knowledge. I think we must be careful to avoid asserting positive statements that are contradictory in particular.
Regarding the principles, to think that no one thing is intrinsically good is to simply deny a principle that many people hold. I certainly don't think an entire worldview can be reduced to a single principle (it lacks enough content to meaningfully say everything that needs to be said).
Thanks so much for raising these criticisms, they offer me a great opportunity to clarify how I am presenting these ideas and engage in a meaningful philosophical discussion with readers!
Really love this idea! It's something we all need to put forth energy towards but rarely do, due to the myriad of distractions we face today.
That’s right Emerson. Distractions and powerful forces that make it incredibly difficult to think for oneself. Your survival can be threatened by having the wrong ideas.
This is a great piece.
It takes great strength to craft your own path based on philosophy and ideologies that befit your circumstances.
The sad thing is that we are raised to be conformists - getting programmed on principles, some of which are outdated and while might have benefitted your ancestors, limit or at times set you up for failure.
Most people lack the strength to pursue an alternative path, as the price of non-conformism comes with alienation, abandonment (from the conformists), and even crippling despair and anxiety (as you don’t know what your non-conformism will lead to - whether it could lead to your annihilation)
Quoting Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor: “The mystery of human existence is not just in staying alive, but in finding something to live for. Without a firm idea of what he is to live for, man will not accept life and will rather destroy himself than remain on earth, though he have bread.”
Perhaps conformist concepts and spiritual themes have a purpose - to quell the otherwise existential dread and burden associated with forming your own path, by passing down dogma and routine to the general populace who can’t handle the burden of freedom.
I think the Grand Inquisitor had an accurate evaluation of human nature, and I guess to keep society stable his actions seem perhaps reasonable. Anyway, I have digressed far enough.
Despite the hurdles associated with true freedom, there are limitless possibilities that can be unlocked by adopting spiritual systems that best fit your circumstances aka non-conformity.
I happen to agree, just based on my observations, that the willingness to partake in conformist tendencies can certainly be found in the desire to escape existential dread. I'm sure you've seen the experiment where when given the choice between sitting bored in a room or electrocuting themselves for entertainment, many people chose the latter. Implying that even pain is preferred to nothing, then implying that conforming is more comfortable than being lost (existential dread).
Although I'm certain that there are many other factors that could contribute to conformist tendencies. You would probably have to study on a case-by-case basis to work them out.
Yes, I think human beings are different from other animals in the sense that we have an innate thirst - a thirst for meaning and that never silences itself unless quenched.
I admit that it is difficult for quench this thirst, and most people would rather partake in dirty water (which is readily available)than find a fountain with clear waters.
While there might be other factors, this innate desire is definitely the biggest contributor.
I would agree 👏
Thank you for the wonderful article! I have done this for many years and have drawn pictures of how I see it on my mind, and written thousands of pages of ‘epiphanies’.
I only recently started studying neuroscience and philosophy, and some of it felt more like validation of my own thoughts moreso than studying. My micro-philosophy came from pain, and from being naturally curious, naturally wanting to connect to other humans, naturally having a desire for peace. My struggle is how to share this very personal writing, art, and ideas. My hurdle is consistent execution.
I look forward to reading more from you.
Thanks for sharing. Pain can often be the greatest source of truth. I would love to learn more about your micro-philosophical beliefs that you have arrived at some time.
Awesome job Paul! I look forward to your next newsletter.
Congratulations on getting startes
Thanks Brian.
Looking forward to Twin Dad. I am not going to stop pushing you until I see it! haha
I've started putting together my KoreNotes and outlining everything
Love it. Imagine a world where job interviews were an exposition of the candidate's and the employer's micro-philosophy. I think we'd be in a much better place today.
Paul, we knew each other briefly in high school (I don't expect you to remember me, so don't worry if you don't). This year I started thinking about philosophy and I remembered that you were going off to Rutgers to study philosophy, so I was thrilled to see how far you have come! What you're saying about examining our own ideas is so important, and increasingly so in today's world. I think we live in a really troubling time where we are being conditioned to interact with media, information and the thoughts of others at such a fast pace that we are not given a chance to think about what is being presented to us and how that is shaping us. This is so dangerous since it decays our ability to think critically, thus creating an atmosphere where ideas are not challenged. I'm a public health student, and freshly getting involved in the workforce, and I've been trained to value practicality. What I would love to see is a practical approach to building spaces where everyday people are welcome to think critically and truly discuss "things." I've found that while the internet could be a perfect place for this everything has become a bubble, or "echo chamber." I think there would be immense societal value in rebuilding real physical forums for discussion and the challenging of ideas. We do not find novel solutions to problems by complaining or parroting the ideas of others - we find these solutions by challenging each other and ourselves.
Daniel,
Thanks for this note. It is great to hear from you!
I couldn't agree more with your idea of rebuildilng public forums for these kinds of conversations. My ultimate hope is that this platform is the start of a genuine community that eventually goes off platform to some extent and creates a space for real and impactful philosophical conversations.
I will see you there.
Like it. Then I got to the four points and saw a gray zone. Values and principles. Values are fundamental principles...so your statement goes. Principles are fundamental guidelines...you get the point. If asked to tell the two apart, how would you?
Great question.
Principles are links between values and action.
Values are ideals that we try to realize in action and express in principles.
Great post Paul, I always search for people who tries to think and build their own “perspective” or “idiology” in life instead of just mimicking or following others. Am glad I found this community!
You’re very welcome. I can’t wait until I have more time to develop this community into something truly special.
This is incredibly resonant.
I work with founders scaling faster than their systems can hold. And what I’ve seen, time and again, is this:
--> Without a personal philosophy, execution becomes extraction.
--> Without a worldview, speed becomes fragmentation.
Your concept of a micro-philosophy is deeply aligned with what I call Execution Intelligence: The discipline of building businesses from sovereignty, not hustle.
Because without a coherent inner logic, AI, strategy, even success… just amplifies incoherence.
Subscribed. Would love to see where this series goes.
Curious... how do you see micro-philosophies evolving in fast-changing contexts like business, leadership, or AI design?
- Thane
Thane,
Thanks for this comment. Your concept of execution intelligence is very interesting to me. I am not surprised my post resonated with you, given what you are actively working on.
Regarding your question, I want the micro-philosophy to be flexible and adaptable, so it would still be beneficial to apply it to the fast-changing industries you mentioned. It may even be more beneficial than an elaborate macro-philosophy because of how concise a micro-philosophy is. It really is supposed to force the user to distill their worldview into a manageable system of core beliefs and values that can be put into practice.
This idea of a “micro-philosophy” fascinates me, because it seems like what I’ve always just referred to as… a philosophy. I’m curious what your concept of a “macro-philosophy” is. Is it simply a philosophy that is not personally built? Or is it something more?
Brady,
Thanks for this question. It is an important one that I think about a lot.
Before I came up with the micro-philosophy I also simply just thought of it as “a philosophy”, but you are right that it has some distinguishing features, the main one being that it is highly personalized.
Most philosophies already exist outside of you and came from other thinkers down through history. Many of these have become traditions, or general ways of thinking about the world — worldviews. They are typically all encompassing, or cover very large areas of the human experience.
They may influence your thinking, but they come from the outside and are not yours.
A micro-philosophy is much less ambitious and comes from within. It is more like a map of where you currently are at. It is a systematic statement of your current outlook, worldview, or belief system that is highly individualized.
Unlike other philosophies, it doesn’t attempt to justify itself (although I will explain how to do that later). Instead, it simply tries to clarify what ideas you identify with and live by.
It can turn into something else, but I really view it as a starting point for helping people live with more clarity and take ownership over the ideas that they live by.
Wonderful framing and application. Best wishes for you with this project.
Thanks Fire, I appreciate you taking the time to let me know that this project makes sense.
I agree, Paul, that an unexamined life can still be worth living and can contribute to society in its own way. However, I also believe that true self-awareness is challenging and often painful, especially for those who’ve experienced significant trauma in their lives.
Bette,
I think self-awareness is definitely one of the hardest things to pursue, and I agree that trauma complicates things even more, unforuntately.
Response to Paul Musso's "Why You Need A Micro-Philosophy (If You Want To Become An Independent Thinker)" at "The Micro Philosopher"
This is a great article. I will steal the term "micro-philosophy" because I've been wondering what to call my own micro-philosophy (which I have named for various reasons "The Omega Concept.")
That's what my Substack "The Five Essentials" is all about. The Five Essentials are: 1) Philosophy, 2) Attitude, 3) Knowledge, 4) Skills, and 5) Technology. All are needed to achieve the primary goal of life: survival, continuity of existence. I write my Substack precisely to clarify my thinking about all this, like you do.
However, I still find myself : "read[ing] hundreds of books, watch[ing] thousands of videos, listen[ing] to endless podcasts and never be able to take that information and do something with it."
But I'm working on it.
Richard, thanks for this. We are all working on it, haha. I don't want to suggest that we should not consume a significant amount of content to help us grow. I am usually pushing my mind to its limits every week. But the more you are working on clearly defined projects and WRITING, the more you will have natural ways to apply all of that information and organize it. I have been finding myself reading less and writing more recently, but the reading is more meaningful now.
This is really interesting. I couldn’t see anywhere where you recommend starting to build your MP. Maybe that’s coming. For me I think it would be easier to start with actions and go backwards to the core belief. I think the further towards the core belief that I go, the more uncertain it becomes
Liam,
This is interesting. I actually have thought about whether a micro-philosophy can be built bi-directionally. I personally think it can. I talk about this a bit in my latest piece where you can work backwards from actions to discovering core values.
I talk about how to build your own micro-philosophy in most of my recent articles starting with "How To Discover Your Core Beliefs".
Thanks for this comment.