Euthyphro

“Every comment you make about the world, about another person, about an event, about life, is a projection of yourself and a clue to your interior landscape. The world is your autobiography. The world and others simply reflect back to us what we are seeing, not what is there. It is as if wherever we look, there are only mirrors that show us pictures of ourselves. We cannot love or hate something about another person or the world unless it is already inside of us first.”

~ Tayga Nicole 

A quote from the 1/17/22 edition of the MML came to mind as I reflected on my puzzlement at how two sides can view the same event, but draw radically opposing conclusions. This seems ever more present in our age of “fake news,” disinformation, and echo chambers. And while I’m usually one of the first to temper extreme characterizations, we are indeed living in unique times. False and misleading narratives for the purposes of manipulation have always existed throughout history, but given the advancement of digital platforms in modern-day society the scale and velocity are unprecedented. Extreme polarization has become the norm. 

While there is no doubt that disagreement can arise on the simple facts of the matter, and in these situations indolent, although not willful, ignorance can be easily done away with rudimentary questioning, disagreements usually stem from the interpretation of said facts. Conclusions require interpretation and interpretations are inevitably biased. This isn’t groundbreaking. It’s why I could hide a piece of art worth millions among my child’s elementary class display and the majority of observers wouldn’t notice. 

My point, and the gist of the quote (as I interpret it!), is that your reaction function says more about you than the object in question. Shifting the focus inward and curiously interrogating your own response sheds light on your “interior landscape,” the values and the standards by which you live your life. 

While I appreciate the quote, I would add nuance. Yes, society reflects back to us who we truly are, but we’re also shaped by that very society. It’s a feedback loop that can become self-reinforcing. If our response to what we see in those “mirrors” gives us insight into who we are—and we know that version of ourselves is shaped by society—then it begs the question: are you consciously aligning your actions with your value system or are you at the mercy of the feedback loop? And by your actions, this isn’t to mean the low-stakes tweets or posts sent into the ether, your soapbox rant in the bestie group text, or the enlightened feel-good conversation at your most recent gala’s cocktail hour, but the way your resource expenditure reflects your true values. When we shift from theory to reality what’s the result? Is the life I’m working toward virtuous or some distortion of the ideal? 

And what is the “ideal”? Plato’s take on the Good Life? The parable retold by Matthew of the invaluable pearl the purchaser sells all they have to acquire? Living in harmony with the Tao, Karma, or the Logos? It comes in a variety of flavors across religious and secular thought, but often points to disciplining oneself toward intrinsic good that in turn benefits the entire community. However, it seems our lower selves have the tendency to pervert this ideology—seeking extrinsic good, often of the hollow, vanity-promoting type of one’s projected self, yielding little benefit, if not extracting, from the community. But then again, as the poet Shawn Carter quips, “there is no church in the wild—whose bias do we seek?” Isn’t altruism, even at the cost of self-sacrifice, still self-interest? 

My intention is not to peddle some specific gospel. On the contrary, it’s an ode to the ancient philosophical maxim to “know thyself”—understand your own nature by observing nature around you. Further, my argument is not to judge the merit of some particular value system, but rather to question the epistemological approach that governs it. Let the Euthyphro Socratic dialogue stay in aporia. However you define it, is your “piety” intentional and are you cognizant of the fruit it bears? 

I don’t subscribe to the usual fanfare around commencement speeches, but one worth the listen is the Kenyon College commencement address by David Foster Wallace [my emphasis added]: 

... in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of God or spiritual-type thing to worship... is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive... They’re the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that’s what you’re doing...The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day. That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing. 

With Nicole’s metaphor of the world as a mirror and Wallace’s reflections on unconscious autonomy, there are a few takeaways I reflect on: 

Interpretations are biased and don’t need to be perceived as personal attacks. Instead, approach them with curiosity and seek to uncover the value system that informs the interpretation, whether you agree with it or not. 

This isn’t mere hand-waving or dismissing someone’s perspective. Too often we talk past one another and fail to step back and level-set. Everyone operates in a form of self-interest, whether framed as “noble” or self-serving. This motivation doesn’t invalidate the conclusions drawn but helps in understanding the lens through which that view interprets the world. Seeking to understand is not a weakness and it doesn’t discredit your own point of view. 

More importantly, your reaction to observed events and others’ interpretations are telling of your own value system and deserve intentional introspection. 

Do you argue for equity yet dismiss the other side? Denounce hate but respond with enmity? This is your “interior landscape” being reflected back at you, and failing to intentionally contemplate the ways in which it is misaligned with your professed values is Wallace’s dreaded default setting. Failing to do the work leaves you unconscious, merely drifting along aimlessly. 

And this is problematic because as Wallace astutely points out, we all worship something. Being unaware of your master leaves you a slave to anything. 

I like the religious jargon of “worship” being used in the context of an increasingly secular Western culture where even the religious eschew the title of being “religious”. Yet we remain deeply religious in practice, sacrificially giving of ourselves over to something daily whether we recognize it or not. The unconscious lull into the world’s “default” setting leads to self-worship, manifesting in vices Wallace suggests like money, vanity, power, intelligence, or influence. Again though, this isn’t virtue signaling but rather forcing the acceptance of one’s reality. When left unchecked, vice or virtue, this worship can consume us leaving our lives devoid of intentionality. 

So then, toil ambitiously for what you deem worthy, but do so with intention. Assess its merit, stay acutely aware of your devotion, and own its repercussions. True freedom lies not in avoiding bondage, but in choosing your chains wisely. Because if you don’t, the world will. 

Just my three cents.