How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy

I really enjoyed this book. I follow Massimo Pigliucci's blog posts regularly and have a few of his books. I also follow the other two authors on social media. Even though the chapters are mostly written by professional philosophers, they were entertaining and easy to read. I finished the 300 page book in a couple days. It has 15 chapters on various ways of live that provide meaning to modern peoples. They range from ancient philosophies and religions to modern social movements. The two practices that give meaning and hope to my life are covered - secular Buddhism and modern Stoicism. The last sections from Ethical Culture to the end of the book I found interesting also. Perhaps I will follow up on some of the references. The section on Confucianism I found eye opening. Earlier in life I liked Daoism and dismissed Confucianism. At this stage of my life I think Confucius was mostly right on social relationships and living life. Daoism I feel now is entertaining and artistic but mostly irrelevant for most purposes.

In my opinion, the book has a 5 star rating for aggregating the set of 15 philosophical framework. If you’re like me, you fully dive into each subject at a time and explore the mindset that it implies, thoughtfully. Golden! The fact that these mental frameworks are either written by a co-author or tend to have a different structure, merits a 3 star, as it makes the book somehow “not as pleasing to read” Overall, I strongly recommend the book for anyone in search of mental frameworks for navigating life, that are rooted in philosophical schools of thought. Intellectual delight 🙌

One of the best books I've ever read, though I'm very green in the study of philosophy. The introduction to each philosophy is worded in a straightforward way, and it is really humbling to hear the personal story of many of the academics and how they came to their particular school of thought. The wordly scope of the book was the best part for me; learning about philosophies as opposite as Epicureanism and Hinduism. Very fair treatment; each school is presented by a practitioner and expert in that school, so as to minimize negative bias. Every author also is very well versed in the sister schools of their philosophy, and its opponents, and treats comparisons fairly and charitably. I learned so much, and I am grateful to Skye, Massimo, and Daniel for stepping out of the ivory tower and giving us all a bird's eye view of life paths.

I have waited my whole life for a book like this to open my eyes to the world of philosophy. It has enriched my thinking and understanding of life and thoroughly expanded its sphere of depth and meaning for me. I didn't know before how deeply man had examined the concept of life in so many different cultures around the world even millennia before. This book is a gem, written by intellectual gems, and I am grateful for it and for them.

How to Live a Good Life is a collection of chapters by various philosophers. The writing throughout the book is pleasant, and it makes for good joy reading. Since the chapters are written from different perspectives on what constitutes a good life or what can lead to a good life, quality of each chapter varies; so I’ll review this book in piecemeal fashion, rating each chapter, which is how I arrived at number of stars for the book as a whole. I will say that the priceworthy nature of the book leads me to recommend potential readers purchase the book, if it is the case that three or four of the chapters, to which I give high ratings, interests you. My complaints about the collection are few. I think the editors should have given some push to the individual chapter authors to focus on meaning, whether created individually, societally, or by some natural governing principle. The problem with the book is that some chapters present as personal codes of conduct, rather than a system of universal ethics, telling everyone what they ought to do. This made the book’s project unclear: is this a book about ethics, which tells us all how to live, or is it a collection of suggested codes of conduct that will result in fruitful, good lives? Many of the chapters present a worldview, but in no way indicate how they will result in a good life or even explicitly draw out what is good. In this, I realize that the book is supposed to be accessible to a popular audience, but the tradeoff is in clarity, direction, and the concrete nature of the book as a complete project. In short, the book’s unity is lacking. It’s parts, however, make up for this –or, at least, some do. A second bit that is lacking is an introductory discussion of what is “good.” Even at this, if the intent is to allow each author do define that for each chapter, they don’t explicitly do so. The editors probably didn’t want to give a “truth, beauty, and the good” discussion out of Plato’s corpus, as a preliminary starting point, just because the anthology will go in many non-Western and non-traditional directions; but then I think each author had to do a fair job of examining “goodness,” however briefly. I’ll say a few words about each chapter below, preceded by the rating I give the chapter. Ch. 1 on Buddhism: 5 stars. Flanagan presents an approach, list of concepts, and gives some sense of how it comes together to live a good life. “World-making” and compassion are central tenets of the Buddhist framework. He even presents an excellent piece of wisdom about this system of thought via a question asked to the Dalai Lama: should a Buddhist kill Hitler? Flanagan also makes plain that the popular Western Buddhism-as-happiness is bunk, as the framework is intended to reduce suffering, not endow one with happiness. Ch. 2 on Confucianism: 4 stars. Van Norden does a pretty good job unloading many of the complexities of Confucianism, which is no easy task in such a short length, especially when trying to suggest the system of thought, as a way to live. The central concept of Confucianism, as discussed, was interrelatedness of individuals to one another, and then again in the sense of the interrelatedness of humans to the Cosmos. Ch. 3 on Daoism: 4 stars. Wang offers that the Dao is a metaphysical framework, and thus an ethical one, rather than merely a suggested code of conduct to produce a good life. “Dao is the ultimate source of all things.” Having read a fair amount of Daoist writings, I didn’t find this chapter compelling, by comparison. While Wang does lay out nicely some of the core concepts for newcomers to understand the philosophy, I didn’t feel that his presentation was quite as invigorating as many Daoist-advocating writers. That’s a shame, because I think the Dao is worth incorporating into other worldviews, wherever compatible. Ch. 4 on Aristotelianism: 3 stars. I’m familiar with Kaufman’s work, because I watched his old iTunes University lecture series on introductory philosophy, which led me to read a number of his other writings. That’s why I was disappointed in this chapter. He doesn’t really establish Aristotelian ethics as an empirical practice that is inherently process oriented, which I think kills some of the more vibrant components of Aristotle’s ethics. He did well to cover the notion of flourishing, but I don’t understand how flourishing can be assessed without a growth-oriented mindset. He focuses on relationships and activity, which is great, but I think the heart of the essay was missing. Worth reading for newcomers, but nowhere near what the essay should have been. Ch. 5 on Stoicism: 5 stars. This essay might be reason enough to buy the book. Pigliucci writes a vibrant account of what Stoicism is, misconceptions, imbues the philosophy with meaning, and he goes so far as to discuss aspects of its practice. In short, this essay, in its construction and content, is what I thought the whole book would be. Pigliucci offers Stoicism as a code of conduct, but he also offers the historical metaphysical commitments, which make it a complete ethical framework. Much care was put into the writing of this essay, showing the author’s passion for this particular philosophy. Ch. 6 on Epicureanism: 4. The historical inclusions (e.g., Thomas Jefferson) and discussion by Crespo really made this essay interesting. Crespo explained in clear detail the commitments of philosophy, and he addressed many of the misconceptions people have had about Epicureanism, both historically and in modern times. After reading the chapter, I’m not sure that I have as strong of a grasp of what the philosophy says or precisely the origins of the motivations; and so I think the chapter was a bit weak on the side of how compelling it was. Ch. 7 on Hinduism: 4. Hinduism always seems a bit complex to me, given all of the gods, texts, etc.; but I think Sarma does a fantastic job filtering Hinduism down to a worldview about how one might live a good life. Definitely, the chapter is a 5-star piece, in terms of how much I enjoyed reading it, but I really failed to understand the disjunction between the karmic notion and the disapprobation the author spells out regarding the class system. In short, if the reincarnation combined with the karma creates the classes, it seems to me that the author is simply disapproving of a natural consequence of his own philosophical system. Maybe Sarma wants to say that Hinduism is good for giving a code of conduct, but maybe shouldn’t be taken seriously as a complete philosophy –but he doesn’t seem to go there, presumably, he is religiously Hindu. Perhaps, this is somehow my failure, not following the author’s ideas perfectly well. In any case, the chapter was very informative and interesting. Ch. 8 on Judaism: 4 stars. I am a non-practicing Jew, so I was particularly looking forward to this chapter, as I have always been intrigued by Jewish tradition, philosophy, and practical worldview. Block does a great job drawing in the “code of conduct” aspect of this book. Unfortunately, I felt that the inclusion of “Fiddler on the Roof” was a bit tacky, and then the main way in which that production could have been involved was lost on the author. Block does well to say that there is no single Jewish philosophy of life, but misses the balance of tradition and interpretive, contextual adjustment by the Jewish communities, through the guidance of the rabbis and elders –and this would have been a more reasonable reason to incorporate “Fiddler.” I was not content with this essay, but it had some really bright spots. Ch. 9 on Christianity: 5 stars. McGrath’s essay rivals Pigliucci’s as the best of the bunch. McGrath achieves a clear set of reasons for his proposed manner of how to live. One major limitation of McGrath’s topic is that is can’t really be converted into a strict code of conduct, as Christianity ever remains a religious position. However, he does offer a “mere Christianity” take, which offers a non-dogmatic way of accepting Christian views and practices, which may intrigue some. Ver few in this book were able to achieve the level of discussion McGrath achieves in talking about meaning. A major shortcoming of this book, the origin of meaning is well explicated by McGrath, as it pertains to the Christian worldview. Ch. 10 on Progressive Islam: 1 star. Duderija attempts to give a politically correct presentation of Islam, in the form of “Progressive Islam,” which I had never heard. I was so confused by this chapter. The primary tenet of Islam is voluntary submission to God, so I don’t see how human-will-oriented progress is compatible. The chapter was an attempt to make Islam palatable to those who would not except central tenets and pillars of Islam. I think the chapter would have been much better, if the author focused on secularizing the religion, in order to preserve the humanistic components of the religion, such as almsgiving. However, this may have looked far too much like some of the later chapters, and the goal of this chapter was to include all of the major religions. Ch. 11 on Ethical Culture: 2 star. Most of my problem with Klaeysen’s chapter was that I did not find it interesting. It seemed all over the place, seeking to draw in way more content than is possible in such a short length. I think focusing on Jane Addams would have made an interesting launch point for the chapter, rather than rattling off names and assuming the reader is familiar with them. I also thought that dismissing myth-making as not meaningful particularly counterproductive: in what way is Ethical Culture a religion? I appreciated the discussion of Dewey and the incorporation of Carlo Rovelli, but this essay just didn’t come together in an interesting way for me, let alone a compelling way. Ch. 12 on Existentialism: 2 stars. To begin with, I am a huge fan of existentialism, so I was excited when I saw this chapter in the book’s table of contents. Unfortunately, the chapter should have been entitled something else, like “De Beauvoir and Sartre’s Existentialism.” I think Cleary’s choice of approach to existentialism was uni-dimensional, whereas the number of facets to Existentialism, itself, are so numerous, as any comparison of Tillich and Nietzsche or Heidegger and Kierkegaard will show. I think the Existentialism chapter ended up seeking to be cool, while clutching to Sartre and De Beauvoir, because the author wants to dispatch with traditional meaning and expectation in life, whilst finding a means of justification. The creating of what shall be one’s own essence comes at the cost of alienation of the self, which is clearly manifest in Kafka’s works. How is that a good life? The author does not say. Rather than speak anymore negatively of this chapter, I will say that the chapter does have some interesting engagement with the work of De Beauvoir and Sartre. Ch. 13 on Pragmatism: 4 stars. I have to chide the authors for their choice of Hunter S. Thompson as an example of a pragmatic life. After opening on Peirce and James’ struggle with the meaning of existence, which they rightly connect to the changing of their times (New England Transcendentalists into growing industrialization of the turning century), Kaag and Anderson bring in Thompson as their exemplar. I love Thompson, and I certainly love the authors’ discussion of Transcendental philosophy and its connection to Peirce and James, but suggesting Thompson is an exemplar is delusional, at best. A guy, who always felt alienated, and who ultimately committed suicide, ipso facto, cannot stand as a philosophical testimony for why Peirce and James did not commit suicide, despite their thoughts. I think this essay, and many others in the book, would have been better if they all had the guidance of being told to discuss meaning more thoroughly and explicitly in relation to the goodness of life. Ch. 14 on Effective Altruism: 1 star. Piper’s essay leaves me wondering what the real differences are between Utilitarianism and Effective Altruism. Many of the same problems seem to arise: without some governing principle, as afforded by, say, love, and through a metaphysical framework in the religious worldviews, it is not clear that secular altruism is tenable. The individual self is not worth as much as another (which seems paradoxical, itself), and it is certainly not worth as much as a collection of other individuals. For instance, in the trolley car dilemma, if the operator of the switch is you (tied to one of two tracks), and the other track has a group of individuals tied up, then you are obligated to do what maximizes the greater good. The individual self-worth is a major problem in these sorts of view. I take it that the authors of these ideas maintain that goodness relates to the collection, never to the individual, which seems like, itself, a good reason to employ one’s will to spurn the option, altogether. Ch. 15 on Secular Humanism: 2 star. Shook’s chapter is well written, but I think it is only really acceptable to someone who has already committed oneself to the views contained therein. There are highlights to the chapter, such as, in my view, correctly drawing out that secular humanism isn’t an enemy of religion. The chapter does not sufficiently separate itself from nihilism, as it struggles to create or find human meaning in the universe. I think I would have loved this chapter if it had been framed as an important add-on to other codes of conduct, religious worldviews, and philosophical frameworks for how to live.

Many books examine different life philosophies. What I enjoyed about this book more than others is that each of the essays is written by a practitioner of each philosophy. They share how and why they adopted each and don’t proselytize per se. Highly recommended!

I like the premise of the book and enjoyed the many views and beliefs laid out in the book. It could be improved if it also included philosophies that are not really westernized

Informative and clear descriptions of philosophies, including secular and religious, written in a way that it feels as if you are having a conversation. I find myself coming back to this book frequently to help gain perspective on something.

Philosophy of life as presented by various proponents. Interesting.

A la base, je suis intéressée par le stoïcisme qui est une façon de voir le monde qui m'aide beaucoup à gérer la maladie chronique et le manque de répit et c'est comme ça que j'ai découvert cet auteur. Ici il n'écrit que l'introduction et l'article sur le stoïcisme et a demandé à des spécialistes de chaque sujet d'expliquer pourquoi ils ont choisi telle croyance ou telle philosophie comme mode de vie et ce que ça leur apporte tout en présentant succinctement en quoi chacune consiste. J'aime beaucoup l'éclectisme du sujet. L'idée ici est de découvrir des modes de pensée, tant philosophiques que religieux, en partant de la pensée méditerranéenne antique pour passer par la pensée asiatique. On passe en revue plusieurs religions, j'ai bien aimé le passage sur l'Islam qui en donne une vision beaucoup moins restreinte que ce qu'on en voit le plus souvent. Enfin on a toute une partie sur des modes de pensée plus modernes et indépendants de la religion (quoique la plupart y restent ouvert). A chaque fois, on a une suggestion des meilleurs ouvrages à lire pour aller plus loin. J'ai pu découvrir l'humanisme séculaire qui semble bien me convenir. Je recommande, la lecture en est simple et bien agréable.

I’ve bought most of the books by the author & can confidently say they score a solid 90% average quality.

The 15 chapters of the book divided in 4 parts: Ancient philosophies of East/West, Religious tradition and modern philosophies. I particularly liked the chapters on western philosophical traditions and modern philosophies (mostly existentialism). The chapters related to religions are not so great. Hence 5* for 5 chapters and 3-4* for the remaining ones.

Fantastic book