The Proto-Philosophy

Or, the way most people think

Most people don’t investigate a systematic philosophy down to the level of fundamentals, let alone adopt one. It is tempting to think of such people as intellectually deficient, and I suppose in an ideal universe where everyone has an interest in and facility with abstractions, as well as unlimited time, we could think of them that way. But that is more than a little unfair to “ordinary” people and smacks of rationalism.

I don’t believe that most people lack principles. It’s just that those principles that they have are embedded in a larger, mostly non-intellectual mindset. I call this mindset the proto-philosophy.

Definition: a proto-philosophy is a mindset consisting of one’s “official” beliefs, inborn values as manifested in felt needs, middle-level abstractions that one has gotten from others or figured out on one’s own, common sense, intuitions, desires, tastes, proverbs, role models, exemplars from narratives, archetypes (to the extent that concept is legitimate), all somewhat integrated by one’s cognitive and emotional sense of life.

Image generated by Substack

In short, it’s the things that give a human being their personality.

Ayn Rand and I have written about some of these elements before:

She wrote about sense of life in The Romantic Manifesto (“A sense of life is a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence.”)

She wrote about philosophical sayings (and a prayer) in Philosophy: Who Needs It.

She created several characters with proto-philosophies in her novels, most notably Howard Roark in The Fountainhead, whom I analyzed here.

I wrote about common sense here, where I described it as a facility with middle-level abstractions.

I wrote about how felt needs are part of the proto-philosophical mix here, the point being how philosophy helps us perfect our innate desires.

I wrote a review of a self-help book clearly written at the level of a proto-philosophy here. Probably almost all self-help books are proto-philosophical in their organization.

Robert Bidinotto has written about the importance of narrative in human life, although I believe he overstates his point. This essay is definitely worth reading.

At their worst these things constitute foolishness and bigotry; at their best they constitute wisdom and benevolence. I know these things sound like a disparate grab bag of items, but I believe they cohere and stick together. But what is the glue?

Ayn Rand, who has obviously influenced my ideas on this subject a great deal, may have left us some clues:

Preconceptual thinking. We have a quasi-philosophical framework that we build as children and have to work to make explicitly philosophical, which few people do.

Subconscious integration by theme. The subconscious builds an emotionlike mindset by repetition and association.

Needing concretizations to understand the world, especially values. Everybody needs role models, narratives, and art to deal with life. The ones we resonate with become guideposts.

Undeveloped or stunted abstract thinking. Few people do really thorough “philosophical detection” to examine the commonplace “wisdom” of their culture.

To a large extent these factors come into play because of limited time, energy, or philosophical acuity. Based on this, it is clear that having a proto-philosophy is the natural state for most human beings. At any rate, it is a natural individual and historical stage of development.

You could call the proto-philosophy “personal culture,” and a society’s culture is the general tendency of the proto-philosophies of the individuals in it. As such it would behoove us to discover how (or whether) to lift an individual or culture up to a more philosophical level and to what extent it is even possible, given that most people do not have a great facility with abstractions.

This is not an idle question. The Founding Fathers built America on a philosophical foundation, one that they had largely gotten from Locke. But I think it would be safe to say that most of them had a proto-philosophy and not a well-developed philosophy. Poor Richard’s Almanack, which included many of Benjamin Franklin’s aphorisms, was almost a proto-philosophical Bible, but its aphorisms are not deep. Jefferson thought The New Testament, shorn of miracles, was a source of great wisdom, but a free capitalist society is ultimately not compatible with the altruist ethics of Christianity. As a result of this limited degree of development, the foundation of American government and culture was weak, and we have succumbed to many temptations to deviate from the best of the Founders’ vision.

So, although most people will probably always hold a proto-philosophy and not a fully developed, fully explicit philosophy, it is of key importance that the general public become, if not much more philosophical, then proto-philosophical in the right manner. Intellectual activists are in a fight to influence the proto-philosophies of the general public.

In a way, that is the story arc of the novels of Ayn Rand, which are about how good, but unphilosophical people become philosophical and change their lives—or even the world. I agree with Rand that her Objectivist philosophy is what people need, although I have some additions of my own to make, and I believe that many other thinkers have contributions to make as well.

I think it would be fascinating to do an inventory of one’s own proto-philosophy. It would largely be about the art that moves one but other things too.

Take me, for example. Officially, I am more or less an Objectivist, but Atlas Shrugged is not one of my very favorite novels and Rand’s personality often rubs me the wrong way, so I can’t be pegged as a “Randian.” My favorite novel is The Fountainhead, but I also love The Secret History, The Chaneysville Incident and The Rector of Justin, which I have written about here. My favorite piece of music is the second movement of Brahms’s Second Piano Concerto, but I also love a lot of modern popular music. My favorite song from the last 50 years is probably “Don’t Dream It’s Over” by Crowded House.

My favorite proverb is “It’s not about you,” (i.e. me) and my idea of common sense is to take a constructive attitude whenever I can. I respect people the most who try to make something of themselves, but not necessarily in business or career. If I were a single virtue, I would be rationality, and if I were a single vice, I would be sloth. I’m in love with wonder and the power of ideas. That’s a thumbnail sketch of my proto-philosophy. I could go into more detail, and maybe I will in a future essay.

If the reader is interested in how I am injecting more explicit philosophy into my own mental system, they can check out this essay about the book I am writing. The ideas in it very much apply to my own life and are not mere abstractions. In fact, one of the most important things about me is my effort, sometimes desperate, to stay connected to reality, including the physical reality of my body and feelings.

I’m still pondering the whole concept of the proto-philosophy to see whether it survives Rand’s Razor as a necessary concept. I do think it is useful as a tool of introspection, and I invite the reader to leave a thumbnail sketch of their own proto-philosophy, if they feel like sharing. I think this would be fun and illuminating. If I get enough responses and see any interesting patterns, I might write a follow-up essay.

Here’s a template of possible elements. Feel free to copy/paste, add or substitute at will:

1. What is your “official” philosophy or religion?

2. What are your most favorite novels or films?

3. What are your most favorite works of music?

4. What is your favorite proverb or philosophical saying?

5. What is your idea of common sense?

6. Who are some of your heroes?

7. If you were a virtue, which one would you be?

8. If you were a vice, which one?

9. What was your favorite cartoon or fairy tale as a child?

10. What is your favorite poem?