Life Advice Society Doesn't Want You to Hear

Wisdom from philosophers who defied norms

Is happiness personal? I’ve often thought about that question while researching different philosophies and belief systems. There are many roads to happiness, and what makes someone happy seems to differ from person to person. What happiness actually means also appears to be a personal matter.

Conventional advice for a happy life tends to revolve around relationships: building a social circle, finding the right partner, having children, and spending time with family. It encourages us to pursue decent careers that offer the financial stability needed to sustain this conventional way of living.

Such advice seems excellent, as it encourages people to fully integrate into the societal machine, which offers plenty of perks. And it’s a formula that has worked for many people, for many generations. “You should do what other people do, unless you have a very good reason not to,” wrote Jordan Peterson, advocating for the ‘established path’ of being useful and responsible.

Yet, in the arena of philosophers, there have been plenty of outliers; people who rejected conventional life advice, who found their happiness in different things, who found ways to be happy and content that aren’t quite socially acceptable. Philosophers like Arthur Schopenhauer, Epicurus, Democritus, and Zhuangzi are such people. They examined life and saw that the conventional isn’t necessarily better, especially when it comes to contentment and happiness.

And thus, they came up with ‘life advice,’ so to speak, that quite goes against what’s considered normal, and can even be regarded as controversial. This piece explores life advice society doesn’t want you to hear.

Having fewer demands (Schopenhauer)

Imagine a cranky old guy with mommy issues living with his dog, lamenting the dreadful state of the world and its living beings, writing endlessly about it. That’s Arthur Schopenhauer for you.

Schopenhauer preferred life not to have been, and that the Earth was crystalline like the moon, as without sentient beings, there would not have been the vast amount of suffering there is now. Just imagine the peace when there wouldn’t be anyone around, although there also wouldn’t be anyone there to enjoy it.

I’ve covered Schopenhauer several times now, so I try not to repeat myself. However, I should mention again that he believed in an irrational, blind force he named the Will-to-live, which causes a plethora of desires within living beings. Because of it, we desire to survive, procreate, accumulate, and gain status.

The Will-to-live is a force that keeps us on the hamster wheel, so to speak, causing ongoing suffering and inner turmoil. An ascetic lifestyle, such as that of hermits and monks, could ‘curb’ the Will, but that’s a challenging path to follow, and hardly attainable for the average Joe.

By and large, the conventional path affirms the will. It’s about pursuing all kinds of goals, which often makes life worrisome and uncomfortable.

Just think about the amount of work people generally need to do to maintain their lifestyles; people working several jobs to keep their heads above water. And also consider the extent to which we labor just to gain validation from others, which is a big thing in today’s achievement society, but an irrational pursuit according to Schopenhauer, who pointed out that people are generally just full of it.

Schopenhauer saw happiness less as ‘positive fulfillment’ and more as inner peace: a calm existence with not too much going on, sustained by activities that are fulfilling but demand little. He realized that such peace rarely comes from the conventional rat race. Instead, it emerges from turning away from it as much as possible.

Needing less means fewer demands on oneself. Living minimally, moderating ambition, enjoying simple pleasures (especially intellectual ones, such as reading), and cutting back on conventional aspirations can lead to a more peaceful and bearable life.

Here’s a passage from a publication containing Schopenhauer’s rules for life:

We see that the best thing the world has to offer is a present that is free of pain and calmly bearable. If such a present falls to our lot, we know how to value it and take care not to spoil it, either through restless longing for imagined pleasures, or through anxious concern for an ever-uncertain future which, whether we resist it or not, ultimately lies entirely in the hands of fate.

Arthur Schopenhauer, De kunst om gelukkig te zijn, Boom — Amsterdam, kleine klassieken, translated from Dutch by Einzelgänger

But is this what society wants you to hear?

Probably not. An anxious concern with the future, in terms of things to achieve and pleasures to pursue, and stuff to buy, is incentivized by our consumerist society. And we better be functioning cogs in the machine, ultimately feeding the insatiable avarice of a small group of billionaires. Okay, that sounded a bit cynical, but still, societies usually don’t like non-conformists. Speaking of non-conformists, let’s go back a couple of millennia, to China, where we find our next philosopher with unconventional life advice.

Respecting limitations (Zhuangzi)

The Taoist philosopher Zhuangzi liked to turn the world upside down. Like Schopenhauer, he wasn’t quite at home in his social environment. He didn’t shy away from ridiculing convention, particularly the Confucianist way of life, which is characterized by rules and rituals.

Zhuangzi’s work often points out the silver lining in situations we generally regard as unfortunate, such as being deemed useless by society, which can actually be a blessing in disguise. It also reminds us of the relativity of things, such as physical beauty, which, ultimately, is in the eye of the beholder.

A 19th-century depiction of Zhuangzi

When re-reading some parts of a Dutch translation of the Zhuangzi recently, I came across a passage in which he, like his German nineteenth-century colleague, criticizes how people live their lives, a critique that seems timeless. The Zhuangzi argues that “life certainly has its limits, while the mind does not.” And that’s why when we try to chase the limitless (which comes from the mind) with a limited life, we’ll end up exhausted.

But isn’t this what society encourages us to do?

We put all kinds of stuff in our heads, ambitions, goals, wishes; often a lot more than our physicality can handle. Moreover, today, we have established a societal standard that dictates that we overstretch ourselves. “Knowing this, yet still acting from the restless demands of the mind, means wearing yourself out until the very end,” argues Zhuangzi.

Today, overstretching ourselves far beyond the limits of our bodies has become the norm. According to the contemporary philosopher Byung-Chul Han, we live in an achievement society, in which its subjects experience internal pressure to achieve, leading to significant stress and burnout, which I’ve explored in a video a while back.

So, what’s the solution?

Unsurprisingly, Zhuangzi discourages us from habitually biting off more than we can chew. The passage follows up with some ancient advice that is strikingly useful in today’s day and age, which goes like this:

If you avoid seeking fame through doing good, and avoid punishment through doing wrong, and instead follow a quiet middle line that regulates your actions, you can protect your health, preserve your nature, nourish what matters most to you, and live out the years you have been given.

Zi, Zhuang. Zhuang Zi - De volledige geschriften (Dutch Edition). Atlas Contact, Uitgeverij. Translated from Dutch by Einzelgänger

In modern times, we can interpret it as avoiding excesses that overstretch our capacity, whether good or bad, and staying on a ‘middle path’ that more closely aligns with what our bodies can actually handle.

Sure, we may not build multimillion-dollar businesses, nor will we have much to brag about on LinkedIn every day, and we certainly refuse to work ourselves to death in the corporate environment. But, in exchange, we will keep our tranquility, health, and longevity. (If you’re interested in Zhuangzi’s philosophy, I’ve made an in-depth video about him.)

Childfree philosophers (Thales & Democritus)

Recently, I’ve been very slowly creating podcast episodes about the Presocratic philosophers. While they were mostly natural philosophers, some of these ancient Greek thinkers had interesting ideas about how to live one’s life.

Take, for example, the first Western philosopher: Thales of Miletus. Aside from his theories about the universe and his belief that water was the fundamental substance of everything, he also took a stance on marriage and children: he didn’t want any of it.

An ancient source, the historian and philosopher Plutarch, tells how Thales justified his stance by pulling off a rather unkind trick on Solon, one of the seven sages of Greece. According to Plutarch, Solon had expressed astonishment toward Thales’ indifference to marriage and children. Thales, in turn, after visiting Athens, told Solon he had attended the funeral of no other than his very own son, which led to Solon collapsing in grief.

But then Thales admitted he had fabricated the whole story, just to prove a point: the immense grief that befell Solon after he heard his son died was the reason he wanted neither marriage nor kids.

Thales was aware of the deep attachments we cultivate in our relationships with spouses and kids, which inevitably lead to the pain of loss. And so, he preferred to remain unattached so that he wouldn’t endure that suffering. Eventually, he did adopt his sister’s son, so he didn’t stay fully childless or ‘childfree’ as people call it nowadays.

Thales wasn’t the only Presocratic philosopher who wasn’t interested in procreation.

Democritus, the guy who invented the concept of atoms, also didn’t want kids. Aside from being a natural philosopher, he also had some curious things to say about ethical topics, some of which were pretty controversial, like this:

It is better not to have any children: to bring them up well takes great trouble and care, and seeing them grow up badly is the cruellest of all pains.

Democritus, DK 68 B275, retrieved from Ancient Philosophy by Anthony Kelly

Democritus was concerned about how raising children affects one’s inner peace, which isn’t an entirely strange argument: decent parenting takes a lot of effort and sacrifice. Especially in the beginning, people’s lives basically revolve around their children. And if you’re someone unwilling or unable to make such sacrifices in time, energy, and tranquility, it might be better to reconsider.

Democritus by Charles-Antoine Coypel

For a philosopher, choosing not to have kids makes sense, as their lives are often unconventional to begin with, and their ideas usually require tons of quiet observation, study, and reflection; activities that become more difficult to engage in when kids are running around at home, needing your attention.

Democritus does have some advice for people who still want kids; advice that might be even more controversial than the previous one:

If you must have children, adopt them from your friends rather than beget them yourselves. That way, you can choose the kind of child you want, whereas in the normal way you have to put up with what you get.

Democritus, DK 68 B277, retrieved from Ancient Philosophy by Anthony Kelly

This piece of advice cuts through the taboo around feeling unhappy with your kids. In reality, some parents do harbour regret about having kids or disappointment with their children’s inborn characteristics. Sure, it’s very harsh advice: probably not something people like to hear.

Let’s move on to another, more well-known philosopher, who had something to say about a topic which most people are concerned with: sex.

The sexfree hedonist (Epicurus)

Epicurus was an ancient Greek hedonistic philosopher. When we think of hedonism, we think of indulging the senses through pleasure. Sex, being widely considered the pleasure of all pleasures, must surely be the bread and butter of any serious hedonist, isn’t it? Well, not as far as Epicurus was concerned.

For a hedonist, Epicurus was strikingly ascetic, which sounds paradoxical, but it makes much sense, considering his hedonism wasn’t about mindlessly indulging in any pleasure, but about choosing pleasures wisely. Pleasure, thus, remained at the core of his philosophy, making it no less hedonistic than the conventional meaning of the word today.

For those unfamiliar with Epicurus, I’ll briefly explain which pleasures he advised us to pursue and which he didn’t. Simply put, Epicurus advised us to pursue simple pleasures that are widely available and don’t cause too much trouble to obtain, such as simple food and the company of friends. It’s about reaching a state of contentment with the least disturbance, which is in line with what Schopenhauer had to say.

Epicurus advised against unnatural, unnecessary desires such as fame or extreme wealth. (If you want a more detailed explanation of his hierarchy of pleasure, I’ve created several videos on Epicurus, which you’ll find in my playlist on hedonism.)

Now, where does sex come in? Why exclude sex from preferable forms of pleasure?

In today’s Western society, we place great importance on our sex lives. We hear people say sex is vital in relationships. Some believe it’s a basic human need. We also see that Western societies are highly sexualized; we see sexuality expressed everywhere, mainly visually. We see commercials and music videos with women wearing revealing clothing. Many movies and video games have sexualized characters.

The obsession with sex also leads to pressure; if you’re married but not “doing it,” there’s definitely something wrong. And if you’re single and not doing it, or have never done it, you also have a problem; you’re missing out, and there might be something wrong with you.

But, contrary to today’s conventional views of sex, Epicurus didn’t think highly of it. He saw it as unnecessary for a happy life. Moreover, he believed that the pursuit of sex comes with risks, saying:

You tell me that the stimulus of the flesh makes you too prone to the pleasures of love. Provided that you do not break the laws or good customs and do not distress any of your neighbours or do harm to your body or squander your pittance, you may indulge your inclination as you please. Yet it is impossible not to come up against one or other of these barriers: for the pleasures of love never profited a man and he is lucky if they do him no harm.

Epicurus, retrieved from Epicurus, The Extant Remains by Cyril Bailey

So, we could ask ourselves when pursuing sex in real life or in sexually explicit material: Is the juice really worth the squeeze? What about STDs? What about the risk of violence, crossing someone’s boundaries, breaking the law, or even false accusations of some sort? What about sexual addictions? What about the exploitation of women or minors? What about human trafficking?

As far as Epicurus is concerned, we stick to pleasures that are easily attainable, widely available, and come with few risks.

Is happiness personal?

What characterizes most of what these philosophers said is that it breaks with convention. As they lived out their philosophies, they turned their backs on society in one way or another. They refused to do what many generations before them did, as Peterson put it, and found different roads to inner peace, happiness, or, at least, less suffering.

Some would consider people who refuse to have kids, or have a relationship, or overstretch themselves for ambition, cowards. After all, they refrain from engaging with specific life challenges that, for many, are essential for a sense of fulfillment. So, are they just “chickening out”? Are they avoiding responsibility? Or do they just not find happiness in these pursuits at all, and instead pursue what genuinely fulfills them?

Again, the question I started with comes to mind: Is happiness personal? I guess it isn’t a shoe that fits all.

Personally, I can partly identify with what these philosophers said, although there are certainly things I don’t subscribe to. I’m not too quick to dismiss the conventional, as there’s probably at least some good in what the masses do. But I certainly won’t discard unconventional ways of living, just because the masses don’t follow them. Some people just require a different course to flourish.