Choosing What to Believe: How to Develop a Meaningful Life Philosophy

When building a personal philosophy—a set of principals by which to live a meaningful life—it’s important to examine all those precepts you may have taken for granted. For example, sometimes we might subscribe to a rule or concept simply by habit, rather than considering whether it’s actually correct, or good for us.

If you really get down to it, outside of rigorously established science, very few philosophical ideas are universally accepted as truth. You’ll always find someone willing to disagree with a particular school of thought. Which brings me to an interesting question: If there are few universally accepted philosophical truths, then how do we choose what to believe? Why believe in anything, if there’s every chance it could be untrue?

When it comes to devising maxims on how to live one’s life, the sheer complexity of the problem can be demonstrated in the drama of public philosophical discourse—of which politics is one form. The reason we have politics, and the reason its battlegrounds are so fiercely fought, is because no one can ever truly agree on what guiding tenets are right, or just, good or true. Even when a consensus can be found in principle, there are disagreements on how to put it into practice.

If we skip forward a few years, sometimes the principals a society so strongly held, have now been abandoned, in favour of some other set of values. In other cases, philosophical ideas are so deeply ingrained, so well established, that societies can fall into the trap of accepting them as being self-evident truths for decades or centuries, without ever questioning their validity.

More than this, many of the underlying ideas that shape our world may be so pervasive as to be virtually invisible—just as the particular odour of our home becomes undetectable to us over time. Think of how long slavery was seen as acceptable throughout history, or other forms of extreme prejudice and persecution. This might lead us to live lives that hurt others, robbing ourselves of integrity in the process. Life might be prevented from offering true meaning or fulfilment, simply because we have accepted our received societal wisdom and conventions as fact.

Whichever century we find ourselves in, we are all born into a world that has already figured out answers for many of the large questions. This doesn’t mean they are necessarily the correct answers—they are just answers. And as those answers change and evolve, so too does a society’s laws, culture and structure. But they only evolve because individual people question them.

Today, we may look to the past and wonder how on earth people believed their thinking was equitable or justified. Think of women’s rights, for example. In response, it is our duty to examine our own society’s beliefs and ask which ones lie upon shaky ethical ground.

But surely there are some things we can all agree on? Surely there are some truths that are indisputable? Most of us, for example, agree that stealing or murder are very bad, and that we cannot have a functioning society without at least a few such basic rules. But even these seemingly universal societal foundations can be questioned.

For instance, the act of stealing rests on the assumption that property is sacrosanct—that you may own a thing, and keep it for yourself in the knowledge that the law will help you protect it. But this only holds true in our current society. A society based on people grabbing hold of objects and calling them theirs. There may be other forms of society that do not recognise the concept of personal property in the way we perceive it. Think of a world where possessions are largely digital, or 3D printed, or where an AI dominated economy results in a universal income, rendering money and poverty to be almost meaningless.

In such a society, allowing one person to own vast swaths of land, resources or wealth when others go starving or destitute, might seem abhorrent. So in a land with very different ideas of personal property, the idea of stealing may become meaningless.

When it comes to murder, a state normally defines it as a form of unlawful killing. However, there are many possible forms of killing that are lawful (depending on the nation). This brings up all sorts of murky ethical questions. Killing people as a soldier, on behalf of a nation’s military, might be legal, but whether it is morally right depends on the reasons for going to war, or the care to minimise collateral damage. To take another example, euthanasia might be considered merciful in one society and criminal in another.

When we come to defining questions of sexual ethics or human rights or general ways of living in harmony with each other, there are nearly no philosophical truths upon which we can all agree. So in this regard, we may come to doubt all forms of knowledge or truth. Indeed, with the rise of “fake news” as a concept, people everywhere are beginning to doubt the veracity of the facts they receive, much like the philosophical school of scepticism.

Even the most fundamental ideas of truth are at risk. When certain neuroscientists propose that the experience of consciousness is just an illusion, it becomes possible to debate Descarte’s famous posit: “I think therefore I am”.

So what to do? Culturally, we are all born into a particular template of locally-accepted beliefs, often prescribed by people from very different classes or walks of life to you or I. They may even be from some distant century. It’s in this area we need to look closely, for much of our happiness in life, or lack thereof, is neatly contained within the philosophical framework in which we allow ourselves to reside.

And even though some of our guiding principles may cause individuals great unhappiness, very often we continue to let them go unchallenged. So, as the slogan of video games company Electronic Arts says: “Challenge everything!“

So, which ideas best define a worthy life, or a successful person, or happiness? Is fulfilment related to social status? Material wealth? Sexuality or gender? Peer acceptance? Pursuits of the mind, or experiences of the body? The happiness of others? Do these metrics rest on solid foundations? Where did you receive these notions? Do the expectations of your philosophy marry up with reality? Are you comparing yourself to a model that you cannot possibly live up to? If you ever hope to live a happy and meaningful life, these are the areas you must first examine.

Recently, I was researching the origins of the main contemporary religions. I was very interested to find out just how many of their core philosophical ideas had changed and shifted radically over time to reflect the society they lived in. This idea I found to be profound.

From a typical church-goer’s perspective, a religion’s core principles are generally accepted as unimpeachable truths—truths that appear to have perhaps stood for all time, and would do so till the very end—such as the nature of God. In actual fact, these underlying axioms can transmute and evolve to suit the conditions of the era. And yet, even when these axioms change, they are still perceived by the congregation as long-standing pillars of truth.

For example, the idea of an afterlife (as modern Western culture may know it) was not a widely accepted concept in early Judaism. Heaven and Hell were, in effect, invented; pieced together from earlier forms. For much of its early history Judaism worked on the principle that if you lived a virtuous life then you would be rewarded in the here and now. God would smile upon you if you followed his rules, and your life would be happy—an effective tool for guiding a people to live peacefully in society.

Except, much of the ancient world was a harsh and cruel place in which to live. As the decades passed, this doctrine did not seem to marry with reality. Virtuous people were being persecuted, exiled or made to endure all manner of suffering in a chaotic world of conquerors, disease and tyrants. In such conditions, a religion might run the risk of haemorrhaging worshippers to the point of irrelevancy. Why follow such rules when there is no discernable benefit?

At some point, an innovative idea evolved within Jewish culture. It bubbled up from the general gestalt, possibly from the personal frustrations of thousands of everyday experiences. Perhaps there was some cross-pollination from Egyptian or Greek religious thought. Wherever the idea originated, it was later incorporated into theological debate, perhaps several times, only to be brushed away by existing dogma. At some point, this idea, like a seed, found the fertile ground of receptive minds, and survived to gain widespread adoption.

The idea that perhaps this life is not the only life we have was a powerful concept. People embraced the notion that perhaps there is an afterlife, whereby you will be rewarded for your good behaviour in this world by inheriting an eternity of bliss in the next. And what’s more, you can be comforted by the fact that those who have wronged you will find punishment waiting for them, perhaps in the form of Hell. A classic revenge philosophy. These concepts hung upon the complex notion that humans have an everlasting spirit or soul—that some unseen part of them us, is fact, immortal.

This kind of evolutionary behaviour realigned religions with what ordinary people perceived as reality, keeping them relevant. It made sense of a cruel and ever-changing world. With the invention of the immortal soul, people could now put up with all manner of discomfort, heartbreak, persecution and hardship, since they believed they might be rewarded at some point in the future. For Judaism, this powerful innovation happened around the time of early Christianity, woven together from various earlier threads. It strengthened the cloth that bound a society together during some very dark times.

To take another example, today, many of us value or venerate the natural world as a kind of balm for the soul. In a world of ecological collapse, an ancient woodland of mature column-like trees can feel like a cathedral. I, for one, am constantly moved on a spiritual level, through the observance and appreciation of nature. But I realise that this outlook may not have always been the case.

During the dark ages, communing with nature was probably not high on people’s list of daily priorities. There were more pressing matters to attend to. Life was in many cases grim and intolerable. The idea of finding fulfilment in a lovely jaunt in the woods would be unlikely to resonate with the average person. Who would have the spare time for that? And so it was that such ideas were not a feature of most religions or philosophies.

And yet, here I am today, exalting the act of immersing myself in nature. And when I do so, and I find joy, peace, mindfulness—it feels as if I am tapping into something profound. To bolster my case that being in nature is beneficial, I find arguments to back me up, both physical and quasi-spiritual.

I could tell you that we are, for example, still animals, flesh and blood creatures, despite all our technological inventions. We are still a part of the natural world from which we evolved, and thus our physiology responds positively to being immersed in it—reducing stress, increasing feelings of fulfilment and purpose. But are these arguments just crutches to prop up an idea? They may come across as scientific fact, but perhaps they are just the reasons I need in order to lend weight to my personal experience.

When I try to live a meaningful life, I sometimes feel that I have hit upon a grand truth. Finally, here is a principal I can hang my hat on. But now I realise that truth is so very transient—and indeed relative. It suits the needs of the time. It is just one eddy in the prevailing wind.

When trying to answer the larger questions for ourselves—what is my purpose, what is the meaning of life, what is the nature of the universe, do we have a soul?—all you can ever hope to do is find answers that satisfy you, and you alone. You find yourself in a particular century, in a particular society, with a particular set of individual needs and personal traits. Finding a set of principals that truly resonates with you is going to take a while. It might be the work of a lifetime. There are, however, some questions that you can answer with a little research, discovering that they are a matter of empirical truth.

Physics is the realm of the matter-of-fact. Once a phenomena has come under the purview of physics, it ceases to be a philosophical or theological question. It moves from the metaphysical to the physical. For instance, up until the 15th century, the Catholic Church held to the idea that the Earth was at the centre of existence. Eventually, and after much resistance, science proved that this was not the case, and that the earth orbited the sun. When the evidence was irrefutable, the Catholic Church dropped it as a theological idea, and eventually, it simply became a matter of fact.

So some of the work of finding your own philosophy has already been done for you. You do not need to figure out what the stars are or how the solar system works. On this point, there are conspiracy theories everywhere that counter scientific fact, into which people fall everyday and never return. So beware!

If we are to reject science, then we reject one of society’s best tools. Science is never perfect, and it doesn’t cover everything, but it is our best working theory, and removes much confusion from the table. If we were to ignore it—as so many conspiracy theories do— then philosophically speaking, we are nowhere; we are floundering at square one.

But where science removes so many questions for us, there are always more that are harder for science to address, and this allows us the space to create our own personal philosophy. These are qualitative questions about what it means to be human, or questions relating to our own mind and the way it perceives reality, or ethical questions, or questions that probe the nature of existence beyond physics—outside our measurable universe. In these areas, we can divine our own paths to truth and meaning. We do not have to accept simply what received philosophical wisdom decrees.

Society must have a degree of room for differing philosophical viewpoints. This loose leash allows you to choose your own, and it allows society to test out new ideas and evolve. The alternative is fascism, dogma, oppression and stagnancy. So choose a philosophy that provides you with meaning, happiness, productive contentment, in the sober knowledge that no single other person will overlap completely with your views. It is not about finding the answers, just your answers.

Evolution of philosophical thought is like the evolution of flora and fauna. There is no one true form for an animal to take, whether predator or prey. There is simply the competition for survival, and the need to find ways of succeeding within the environment one finds oneself.

There are flighted birds of many shapes and design, for example. They each have evolved as the embodiment of a solution to a question posed by the ecosystem. Philosophical ideas are no different. We think of progress as a linear thing, that technology and thought become increasingly sophisticated and correct over time—that knowledge, in general, increases. But this may not be the case.

Simply, ideas suit the time they are in. They flourish where the conditions are right. Another era, another society, may value other fundamental principles. Whether we agree with their values or not, they allow that society to function (to a point), until conditions change. And that is what it comes down to…

In general, we adhere to rules and ideas that help a society flourish, and we live in societies that allow most individuals (hopefully) to survive and flourish. But there will always be a tension. Not all parties will feel properly represented. Not all societal rules will benefit you personally, and this is where one needs to seek a balance. A personal philosophy must tend to both needs.

It is impractical to hold to a purely selfish philosophy, one that runs counter to the needs of society, otherwise you run the risk of breaking the law—aside from whether it is moral. Neither should we let society rule over the individual entirely, making us simply mindless cogs in an impersonal machine. You, as an individual, deserve consideration. That is why individuals band together in the first place—because society gives them an increased chance of survival and well-being.

But for your mind and soul to flourish, you need to find philosophical principles that resonate, and sustain you. Start today. Examine what things you believe to be important and true. Identify those ideas we cling to purely out of habit, even though they may make us (or others) unhappy.

Small steps, a little reflection throughout one’s day is all that is needed to begin to make larger change. Why am I doing this thing? Is it purely out of convention? What happens if I reject this notion for another? What do I see as important in life? What do I see as true?

This is an ongoing, lifelong process. It is the process of living, fully awake and aware. It is the evolution of your mind, and the ideas you hold dear. What worked for you yesterday, may not work tomorrow, but it is the act of ongoing discovery and insight that gives us the greatest chance for fulfilment and spiritual meaning.

---

Exercise: Redefine Your Personal Philosophy

Objective:

To examine and redefine your personal philosophy by questioning and reflecting on your deeply held beliefs and societal values.

Steps:

1. Identify Core Beliefs:

• Write down ten core beliefs or principles you live by. These can be related to your views on happiness, success, morality, relationships, work, etc.
• Examples: “Hard work always pays off,” “Honesty is the best policy,” “Money is the key to happiness.”

2. Question the Origins:

For each belief, ask yourself:

• Where did this belief originate? (Family, society, religion, personal experience)
• Have I ever questioned this belief? Why or why not?
• Does this belief still hold true in my current life situation?

3. Analyse the Impact:

Reflect on how each belief impacts your life:

• Does it bring you happiness or stress?
• Does it align with your personal values and goals?
• How does it affect your interactions with others?

4. Challenge the Beliefs:

• Choose three beliefs that you feel may be outdated, unexamined, or imposed by external sources.
• For each selected belief, consider the following:
  • What would my life look like without this belief?
  • Can I find evidence or experiences that contradict this belief?
  • What alternative belief could be more beneficial and aligned with my true self?

5. Redefine and Adopt New Beliefs:

• Rewrite each of the three challenged beliefs into new, positive, and empowering statements.
• Examples:
  • Original: “Money is the key to happiness.”
  • New: “Meaningful experiences and relationships are the key to happiness.”

6. Implement and Reflect:

• Incorporate these new beliefs into your daily life. Remind yourself of them regularly, perhaps by writing them down where you can see them or repeating them as affirmations.
• After a month, reflect on any changes in your thoughts, feelings, and behaviours. Consider keeping a journal to document your experiences and insights.

7. Continuous Evaluation:

• Make it a habit to periodically review your core beliefs and values. As you grow and your life circumstances change, so too might your philosophy.
• Use the same steps to refine your beliefs and ensure they continue to serve your well-being and align with your evolving understanding of the world.

Reflection Questions:

• What have I learned about the origins and impacts of my beliefs?
• How have my new beliefs changed my perspective or actions?
• What challenges did I face in questioning and changing my beliefs?
• How can I maintain an open and reflective mindset moving forward?

This exercise encourages continuous self-examination and adaptation, helping readers to align their personal philosophy with their true selves and leading to a more meaningful and fulfilling life.

---