Philosophical discourse as a spiritual exercise
French philosopher Pierre Hadot is one of the most unusual figures in the French intellectual scene. Despite living in the 20th century, where the concept of philosophy has become detached from vitality and has become the subject of abstract academic discussions, he removes the label of uselessness from it and restores its vitality, primarily by defining it as the love of wisdom. We have presented his work more extensively in issue 64 of our magazine, and in this issue, we bring a part of Pierre Hadot’s conversation with Jeannie Carlier and Arnold Davidson.
From a philosophical perspective, what is a spiritual exercise and can you give us some examples?
As far as I know, the term “spiritual exercise” is not often associated with philosophy.
Personally, I would define spiritual exercise as a voluntary personal discipline that brings about the transformation of the individual, the transformation of oneself… Examples of what could be called spiritual exercises can be found among the Stoics.
It is about preparing for the adversities of life that can catch up with us. Every moment. In order to withstand the blows of fate, illness, poverty, exile, we should prepare ourselves by thinking ahead, because what we expect, we endure more easily. In fact, this exercise is much older than Stoicism. It was recommended by Anaxagoras, and Euripides adopted it in his work Theseus. Anaxagoras, in fact, governed stoically before the Stoics, for example, when he learned of the death of his son and said, “I knew that I had given birth to him mortal.” Plato’s formulation in Phaedo, “To philosophize means to practice for death,” i.e. for separation from the body and from the sensory and egoistic viewpoint imposed on us by the body, can also be an example of this spiritual exercise. And the Epicureans also mention spiritual exercises: questioning conscience, admitting mistakes, meditation, controlling desires.
One could think that they are some kind of addition to philosophical theory and philosophical speech, some practice that only complements theory and abstract speech. In fact, the whole philosophy is an exercise, both in the pedagogical sense Both in terms of external speech and in terms of internal speech, which guides our actions. Exercises are primarily conducted through internal speech – there is even a specific term for it, the Greek term “epilegein,” which Epictetus often uses in his Manual, meaning “adding internal speech to the situation.” For example, we inwardly say a saying like this: “Do not demand that things happen as you wish, but wish them to happen as they actually do.” These are exercises of internal speech that change an individual’s inclinations. However, there are also spiritual exercises in external, pedagogical speech. And this is very important because I wanted to show first and foremost that what was considered pure theory and abstraction is actually practice, both in terms of presentation and ultimate purpose. When Plato composes dialogues, when Aristotle teaches and publishes lecture notes, when Epicurus writes letters or even a treatise on nature, which is very complex and lengthy – unfortunately, it has reached us in fragments found in Herculaneum – there is a clear intention to guide individuals towards a better way of life. It is evident that in all these cases they present a teaching, but they do so in a special way, striving more to educate than to inform. As I have already mentioned, philosophical discourse is often presented in the form of a response to a question and is connected to the scholastic teaching method. In fact, the question is not answered immediately. The primary goal was not to quench the thirst for knowledge, because then it would be enough to simply answer the specific question. However, the answer is most often reached through circumstantial reasoning, which is characteristic of Aristotle. This approach can also be found in Plato’s dialogues and in Plotinus. Sometimes a certain reasoning is even repeated multiple times. The purpose of these exercises was for the students to learn to reason, but also for the subject of study to become perfectly familiar to them, to grow together with them, as Aristotle stated, that is, for knowledge to become perfectly internalized. This is evident in what we call Socratic discourse, which is actually Platonic discourse, where the questions or answers are adapted to the understanding of the interlocutors. If in a conversation with an individual I manage to evoke suspicion, or even feelings, that “bite him in the heart,” as Plato would say. This type of dialogue is asceticism; one should subject oneself to the laws of discussion, which imply the following: first, one should acknowledge the other’s right to express their own opinion; second, one should lean towards what is obvious, even though it is often difficult when we realize we have made a mistake; third, one should recognize that above both interlocutors, there is a norm of what the Greeks called logos – objective speech or speech that strives to be objective. This applies not only to Socratic but also to so-called theoretical speech, which primarily teaches the disciple to live a spiritual life. It is about elevating ourselves, surpassing insignificant judgments, especially sensory representations and sensory cognition, in order to rise to pure thought and love for truth. Therefore, I believe that theoretical exposition has the value of spiritual exercises. Similarly, it cannot be complete unless the listener simultaneously takes an internal step. For example, according to Plotinus, it is impossible to comprehend that the soul is immortal if we do not separate ourselves from passions and the body.