I consult in the corporate world and half of what I do is driven by philosophy. I wish they taught it in the public school I went to so I’ve been self taught over the years.
Getting people comfortable with change, requires them seeing why they should change. This comes about through agreeing on definitions and principles. In large part, it is a socratic dialogue that walks them through the logic of adopting a new way of doing something. Since we agree on the definitions and principles, the “change” is in alignment with what they believe. An example might go like this:
Them - we had a new product that we launched and no one is buying it?
Me - why do you think it failed?
Them - we built exactly what our biggest customers asked for - so we don’t know
Me - Was the solution the best solution for the customer’s needs?
Them - we thought so, but truth is, we do not know
Me - What comes before solutions?
Them - customer needs
Me - yes - we agreed up front on the principle that customers buy products and services that address unmet needs. Do you think you adhered strictly to this principle?
Them - probably not. We had some ideas that we thought they would like and we tried to advance those ideas.
Me - So if we get back to this principle of customer value, can we fix this?
Them - yes
Summary, ensuring we are in agreement on definitions and core principles helps people more comfortable with change - then, logic and reason prevail.
Beautifully written. I was surprised my impending book on consciousness will be philosophy rather than the ‘science’ I imagined it would be. :-). I have learned a lot of philosophy in writing it. I still think I’m a novice in non consciousness philosophy. It should be taught more, as should critical thinking.
Discussing consciousness just lands in that section by default because it's all theories - over 220 now I think. Mine is physicalist and (me being a computer geek) it takes the 'construction from simple principles' approach. It works from end to end, and there is now some neuroscience that correlates with the model's principles. But... I'm neither a neuroscientist nor a trained philosopher so it has been an interesting journey. Main aspects that make it philosophy.. addressing the hard problem with my model (and the help of illusionism), and then explaining how the whole model wipes the floor with the Chinese Room argument. So.. I'm satisfied, but writing an ethical analysis of the impact of Conscious AI is proving hard for me - might have to cut it from the book :-D.
Yes, that’s a very accurate observation. Today, philosophy — which should be the realm of free thought — has unfortunately turned into a kind of untouchable institutional authority. For many people, philosophy no longer means producing new ideas, but rather repeating the words of socially accepted figures. This destroys its living, questioning spirit. Yet the essence of philosophy is the courage to use one’s own mind — to “think about thinking” itself. Sadly, both religion and philosophy today have imprisoned this individual quest within rigid systems, erasing the personal dimension of truth. People can no longer tolerate original thought, because it threatens the comfort of their certainties. But the only path toward truth lies precisely there: in daring to be shaken. Real philosophy does not seek social approval; it belongs to those who can endure the unease of what is true.
I consult in the corporate world and half of what I do is driven by philosophy. I wish they taught it in the public school I went to so I’ve been self taught over the years.
Very interesting. What are some examples? I would love to hear more. I agree it should be taught in schools.
Getting people comfortable with change, requires them seeing why they should change. This comes about through agreeing on definitions and principles. In large part, it is a socratic dialogue that walks them through the logic of adopting a new way of doing something. Since we agree on the definitions and principles, the “change” is in alignment with what they believe. An example might go like this:
Them - we had a new product that we launched and no one is buying it?
Me - why do you think it failed?
Them - we built exactly what our biggest customers asked for - so we don’t know
Me - Was the solution the best solution for the customer’s needs?
Them - we thought so, but truth is, we do not know
Me - What comes before solutions?
Them - customer needs
Me - yes - we agreed up front on the principle that customers buy products and services that address unmet needs. Do you think you adhered strictly to this principle?
Them - probably not. We had some ideas that we thought they would like and we tried to advance those ideas.
Me - So if we get back to this principle of customer value, can we fix this?
Them - yes
Summary, ensuring we are in agreement on definitions and core principles helps people more comfortable with change - then, logic and reason prevail.
Beautifully written. I was surprised my impending book on consciousness will be philosophy rather than the ‘science’ I imagined it would be. :-). I have learned a lot of philosophy in writing it. I still think I’m a novice in non consciousness philosophy. It should be taught more, as should critical thinking.
What are some of the aspects of your book that shifted it from "science" to "philosophy"?
Discussing consciousness just lands in that section by default because it's all theories - over 220 now I think. Mine is physicalist and (me being a computer geek) it takes the 'construction from simple principles' approach. It works from end to end, and there is now some neuroscience that correlates with the model's principles. But... I'm neither a neuroscientist nor a trained philosopher so it has been an interesting journey. Main aspects that make it philosophy.. addressing the hard problem with my model (and the help of illusionism), and then explaining how the whole model wipes the floor with the Chinese Room argument. So.. I'm satisfied, but writing an ethical analysis of the impact of Conscious AI is proving hard for me - might have to cut it from the book :-D.
Yes, that’s a very accurate observation. Today, philosophy — which should be the realm of free thought — has unfortunately turned into a kind of untouchable institutional authority. For many people, philosophy no longer means producing new ideas, but rather repeating the words of socially accepted figures. This destroys its living, questioning spirit. Yet the essence of philosophy is the courage to use one’s own mind — to “think about thinking” itself. Sadly, both religion and philosophy today have imprisoned this individual quest within rigid systems, erasing the personal dimension of truth. People can no longer tolerate original thought, because it threatens the comfort of their certainties. But the only path toward truth lies precisely there: in daring to be shaken. Real philosophy does not seek social approval; it belongs to those who can endure the unease of what is true.
That's often how I think about what I am trying to teach here on Substack. How to rewrite the code of one's operating system for living.