Does Failure Exist?

When considering fears and anxieties, many people will mention a fear of failure.

But what is failure? Is it something to fear? And more controversially, does it really exist?

My instinct is that failure is merely the non-achievement of a goal or task. I haven't looked "failure" up in a dictionary, nor contemplated its potentially variable and individual-specific definitions within its possible role as an essentially contested concept.

That's because this is a blog, not a philosophy seminar.

The non-achievement of a goal or task

Nearly all goals and tasks are either self made or adopted by an individual from social norms and expectations. That is, we set goals - to get an A level or a job, for instance - and in some cases, we create these goals because we think they will make us happy. In other cases, we carry out tasks set for us either by an authority who is demanding it, or because of the pressure to conform to what is "normal".

This distinction is irrelevant: whether we invent our own tasks or they come from external sources, these are not real things that have intrinsic worth. They are only important in that we decide them so.

The only non-socially constructed (natural) tasks are those of survival and reproduction.

Yet dying is rarely considered an act of failure. Nor should we call someone a failure if they do not bear children. Particularly for a species that is more concerned about over population than extinction.

Whilst bearing children (and not dying for that matter) may be extremely important goals to many people, they are not intrinsically necessary.

People will die regardless and we don't blame them for it. Even in the case of suicide and extreme recklessness, it is important to understand the biological and circumstantial factors over which they had no control.

Now I'm not saying we shouldn't fear death. Just that dying isn't a failure. And if dying isn't, what is?

The fear of failure can be overcome by the simple realisation that it doesn't exist, except as a construct in your mind.

We were not put on this earth to do anything. We have evolved to propagate our DNA, but we needn't. We have inbuilt desires to survive, but we won't.

Goals and aspirations are all well and good, although the acceptance that "more or less everything is absolutely fine" (Derren Brown) is more conducive to happiness. Even in cases where getting that degree or promotion does bring happiness, the failure to do so is not a failure at all. It is just another fact of life, devoid of value.

A shift in how we think about these things, could be the key to removing some of our greatest fears and anxieties.

Why a Citizen's Income Could Be the Key to Happiness

The idea of a Citizen's Income has been floating around the news for a while (and the idea dates back to Thomas Paine), but I suspect in the near future it could become a major talking point.

What is a Citizen's Income?

"A Citizen's Income is an unconditional, automatic and nonwithdrawable payment to each individual as a right of citizenship."

More info: http://citizensincome.org/faqs/

I have almost nothing original to say on this topic, but I'll just quickly list the key benefits and what I think it means for happiness and wellbeing.

Advantages of a Citizen's Income

- By replacing all other benefits, the costs of administration are reduced massively
- It pleases the economic right because it stops the possibility of fraudulent or immoral benefit claims, whilst encouraging enterprise and without increasing taxation
- It pleases the economic left because the poorest in society can afford to live comfortably
- By reducing crime and improving health, government spending in these areas can be cut

How Would it Contribute to Wellbeing?

By giving everyone a guaranteed safety net, financial anxiety and uncertainty would be reduced. Whilst wealth does not equal happiness, poverty and economic insecurity are leading causes of unhappiness. A basic income would bring everybody over the threshold of wealth that is needed for a minimally adequate standard of wellbeing.

Furthermore, it would reduce the need to work. Whilst employment is a key component of wellbeing, stress and unfulfilling work can be detrimental to happiness.

With a Citizen's Income, working hours could be reduced allowing people more free time to pursue other goals in their spare time. Those who enjoy work and aspire to wealth could still do so since work will always be rewarded and not affect the amount of Citizen's Income paid.

Another plus is that workers would be able to demand better working conditions and so will find their time at work more enjoyable and fulfilling.

With people working less hours, there would be an increase in jobs, meaning that they are more evenly spread. Instead of one person working 40 hours a week (being stressed, tired and unhappy) and another person working no hours (thus being poor, anxious and unfulfilled), a Citizen's Income would allow for both to work 20 hours, avoiding the negative effects of work and increasing wellbeing for the both of them.

But finally, and most importantly, all people would be allowed to pursue the jobs that they truly want to do. Particularly as technology increases and takes over low skilled work, it is important that the economy is restructured so that people can still earn a wage. This means that the job market must align with higher skilled and more satisfying careers.

For artists, writers and other creative types, this would be a blessing. They can sit on their secure income whilst pursuing the art that makes not just them happy, but also brings joy to the rest of society.

The same applies to scientists, mathematicians and entrepreneurs.

By providing a basic income at the same cost (or cheaper) than the current benefits system, every individual in society has the chance to become far happier.

Put Your Money Where Your Heart Is

As a sales assistant for a major department store, I feel a little guilt for what I'm about to write.

Not because I want everyone to shop where I work so that the CEO can keep his millions, but because without these shoppers, I wouldn't have a job.

And without the free market and innovations that companies provide, along with the short lasting pleasure and convenience enhancing impact of a new purchase, very few people would have jobs at all.

Not everyone can make money blogging their thoughts (I don't).

But huge department stores create merchandisers, sales advisers, customer services, designers, deliverers, managers, maintenance workers and builders. And much more besides.

Without the constant buying of largely unnecessary material possessions and spare possessions and replacements for broken possessions, we'd struggle to make a wage, which means we'd struggle to live.

However, simultaneously with working in retail and seeing items that I want to buy for 30 hours every week, I have been reducing the amount of things I own.

I only have three t shirts, and I'll probably never own more. I'm considering reducing to two, but I love these three so much.

And that's the point. It's not that we can't love material possessions. But we should only own the stuff that really brings us joy.

I never wanted to become a minimalist. It felt like downsizing for the sake of it. Instead, I just decided to get rid of the things that don't really serve me and only keep the things I really couldn't bear to live without and see what's left.

As it turns out, I donated, threw out or sold around about 80% of my possessions and now feel like I have more space and freedom than ever. And furthermore, I don't miss a thing.

Even if I did miss something, that pain is easily outweighed by the freedom I've gained and the knowledge that things can always be re-bought.

No one likes a preacher, but the fact is I wasn't in a competition to see how few things I could live with. I was just seeing what made me the happiest. Preach.

But what surprised me the most is how my mindset has changed. Now I almost never buy things. Beyond consumables like food and toiletries, I only ever purchase something if I can be absolutely sure it will add value to my life or is an upgrade on something I currently have and can replace it.


So where have I put this extra money? I just spent a decent amount on a holiday to Berlin and a motorbike.

Berlin is a city I've visited a few times and really fell in love with, but it's been four years since my last trip. Motorbikes are just awesome and I've wanted one for a long time.

I couldn't have afforded this if I'd spent all my money on clothes and gadgets. I still order a lot of pizza and drink a lot of beer. I don't want life to be boring.

The point is that I've really invested time in considering what truly makes me happy. This means long term investments and experiences, including travel, rather than small cheap items that just add clutter.

The question is: if we all put our money where our hearts are, where would all the jobs go? And how would we afford the experiences that bring us joy?

Subjective Immortality: How to Live Forever

At this point, I'd like to use my blog to quickly summarise philosophical breakthroughs that I've made.

The argument I'll make has already been touched upon by Wittgenstein and Epicurus, but I didn't know this until after I'd made the discovery for myself.

Wittgenstein asserted that "death is not an event in life", whilst Epicurus claimed that "death is nothing to us."

In my view, for all intents and purposes, death does not even exist, except in the case of other people.

I have no religion and nor belief in the afterlife. So how can I not believe in death? Am I saying that we can somehow survive death? Not quite.

Current scientific knowledge suggests that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. We know this because objects without a brain show no sign of consciousness. (Actually I might argue against this is in a later post).

Shutting down parts of the brain literally shuts down certain aspects of consciousness. For instance, when we sleep, the frontal lobe becomes largely inactive, meaning that we can experience things with no continuity whatsoever and not question our reality.

In a dream, maybe you are in a car but you're at work but your grandmother is there and then you're in her house and she's baking cookies which you can't manage to put into your mouth even though she died years ago. And yet you won't suspect that anything is wrong.

This shows how deeply connected to consciousness the brain is. When we die, our entire brains shut off. So too, I argue, must our experience.

But human beings (and presumably other animals) live subjectively. Sure, we do science to try and find objective truth about the world, but all that really exists to us is what we are experiencing.

I assume the moon is still there right now, but I'm inside and my curtains are closed, so whether it is or not makes no difference to me, unless I feel the effects of a disappeared moon directly (which is likely).

So all that really exists to me is what I experience. I will never experience death, only the moments just before.

Therefore, from a first person perspective, death never arrives.

The time for which you are alive, is all the time you will ever know. It is eternity.

Wittgenstein sums it up better then I'd ever be able:

"If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present."

In which case, belief in an afterlife does not mean living forever. It means always waiting for death, not being present now. If we accept that this life expressed as the consciousness we experience right now until the second our brain shuts down completely is the only life we are given, then we must live in the present and we must live forever.

Socially Ideological, Economically Pragmatic

In my last post, I described myself as a libertarian.

Perhaps what I meant was, I am socially libertarian.

This means I basically adhere to Mill's harm principle in all cases: if no one is being harmed by an action other than the actor, it is a permissible action, as long as everyone involved is consenting.

Without compromising my position, there must be laws to protect children and other vulnerable people. But rational, free thinking adults? Let them do as they please as long as no one is being harmed.

This is a debatable position and one that is not based in pragmatism. I have an ideological belief in liberty.

As an atheist, I believe humans probably have just this one life and just this one body. To control what another human being does with their life or with their body is to meddle in the one life they have been given.

If a person chooses to take drugs, they are only harming themselves. It is self punishing.

However, am I an economic libertarian? In many ways, yes.

Do I believe the state should have a monopoly on fizzy drinks? Of course not. Anyone should be able to make and a sell a sugary drink, which allows consumers the complete freedom to put their money where they wish.

In this sense, tax should be as low as possible so that individuals can choose what to do with their fairly earned income.

However, when it comes to healthcare, prisons or education, my views are a little different.

These are the foundations of a flourishing society and are too important to be left to private companies in all cases. Instead, I take a pragmatic approach: that is, what works in practice?

If the state can provide healthcare that leads to everyone, regardless of wealth staying away from illness, then it should do so.

If state run prisons reduce incidents of reoffending and successfully tackle crime, then they should remain publicly funded.

Does this make me a socialist, libertarian leftist? Not necessarily.

I have no ideological opposition to corporations or austerity. I would, for instance, describe Corbyn as an ideological socialist, believing that the state is better on ideological grounds.

Conversely, Osborne as Chancellor was ideologically committed to austerity and reducing the size of the welfare state.

So perhaps a new paradigm is needed. It's not about left or right; authoritarian or libertarian. It's about ideological vs. pragmatic.

I am socially ideological and economically pragmatic.

Brexit, Trump, Freedom & Flexibility

Never let yourself become trapped by circumstance.

Without delving into the mechanics of the free market and laissez-faire economics, I would describe myself as a libertarian.

Libertarianism is a vague label, but one which has been seized by the political right. You know, the ones who say we can't allow gay people to get married because there's a chance churches won't be free to be homophobic.

I say let the churches be homophobic! But let gay people marry.

Whether I'd describe myself as left wing kind of depends upon where the centre lies. With Trump and May in power, it seems the world has shifted to the right. But more importantly, it has shifted toward authoritarianism and nationalism.

Whilst I could be trapped in America behind Trump's wall, being in Brexit Britain isn't much better.

Freedom of movement is as essential a right as any other freedom. Freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion: Buzzwords of the Trumpets.

But why can't we have the right to move and travel and live and work where we please? America remains a bastion of freedom. As does Europe. But these freedoms are crumbling before our eyes.

Through fear of authoritarian, terrorist, theocratic, Islamic jihadists, we are allowing our liberty to be eroded.

I mentioned in a previous post that my job will only last one more month. Furthermore, the contract on my flat is only good for another three months.

Some people dread this kind of instability. I relish in it.

"Because a man who'd trade his liberty for a safe and dreamless sleep. doesn't deserve the both of them and neither shall he keep."

Philosophy Degrees: What are they good for?

I have recently graduated with a degree in philosophy. Naturally, my first step after graduation was to jump straight into unemployment.

Actually the truth is very different. Yes, I was unemployed for a few months. But I entered the "real world" (I hate that term) with a clarity of thought.

My idea of life was very well formed. With years of utilitarian and wellbeing study under my belt, I knew the true purpose of life was to be happy.

This seems kind of obvious, if over simplified. But if there is one thing about which I am certain, it is this.

What happiness is, is a different question. However, an easier and more useful question is: what makes us happy?

As an empiricist, I have read a mountain of studies which can answer this question. I do not have to go out and do my own research.

What makes me happy? Good quality relationships, high levels of health and a sense of purpose.

What makes me unhappy? Stress. Among other things. But stress was the key component of unhappiness that I sought to avoid.

So, following university, I went travelling to Peru and Bolivia, where the most stressful encounter is being spat at by an alpaca. Here I thought long and hard about my next steps, whilst trying with moderate success to live in the present.

I decided that when I arrived back in England, I'd rent a home in Sheffield. With only one month's rent money in the bank, I had 30 days to find employment.

After 29 days, not only did I have a job, I had a job that I loved. The pay was high, the environment was relaxed and my colleagues were friendly. Was I lucky? Sure. But the job I chose was for three months only, so I always knew I didn't have to stick around if it hadn't been right for me.

In the long term, I'd like to be a writer. I want to maintain a life that is as free from stress as possible, yet is passionate, engaging, productive and beneficial to others.

Philosophy: what is it good for?

Well, it gave my existence a point and my life a purpose.