When attempting to read and eventually interpret ancient philosophy, one always must be on his guard not to read his own presuppositions into the historical data. That is not to suggest that the historian must be empirical, per se; rather, it is an exhortation for the historian to recognize his own assumptions concerning the nature of philosophical life and discourse, and, to the best of his abilities, recognize that the ancient authors are most likely approaching their own schools of thought and life with different assumptions concerning that same nature. And this is the very task accomplished by Pierre Hadot, in his book What is Ancient Philosophy?[1] From the obscurity of the pre-socratics to the syncretism of the late neoplatonists, Hadot attempts to make room for a different understanding of the nature of ancient philosophy- one defined not by Hegelian systems, but rather by the language of “philosophical life” and “philosophical discourse.” In the following essay, I plan to compare and contrast these two terms, in an attempt to adequately articulate a satisfactory definition of what Pierre Hadot claims to be the true love of wisdom.

The distinction between “philosophy” and “discourse concerning philosophy,” or, as we have said above, “philosophical discourse” and “philosophical life,” is a linguistic construction that goes back to the Stoic school in Athens. On the one hand, the Stoics maintained, “philosophy” should rightly be considered the virtues of logic, physics, and ethics. It constitutes the implications of theory- it is the concrete living one must do as a Stoic. On the other hand, “discourse concerning philosophy” is a theoretical instruction constituted by the study of the theory of physics, the theory of logic, and he theory of ethics. This is where you are shaped to be a stoic, and where your stoic lifestyle, your “philosophy” is justified.

Hadot, however, suggests that these two terms, “philosophical life” and “philosophical discourse,” can be broadened to encompass a theme that runs throughout all of ancient philosophy. Each philosophical school in ancient antiquity not only recognized that philosophy was fundamentally a chosen “philosophical life”- that is, as opposed to an unphilosophical life- and involved a discourse which would justify, motivate, and influence that life. And so, in order to better conceptualize what is meant by these two terms, and so that one can adequately understand the ancients in their own context, Hadot goes on to compare and contrast these two concepts.

In the first place, Hadot makes the case that the two terms are “incommensurable.”[2]The Philosophical Life and the Philosophical Discourse have no common ground, at first glance: one was a philosopher, in ancient times, because he engaged in the former. Ancient philosophers were, first and foremost, people who lived differently than regular people. The Final Cause of philosophy, to use Aristotellian terminology, was transformation of life.[3]

This is very clear not only in the Platonists, the Aristotellians, the Stoics, and the Epicureans- this was also very clearly envisioned in the Cynics and the Phyrric and Academic Skeptics. First and foremost, their philosophy was an attempt to change something about the individual through spiritual disciplines.[4] The Platonists and Aristotelians prioritized the “philosophical life”; the Stoics emphasized lives of apatheia; the Epicureans emphasized moderation; the Cynics emphasized a life free from nomos; and the Skeptics took comfort in a life free from anxiety by means of suspended judgement. All of ancient philosophy, then, is concretely fixed in real life, with real practices that attempt to accomplish real goals.

Furthermore, this existential choice and essential experience of philosophy must be far superior to the philosophy of discourse because it is concerned with experiences and dispositions that cannot be contained by the language of discourse. The Philosophy of Life is the actual experience of philosophy itself- experience of your own particularity and your hegemony with the universal.[5] For Plato, it is the experience of the Good; for Aristotle, it is the love with which one is drawn to the First Cause; for Plotinus, it is the ecstasy of the soul that, upon contemplating on the divine in it, surpasses intellect and is passively joined to the One beyond all things and in all things. Such experiences- the love of wisdom itself- cannot be confined to particular modes of expressions- and so, it would appear, that the philosophy of life is seemingly superior to philosophical discourse.

Philosophical discourse is not the same as one’s sensual experiences of the philosophical life. Rather, it is the dialectical process (for the Platonist), the research (for the Aristotelian), the dogma (for the Stoic and the Epicurean), or the basic distinctions or principles (for the Cynic and the Skeptic). Engaging in Philosophical Discourse is an attempt to speak logically about your philosophical life- but it is important to realize that this logical attempt is not the summation, or full girth, of your existential choice or experience of reality.

However, one must not think about these two phrases as the simple distinction between doctrine and practice- this would be to miss the point entirely. Philosophical discourse is not Hegelian- it is not about abstract doctrines separate from the philosophical life- rather, philosophical discourse is a tool that the philosopher uses towards the end of living the philosophical life.

Hadot outlines three ways in which the Philosophical Discourse is not separate, or disjointed, from the Philosophical Life. In the first place, philosophical discourse provides the justification for the existential choice to undergo a life in conformity with a given philosophical school. For the Platonist, it explains why he acts as a Platonist. For the Epicurean, there is a similar story, and so on. One is not born a philosopher- rather, he sees the philosopher’s life and listens to the justification behind this life- that is, the discourse- and, liking what he sees, begins to organize his life in accordance with it.

In the second place, this discourse, when used either systematically, by the stoics and epicureans, or in the apriori discourses of Plato and his disciples, always is used with the intention of producing an effect in the life of a philosopher and his students. Hadot reminds us that it is a “function which is formative, educative, psychagogic, and therapeutic,” geared towards the “realization of self.”[6] This means that there is an inherent link between the “Philosophical Life” and the “Philosophical Discourse”: the latter is always used to affect the former.

Finally, the discourse is, as alluded to, one of the characteristics of the philosophical life. It is, in a very real sense, a spiritual discipline, in so far as it is a tool by which to bring about a transformation of self-hood (as we saw was the intention of philosophy). And so, the “Philosophical Life” and the “Philosophical Discourse” cannot be separated- rather, the latter is a function of the former.

So we have seen that Pierre Hadot has noted two themes that characterize every major philosophy of the ancient world. On the one hand, each philosophical school was characterized by its attention to the philosophical life. It was concerned with virtues, with the experience of the Good, with the love of wisdom, and so on. The goal of the ancient philosophical schools was to mold people who would live a life characterized by philosophy. However, this was not to the unhealthy exclusion of philosophical discourse: rather, the philosophical discourse was always a part of the philosophical life. In the context of the philosophical life, philosophical discourse justifies and molds our experiences and character. Philosophical discourse sharpens our understanding of ourselves as we relate to the community and to the universal, and further provides us with language by which we might attempt to share our experiences with others. It must be remembered, though, that this discourse is not the final cause of the philosophical life- rather, it is the formal cause, which, one day, along with the other spiritual disciplines, might shape us into being true sages, who have embraced the universal and have a genuine love wisdom.

[1] Pierre Hadot, What is Ancient Philosophy? Trans. Michael Chase, (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 2002), 172.

[2] Ibid, 172.

[3] Ibid, 173.

[4] See Hadot’s discussion of Spiritual Exercises on pp. 207 ff.

[5] See Hadot’s discussion, pp. 189-220.

[6] Ibid, 176.