Review: Towards A Philosophy of Life Based on Life by G. Scott Erickson
At 202 pages, Erickson’s book is a modest length. But the scope of what he tackles is impressive. He encourages his readers to transform their thinking from the current paradigm which we can see failing all around us, to a new way of thinking in which life and respect for life are central.
He begins with an analysis of how we got to where we are.
The idea of a living universe has dominated human history. Until around 400 years ago, the vast majority of people accepted that the planet they lived on was a living thing that provided for them. In the West, Christianity intertwined with earlier beliefs to support the idea that we were the privileged recipients of a bountiful Earth. We would celebrate Oustre/Easter as a time of resurrection and renewal. We would give thanks for the harvest. However, as modern scientists started to identify the processes and forces that governed the universe, the integrity of the system began to be sidelined in favour of thinking about individual aspects of the world. This is Materialism, a retreat from living complexity to a worldview based on how visible and tangible parts of the world work, removed from the greater context.
The materialist viewpoint has led to a great misunderstanding. It has led us to believe that we can consider aspects of how the world works as separate from one another and also that we can regard ourselves as separate from the world. It gives rise to a view which Erickson phrases succinctly as “humanity is separate from and superior to nature and other forms of life”.
This disconnected and vain outlook fails to provide any guidance as to what is important in life. Erickson urges us to avoid the materialist trap when considering how we should live and instead develop a philosophy based on a better description of the world, one in which the integrity and importance of life are paramount. Philosophy in this context is not studying Socrates or Foucault, it is much more practical. It is deciding how we deal with other people, who we vote for, where we invest our money and how we treat the world (human and non-human) around us. It’s our ethics. Erickson believes that materialist worldviews are a poor way to inform our ethics. Because thoughtful people want to know how best to live, thinking about a living universe makes much more sense.
Erickson’s premise is that life is not an aberration in a universe of rocks and elements, but rather that the universe itself is a manifestation of life. Life makes the universe what it is. This is not simply a return to Pre-Modern thought, rather this is where cutting-edge science is at. Quantum Physics is dauntingly complex, but then so is what it seeks to describe; a universe in which everything relates to everything else, connected by what Erickson refers to as the Ground of Being.
This phrase refers to a view of god as the source of all life, as a constantly present ground or basis for the universe. In this context, god is not a being, but rather the background energy or framework of the universe. This is a deep reading of Christianity and is shared with other religious traditions like Buddhism and Daoism. Quantum Physics also requires a background field that connects everything in the universe. Respected exponents of quantum science like Einstein and Planck have been clear that their work reconnects with centuries-old philosophies. Likewise contemporary ideas of ecosystems, relationships between plants and animals that are too complex to fully understand, sit well in this mindset.
There is a highly illuminating passage around page 95 in which Erickson addresses death as part of an ecological reading of life. Death is a critical part of natural cycles, in which redundant bodies give way to new ones that are better suited to their environment. In a materialist outlook, death is a disaster for the human being. In an outlook based on universal life, death has a context and is made meaningful. This better understanding of death as part of the cycle of universal life also provides a basis for understanding the smaller deaths that we must endure. The loss of someone close to us, the loss of an identity, priorities or habits. Growth as a human being means letting go of attachments and practices that hold us back. The ego must suffer these non-fatal deaths for us to emerge stronger.
This is a timely and compelling book. At a time when many people around the world are concluding that we can’t go on like this, Erickson is saying that we don’t have to. Many writers, rightly, say that Western society has to change radically. They are less clear on the mechanics of the transition. This matters. Our world is as it is because the motivations and assumptions of the people who created this world led to a particular outcome. Change those motivations and assumptions, change the philosophy and the world will start to change in response. We can’t change how we treat the world until we start to think differently about it. A philosophy of (human) life, based on (universal) life takes us back to a place where we are a participant in the life of the world, not a disconnected bystander.
If a new edition of this book is likely, I would ask for a list of the many references that the author makes to the work of other writers. This book has the potential to act as a portal to many useful texts and thinkers that expand a philosophy based on life. These reference texts make it clear that this book is closely integrated with the way that people have seen the world for thousands of years. The universality of life would be instantly recognised by early Middle Eastern civilisations, hunter-gatherers, druids, shamans, medieval priests and farmers. The importance of universal life has always been understood. The modern era of exploitation, extraction, destruction, separation, pollution and desecration is an aberration.
Erickson concisely describes the current separation, its roots and how we realign ourselves with universal life. It’s a powerful and convincing argument. If you agree that we can’t go on like this, it’s one you should probably read.
Disclosure.
Usually, I write reviews of books that interest me or are recommended by trusted friends. In this instance, Erick approached me to write a review and provided me with a copy of the book. Having read it, I’m glad he did.
