Have you ever tried reading a book of philosophy, written by an actual philosopher?
I have, and it’s demoralizing.
Here I was, thinking I was a good reader, excellent in fact, but then why can’t I make a single bit of sense out of this text?
I am a person who needs a dumbed-down version to understand philosophy. But the 2022 philosophy book How to Be Perfect, by Michael Schur, is not for dummies. It made me think aplenty. It also made me laugh—Schur is a comedy writer—and that’s no small thing in the accounting of my enjoyment of a book.
How to Be Perfect is extraordinary in its understandability, considering the subject matter. It covers the ethical philosophies of Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, and many others. If you’ve ever wondered how you ought to behave in any given situation, these philosophers offer interesting and plausible frameworks to follow.
If you can understand them. Which you can, if you read this book!
Here’s an example of Schur’s clear writing style. This sentence is from the section on the living philosopher Peter Singer:
“We do a lot of dumb stuff that we don’t need to do, and when we do that dumb stuff, we very rarely think about the moral opportunity cost—the other, better things we could be doing instead.”
—Michael Schur, How to Be Perfect
I love that down-to-earth sentence.
And it made me think. I recently bought a stationary exercise bike, which arguably I don’t need, since I get most of my exercise by running outside, and when I’m not running, I can always walk, unless the weather is extreme (which it rarely is in the DC area). Imagine if I had taken that money and given it to a reputable charity that saved lives or enabled dreams or helped clean up the environment or . . .
I do give to charity every month. But . . . how much is enough?
Have you bought anything unnecessary lately? Have you given to others lately?
Loved your blog! Very entertaining and provocative., but I think the term “dumb stuff” is very imprecise and open to a lot of interpretation..
To my way of thinking, dumb stuff could actually be something good, if it’s fun or gives you some enjoyment—like blowing a lot of money on concert tickets or a soccer match. You may not need to go, but is it really dumb if it gives you pleasure? On the other hand, maybe your spending decision might be something truly “dumb” —like me buying another sweater because I love sweaters— but I already have a closet full of them! (It isn’t necessarily dumb stuff for you to buy an Exercycle when you already walk or run because actually you could be building up leg muscles to walk faster and help prevent injuries from jogging.)
I just don’t see that how we spend our money—unless we’re a Bill Gates—really has much to do with lost moral opportunity. You can generally buy an Exercycle and still give to your favorite food bank, if you chose to. (I know, Ross, read the book!)
Hi Ross – Thanks for writing in. I think you’re right that Schur sometimes uses imprecise language in an effort to sound modern or hip. I also think you’re right that when we spend our money on seeming luxuries, this often actually contributes to our well-being. However, Schur’s (and Singer’s) point stands that there is always someone worse off than us to whom we could be giving money. We are always choosing between saving someone else’s life and buying that new sweater. It’s hard to argue with the math. But I agree with you that it’s okay to spend money on yourself in seeming frivolous ways; you are important, too.