Why Philosophers are Self-Help Authors →

. RSS

Long before the modern self-help industry existed, ancient Greek and Roman philosophers were asking the same questions many readers still carry today. How should I live? What leads to a good life? What does it mean to flourish?

Thinkers like Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and others weren’t writing to motivate or market. They were trying to understand happiness, character, and moral responsibility. Their work focused on ethics, reason, self-knowledge, and the habits that shape a meaningful life.

What makes their writing feel surprisingly modern is its practicality. These philosophers weren’t interested in abstract theory alone. They believed reflection should change how a person lives. Their students were encouraged to examine their actions, values, and assumptions, not just admire ideas from a distance.

In many ways, today’s self-help books continue this same tradition. They invite readers to pause, take inventory, and become more intentional. The language has changed, but the underlying goal has not. Growth begins with awareness. Improvement follows attention.

We all have parts of our lives we want to understand better and skills we hope to develop. A good self-help book doesn’t promise transformation overnight. It offers a starting point. A framework. A way of thinking that encourages responsibility, resilience, and clarity.

The ancient philosophers understood something that still matters now: a better life doesn’t come from shortcuts or slogans, but from sustained reflection and deliberate practice.

In that sense, the distance between philosophy and modern self-help isn’t very wide at all.

If these ideas resonate, they are explored more fully in my book Philosophers Are Self-Help Authors and throughout the What Matters essay collection, where I return to the same enduring questions about meaning, attention, and how we shape our lives through reflection.

The Quiet Logic of Coincidence

. RSS

Coincidences often feel like life tapping us on the shoulder. They arrive quietly, an unexpected encounter, a repeated theme, a moment that seems too well-timed to ignore. We’re quick to call them random, but most of the time they emerge from paths we’ve already set in motion. Our choices create the openings where these moments appear.

Our choices shape the direction we move, but the direction itself opens doors we never could have planned for. What we call coincidences often turn out to be the prompts life uses to nudge us forward — moments that look random until we realize they were only possible because we changed course in the first place.

When I look back on my own life, every major career decision felt like a leap at the time. But those decisions created openings, encounters, opportunities, and conversations that would never have happened if I had stayed where I was. The “coincidences” that followed weren’t accidents; they were outcomes made possible by the direction I’d chosen.

Maybe that’s the quiet truth behind coincidence: it’s less about fate or chance and more about alignment — the meeting place between intention and possibility. When we pay attention, we see that these moments don’t just happen to us. They happen because of us. And if we follow them with curiosity, they often lead to the next chapter of who we become.

Free Will, Determinism, and the Question of Choice →

. RSS

Determinism suggests that everything that happens, including human thought and behavior, is the result of prior causes. Under this view, events unfold according to laws of nature, leaving little room for genuine choice. Even our decisions may simply be the outcome of forces already set in motion.

Free will presents a different picture. It assumes that individuals can choose, act, and be held responsible for those actions. Moral responsibility depends on this belief. If we are free to choose, then our decisions matter, and accountability follows.

The tension between these two ideas has occupied philosophers and scientists for centuries. If everything is predetermined, responsibility becomes difficult to defend. If choice exists, then human agency carries real weight. The debate remains unresolved, but it continues to shape how we think about ethics, science, and personal responsibility.

There is another question often left on the margins of this discussion. What role does chance play?

Some argue that chance introduces genuine uncertainty into human life. Others see chance as merely a name we give to complexity we don’t yet understand. Whether chance is real or illusory, it complicates the simple divide between freedom and determinism.

What seems to persist, regardless of where one lands philosophically, is the experience of choosing. We deliberate. We reflect. We act. And we live with the consequences.

Perhaps the enduring value of this debate is not that it gives us final answers, but that it reminds us to pay attention to how we live, decide, and respond to the circumstances we’re given.

These questions about chance and choice are explored more fully in Embrace Life’s Randomness, where uncertainty is treated not as a flaw in life, but as one of its defining features

Are coincidences chance, choice, or something in between? →

. RSS

Coincidences are often described as mysterious moments that feel meaningful precisely because they seem unplanned. We notice them because they interrupt our expectations. A familiar face appears unexpectedly. A pattern emerges where none was intended. Something aligns, briefly, without explanation.

One way to understand coincidences is through the lens of free will. We make choices every day, guided by our values, habits, and preferences. Sometimes those choices intersect in ways that feel surprising. A decision to stop for coffee leads to an unexpected encounter. A small action sets off a chain of events we couldn’t have predicted.

From this perspective, coincidences are not random at all. They are the visible result of countless choices converging.

Determinism offers a different explanation. Our decisions may feel free, but they are shaped by prior causes we rarely see. Biology, environment, experience, and social influence quietly guide where we go and whom we meet. What feels like chance may be the natural outcome of forces already in motion.

There is also the question of pattern. Humans are remarkably good at noticing repetition and meaning. When events cluster or symbols repeat, we interpret them as significant. Coincidence, in this sense, may be less about the world arranging itself and more about how we attend to it.

Whether coincidences arise from free choice, underlying causes, or genuine randomness may be impossible to determine. What seems more certain is how we respond to them. These moments invite reflection. They prompt us to pause, connect, and reconsider how our lives unfold.

Much of my writing returns to this space between intention and uncertainty. In Embrace Life’s Randomness, I explore how unplanned moments often shape our lives just as deeply as deliberate choices. Coincidences sit at that intersection. They don’t resolve the debate between free will and determinism, but they do remind us that meaning often emerges from what we didn’t expect.

Free Will, Determinism, and the Limits of Control →

. RSS

The debate between free will and determinism has long asked whether we truly control our actions or whether our lives unfold according to forces already set in motion.

Determinism suggests that every event, including human behavior, is shaped by prior causes. From this view, biology, environment, history, and circumstance quietly guide what we do. Choice may feel real, but it emerges from conditions we did not create.

Free will presents a different understanding. It assumes that individuals can make decisions that genuinely influence their lives. Responsibility, accountability, and personal growth all depend on this belief. Without choice, meaning becomes difficult to defend.

Both perspectives struggle on their own. Determinism must explain why people experience themselves as choosing, resisting, and changing. Free will must account for the many aspects of life that remain outside our control.

One way forward is to see these ideas not as opposites, but as companions. Some conditions shape us. Others invite response. Growth may occur not in spite of limitation, but through it.

Perhaps the deeper question is not whether everything is chosen or predetermined, but how we respond to what we are given. Within constraint, we still act. Within uncertainty, we still decide. And in that space, we continue to become who we are.