From Freedom to Tyranny: Socrates' Perspective on Democracy's Paradox

Episode 44 of the Resiliency Rounds Podcast:

Aneesh 00:01

Optimism in a cup.

Eddie 00:03

Yes, ambition in a cup, pure black ambition in liquid form. Alright, we're recording and we're going to continue our discussion of the constitutions of the deformed or suboptimal states that Socrates is elaborating. So up until this point we've discussed the aristocracy, the conditions and the constitution that lead to timocracy, and then the conditions and constitutions that pertain to oligarchy, and now we're moving into democracy. So, democracy and here I'm sort of summarizing, I'm not actually following the trail of the Socratic rationale, which we'll get into, I think, later but Socrates characterizes democracy as a state of mental and effectively, at some point, actual slavery. So, he describes the democratic constitution as one that is not really focused, is subject to the whims of different expectations to include residual, oligarchic, spendthrift type considerations. So, a democratic individual may at certain points be quite conservative, quite penny pinching, but then can be taken and swept up into drone type desires Again. So, the idea of the drone being somebody who's not really contributing anything to society, and they live a life where they essentially satisfy their desires and their non-necessary aspects of their life. And so, the democratic constitution is one where you have people essentially following their own whim without actually committing to any of them, and what this leads to is what Socrates talks about on examination of the democratic state or constitution a supermarket of constitutions, basically a multifarious collection of constitutions, all of which are somewhat living in harmony.

02:44

But the seeds of tyranny are planted therein. And the reason the term slave is invoked in this description is because the members, the constitution of the democratic republic is one where the only thing that they're aligned to consistently is what their idea is of freedom. And so, freedom becomes the social currency of the democracy, just like wealth was the social currency of the oligarchy honor for democracy and virtue for the aristocracy. And so, when you pursue freedom for its own sake, you now end up in sort of like this relativistic, unfocused soup of societal fads, drives, desires, and there it leads to sort of an unfocused life and not to jump too far ahead. But we'll backtrack. Therein lie the seeds of the eventual tyranny that evolves from the democracy, because whenever freedom becomes pursued for its own sake, without regard to virtue, without regard to temperance, then you can end up in a dynamic which is described here in his explanation of how democracies devolve into tyrannies. You end up in a situation where people now will look to somebody else to protect their freedom. So, there's this constant outsourcing, not only of their focus and drive and their aim in life. But you eventually get to the point where the individual or the democratic constitution outsources the defense of the freedom that they want to enjoy. And so, some hero, some champion the eventual tyrant is somebody who promises to do that and then leads them down the path toward tyranny.

04:43

Now, that's a very quick summary snippet of what was discussed here, but I think we should go back now and talk about how is it precisely that democracy evolves out of the oligarchy. Yeah, and so how would you describe that? Because they do point out the fact that the oligarchy and the democracy actually have similar conditions for their own. They both carry the recipe for their own demise built into the system. And what happens is, with the oligarchy, there is a desire to break the system, because what ends up happening is you end up with sort of a caste system. You've got like a haves and have not group and that leads to resentment. And what ends up happening is that they have nots eventually realize that. I mean Socrates, I think, actually uses similar phraseology. That says, on occasions where you do what the have nots do, interact with the haves they look at the haves and say look at this out of shape dude. I could take this guy out right now. Why?

Aneesh 05:52

don't we just do that? That happens in the, in the yeah, so the. Before you get there, though, the, this path of oligarchy devolving into a democracy, which then devolves into a tyranny, is the underlying theme of all of these constitutions.

06:14

Right, we discussed this Right, where the perfect Republic, with the philosopher king and the guardians who are the axel, who are the intermediary between the, the philosopher king, and the, the masses, that is, the workers and the auxiliary, that that philosophic sorry, that perfect Republic cannot last forever there is. There is this faction that gets created from within, and this talk of the, of the platonic number, which is the perfect number for you know, for a human, and how there is a remainder left in there, that remainder and eventually creates a faction inside of this, this perfect Republic, which then devolves into a democracy which is an honor loving Republic, which is that, like you said, right. What is the good? The good in the, in the perfect Republic, the aristocratic Republic, is virtue, justice is good Justice. Everything is being done for the sake of justice. In democracy, the good is honor and then in in, once you are honor seeking, then it creates in you this desire to separate yourself from those that you believe are not honorable. And it turns out the objective metrics of that honor is what takes precedence over time.

07:43

And there is this accumulation of wealth. Initially this in secret, and then, once it, the democracy, devolves into an oligarchy where the good now is wealth. This is no longer a secret. All the possessions are out in the open of everybody to see and then that creates the haves and the have nots, and not only the have nots, the created not just because they don't have anything. They actually they may have had and they lost it to, to, to someone else. And they are still allowed now, when they have no possessions and no ability to recoup their possessions, still participate inside of the or participate, be or live inside of the republic.

08:25

And it creates a class of people who are, in a way, seething because they have lost everything and so off. The people who don't participate in an oligarchy, the group that is that is dangerous are the ones who are, who had possessions, were part of the ruling class and now they've lost everything. And now they are, they are, they are waiting for revenge. So, when he says drones, the drone is kind of like the opposite of a philosopher king, in a way, the in the higher order constitutions like a democracy. The Drone concept really doesn't exist inside of a democracy. But when you come into oligarchy, suddenly how he talks about these drones, a drone is somebody who's actually useless.

Eddie 09:19

Useless, but they're. They're kind of like they're the hedonistic element of correct.

Aneesh 09:24

So, they are the appetitive right, useless part. Right, you can imagine the aptitude part inside of a perfect Republic is the world he correlates to the three components of the soul, and that's a great right, right.

Eddie 09:34

So, there is an aptitude part, it's not.

Aneesh 09:36

It's not wrong to have an appetite, it's actually natural to have one, but to be able to work toward that, to feed the entire system while you choose Satiated appetite. That is a very different way of looking at it, as opposed to being completely useless and be at being appetitive. So, the, the oligarchic drone, are come in two forms a stingless one and the one with sting. The stingless ones are the, the ones who have no education, no means of being able to participate in the republic. They've never had and they will never continue and they will never have in the future. These, the ones with stings, are either those who are committing crimes. So, they are. They come from have-nots, but they have the Power to be able to steal from the right so they are people who have fallen from the rich to this right and this these stingless ones are the ones that may have the motivation to retaliate, but not the means.

Eddie 10:35

But the ones with the sting have the motivation and the means, and often they're the ones that have actually lost their position and so that is in the oligarchy.

Aneesh 10:44

And then, as you go into a democracy, turns out that these drones become even more powerful and that concept of the drones gaining more power. You can think about it as the opposite of the, the power of a philosopher king inside of a constitution. Now, if you think about these, we talk about constitution, where we talk about, talk about a human, a human who is driven by a who's Republic, ordered republic inside of that of their mind is run by a philosopher king. That philosopher king is we have discussed this is the smallest in number of all the multitudinous cells that exist inside of that human. The drone element actually is the largest. But inside of an ordered republic, those drones are not drones. There are no drones exist. In there, appetitive parts are the working class and so the, the work is being generated by everybody who works in unison.

11:40

But as that devolves, as a human devolves or doesn't ascend to a perfect aristocracy inside of his or her mind, they have lot more of these drones, these appetitive. Neither are they participating in anything positive. Not only that, they continue to have, or consume or have negative tendencies. Some of these tendencies can be dangerous where they are. Not only are they not willing to participate in something good, they're actually destructive towards their Uh, toward both themselves and others, and so, if you look at it from that perspective, democracy is where we find most of ourselves to be.

12:20

Democracy is when it starts with the same way you said. You're right, starts the same way. The good in the early forms of democracy is still money. Money, or who has money has power. Money is the good, and so what happens in the situation is in an oligarchy, money was good, but lavish shows of wealth or spending money on things that are frivolous was looked down upon. An oligarchic person or an oligarchic constitution Holds on to wealth and are in my heart, miserly they are hard pressed to even spend them on things that are useful.

13:02

But if they had to spend it, they spend it on useful things. They won't spend it on useless things. So, it's not about you know the, the brand name clothes. It's about making sure you have. You buy enough clothes. You buy good quality clothes, but you don't buy brand name clothes. You buy you have nutritious food. We don't have to have caviar right.

13:20

So once that that devolves into a democracy, where that distinction goes away, and what leads to that, what leads you from going from an oligarchy to a democracy, is for an oligarchic Constitution, for an oligarch to be able to make money he has. There's only that much money to burn out. The only way they can do it. The one of the best ways to make money is through interest. If you would just take money and put and Dig up a hole in your backyard and put it in there, it's not going to make any money. The. That's the, the way the world works right now. The only reason why people get richer is because of interest and the. The only way interest can be levied is. There's someone out there who's in need for that money.

14:03

And if you, if you had a simple society. When, when we started talking about the republic, one of the first questions that was asked to Socrates was you know what does justice look like? And he described the society, a society where People tell the, the soil what they got out of it. They, they, they ate they, they slept on you know these mattresses and drank this simple wine and it fixed for desert and danced around the fireplace. And Glaucon I think it's Glaucon who says you know; these guys live like pigs.

14:35

He's like nobody's, like no, my friend, this is uh, uh, this is a simple life. And he says well, Glaucon is like well, what about, you know, desserts? And what about, uh, the plays and what about things like that? So, he says oh, so you're talking about a complex society right.

Eddie 14:49

I say that's right. Socrates immediate. Yet at the suggestion of some unnecessary Relish, some relish some extra thing. Immediately. Socrates jumped that oh, you want something complex.

Aneesh 15:01

You want something complex and right.

Eddie 15:03

This is all becoming very apparent.

Aneesh 15:05

So, it's so obvious. Now, if you think about it like the, the more such Tendencies exist where you want to satisfy not just the basic, but now you want to delve into the luxuries of it. That is when you need more money. The way you get more money is by getting other people, not yourself. If one has all of these appetites, one is doomed. If one can control their appetites.

Eddie 15:29

And but tell others hey, it's okay to buy that BMW.

Aneesh 15:31

Hey, it's okay to get that 4 000 square foot house. You don't have the money right now, don't worry, I will lend you the money. You deserve it. You know you work so hard. You deserve it. You know why don't you just pay me back with, you know, some interest and the other person's like oh, such a magnanimous gent, you know who's giving me all this money. And you're right, he's right, I deserve this car, I deserve this house. And next thing, you know, you are in debt. And if say, you pay the debt off Right, at the end of the day all you got was a car and a house for it. But who's? You never made any money. You have no net worth.

16:03

The guy who has the money is this, this, this, the person who is thrifty, the oligarch, the thrifty oligarch now three oligarch says you know, wow, I could fool this guy. Let me go ahead and fool as many of these people as I can. Let's make it such that it's very easy for people to take out loans so easy for you know. And then let's advertise the, the beautiful German engineered car and these beautiful big houses with these layouts. You know, let's advertise that so that young people are always looking to do these things. You know, buy this. That status is associated with what you drive, not how much money is in your bank, don't worry about that. And they create that milieu. And Then you go from an oligarchy where everybody was thrifty and holding on to their money to a place where some are holding on to money and now you're creating this class of people who just want to have, have appetites, and you're trying to keep that going. Now, eventually, what happens is people come to realize that they are, they have lost out of everything. They have no money. This house, the bank took away because they couldn't pay them, pay the interest on it, they couldn't pay the mortgage on it, the skull was taken away, you know whatever. And now they find themselves in the drone class. They have the appetites, but instead of being stingless drones these are drones with sting they want to get back at the man, and we heard this a lot right now. Right, all of this, this you know one percent of what was a movement, right about the richest one percent versus the bottom 99 percent, and you know there was a big revolt about. You know who these people are and things like that and how there should be quality. Right, you see that in our modern-day life, you see a lot of this. I find myself complaining about the man. Right, that's one of the big them. If you want to blame anything, you can blame it on the man. And the man here is the thrifty oligarch and we are the drones. Now the In.

17:59

In case of a democracy, like you were saying, the democracy is a multifarious, is a multitudinous democracy, right. Where there is no single, there is no single line of thought or order of business, I have a problem, you have a problem. Our problems are not the same. So, we don't fight together. There's no common, we don't come together to fight. You see what I mean. And so, we just coexist. There's harmony, you said you use what harmony?

18:28

which I think is a which I don't believe it's harmony. It is a general lack of, I should say even, lack of responsibility. It is what would be the word for it. It is this disregard. The only time in a democracy I am incensed is when I am wronged. You know there's this line in apology that Socrates says. He says that you know you as a citizen. You are beholden to the laws Because the laws created you. Only, it turns out only when you suddenly find yourself at an odd with the law that you start screaming and showing up to court and, you know, pleading with people about this law. This law is unjust, right? If you thought that the law was unjust, you should have started protesting against it from the get go. The fact that you participated in it for the majority of your life and never opposed it, that means you accept the law. You see, and then it's yeah and it's very telling that he Socrates is.

Eddie 19:52

Socrates' trial and verdict are an exercise in the democratic failure.

Aneesh 20:01

That's exactly right.

Eddie 20:02

Because Miletus essentially plays a role in this microcosm of the tyrant. He convinces the crowd without actually providing any useful evidence to convict Socrates, purely based off of inflammatory, what you could call evidence and not of anything objective.

Aneesh 20:25

Yeah, whether he was a tyrant in that situation. I don't know, but I don't know if he had that kind of power. But that is a failure of democracy.

Eddie 20:31

I don't mean he was a literal tyrant.

Aneesh 20:32

Yeah, yeah, I'm saying he was basically he could.

Eddie 20:36

He was essentially playing sort of the microscopic role of the tyrant in that one. But even then, if you in terms of swaying the crowd against their enemy. I see what you mean, and this and that happens later on here. So, I mean I think this all ties together.

Aneesh 20:47

It does tie in, but I'm saying that, even if you didn't have to go to a tyranny, you could see how, if Socrates is the perfect republic, how a democracy can be unjust toward a perfect republic, like even that process of a trial by peers, which is a democratic process. You can see how this injustice built into that process.

Eddie 21:11

Socrates. The two main thrusts of his critique to democracy are the fact that there's this lack of focus, this sort of aimlessness to democracy, but there's always. It's quite vulnerable to tyranny. But, to use his language here, I like how he essentially builds the logical chain from the seeds of the uprising that leads to democracy in the Oligarchy and he points out simply that you cannot honor wealth in a city and maintain temperance in the citizens at the same time. And that essentially leads to the idea of the drones, with and without sting, who are essentially primed for revolt at that point.

21:54

Because in the meantime, the money makers, he says, with their heads down, pretending not to see them, i.e. to have nots, have increased the size of the drone and beggar class. And not only that, you end up with a population that has become fond of luxury. And then it's later on, at that point where Socrates says you know, when they have more and more meetings where they have nots, have this thought to themselves, quote these men are ours for the taking, they're good for nothing. And then there, now, you have the revolt as essentially primed to be triggered and he says then democracy comes about, I suppose, and the poor are victorious. They are not able or expel the others and give the rest and equal share in the constitution and the ruling offices and the majority of offices in it are assigned by a lot. So, it's this tension between the imbalance of what happens to be the social currency at that time that leads to the revolt and the creation of democracy.

Aneesh 22:56

He says you know, if you want to put an end to this, if you want to put an end to the creation of this drone class that is full of appetites because the constitution was such that it allowed for people to just partake in their appetites and have you know this disregard, for you know living a simple life, so the simplest, the best thing that you can do, the best way to make to compel citizens to care about virtue is if you prescribe that the that voluntary contracts are entered into at the lender's own risk.

Eddie 23:40

Right. I remember reading that he said that is the main law that would do it. That's simple, because the second you have a system where somebody can lose their shirt and there's no consequence to the people who the shirt loser is beholden to it's very complex, it is very complex. Socrates said it more simply than I did, but essentially you have a system where the lender is at no risk.

Aneesh 24:04

That's right. That means if you buy a house and the bank gave you the loan to do it, you were liable for that Right, as opposed to if the bank was liable for it.

Eddie 24:13

How, how likely were they to give you that loan Right there won't be Right.

Aneesh 24:19

So, and now again, if you think about it from our perspective, right, we are not wealthy oligarchs. So, we, in a way, if you look around you, democracy looks like it works really well. All around us, in this, in this neighborhood right now, where you and me are sitting, almost every house I don't think anybody outright owns their house they have taken a loan out for doing it Right. If Socrates ran this country, we wouldn't be living in houses like this, we won't be driving the cars that we drive, we won't be partaking in the kind of food that we partake in. So, most people read this and they're like I'm glad Socrates doesn't run this country. Right, this is there's a reason why, if one reads the Republic, they don't.

25:06

It's very difficult to take away what you're actually supposed to be doing and living, because that's hard to do, for because we are these people we are fond of luxury, incapable of effort, either mental or physical, and too soft to endure the pains and are lazy. That's who we are, and you know this might seem. This is, this is what Socrates says the subjects in democracy are. Now, this might seem too harsh, this characterization of who we are. You say no, we work really hard and you know we can endure pains, but as a general populace and this is a 556C Right it is for these reasons the rulers in the city treat their subjects in a way we describe and ask for themselves and those belonging to them. Don't they bring up the young to be fond of luxury, incapable of effort, either mental or physical, too soft to endure pleasures of pains, and lazy? I mean, that's these basically describing us, and this is a hard, hard caricature.

Eddie 26:09

It's hard to read this chapter and not apply to the current environment and the political environment considerations, but it's also hard. I mean it's also very relevant to I mean most people's lived experience. I mean that's always the concern, yeah. But I like how he characterizes, I mean once the democracy has been established after he invokes this idea of the supermarket of constitution where people can just kind of pick out whatever they please. No-transcript. This description of the democratic constitution I thought was very powerful. He says there is no compulsion to rule in this city, even if you are qualified to rule or to be ruled if you do not want to be, or to be at war when others are at war or to keep the peace when the others are keeping it. If you do not want peace, or even if there happens to be a law preventing you from ruling or from serving on a jury, to be any the less free to rule or serve on a jury. Isn't that a heavenly and pleasant way to pass the time while it lasts?

Aneesh 27:13

It's a beautiful statement.

Eddie 27:14

Yeah, and thick with Socratic irony, but at the same time yeah.

Aneesh 27:18

No, this is perfect. This is what we want, yeah.

Eddie 27:22

This is freedom for its own sake.

Aneesh 27:24

You can? You can you describe this to anybody and they'll be like yeah, that's exactly what I want. Man, I don't want to go and serve if I didn't have to be served, so this is.

Eddie 27:34

I highlight the same thing.

Aneesh 27:37

You cannot. You cannot look away from pastors like this. What this is talking about is the. This is a direct contrast, or as close of a direct contrast as you can get to the guardian class, right. So, if you look at your order to public, the aristocratic republic, right, there are people who have the, the, the, the, the made of gold, right, we said they have the tendencies and they receive the physical and the, the, the mental training and then they are um, then they are exposed to the truth.

28:13

That is the cave allegory. Their bonds are broken and because they have the ability, they turn toward the light. They don't have to, but they do. And when they do, then they are by dialectic discussion that led to the mouth. The cave has shown the light and then stay, see what the truth is and the good is, as opposed to the false uh images that were being shown in the cave. Then they come to understand the nature of the one and all of that. But after that they are compelled to go back down into the cave, put those bonds back on, face the wall of images and participate in that world. That is a sense of duty, and the only reason that they would do it is because they someone broke their bonds. The, the facilitator broke their bonds, so they owe it to the facilitator, the facilitator here being the constitution which they were born and which they were raised right in this case.

29:14

This is somebody who says why do I need to go back? I don't need to do any of this. None, I am totally free. Everyone says if I want, I'll stay at the wall. If I want, I'll stay at the mouth of the cave. If I want, I'll go back. You have nobody to tell me anything.

Eddie 29:32

Normally that one day, if it fancies them, they're like you know what?

Aneesh 29:34

I'm just going to go back down in the cave and hang out and the other day like I don't want to do this, I want to do something else, and that when you, when you have unending choice, turns out you actually don't have any choice. They don't have. That is what you were talking about when you said slavery is what's happening inside of a democracy. It's a paradox. The paradox here is you believe you have all this freedom to do whatever you want, but if you look around, I'm not as free as as I would think that I would be. You know, we are all beholden to a certain way of living. We live in a house like this because it's the only kind of houses that are available. You see what I mean.

30:22

These choices that we think we're making out of free will, we are actually subjected to. We are being coerced in many ways that we don't even realize that we are. There are fears inside of us. There are ways that we act which a free human being wouldn't act. You know, if you go back 100,000 years ago and if you were to compare, if you were to go back to an ancestor of ours 100,000 years ago and tell us this is what we do for a free they would. They would think that we are like in you know, cattle. We heard it everywhere. We told what to do, living within these bounds, in these rules. So, this line, this there is. This is the perfect archetype of a democratic citizen. This is somebody who has the qualifications rule but does have no compulsion to do, doesn't feel the compulsion. There's no duty to do anything.

Eddie 31:14

Right and it there is at the root of this a sort of an internal conflict. But what happens is there's eventually sort of a numbness to the conflict. There's no, like you said, there's no sense of commitment to any whim that arrives. And so, the Socrates has some very nice hammer blows here when he's describing the tension that leads to the democratic constitution, where he says and at one hand, won't they call reverence foolishness and drive it out as a disordered fugitive and calling temperance cowardliness? Won't they shower it with abuse and banish it? As for moderate and orderly expenditure, won't they persuade him that it is boorish and illiberal and join with a multitude of useless appetites to drive it over the border.

32:06

And here is when he's talking about the analogy of the.

32:09

Again, there's a lot of this father's son, father's son evolution through these deformed states.

32:18

And so, this, where he's talking about the individual, has sort of this citadel that was built by an oligarchic father, but what happens is there's a, there's a weakness there, meaning the citadel is essentially being attacked and besieged by the drone type drives. And so, there's a conflict wherein the oligarchic tendencies get criticized within the mind and then get abandoned. But then there's like a rapprochement phase where they rush back to them, and it's not so much that the conflict leads to any eventual adoption of one or the other, but the constitution of the democratic individual seems to me just sort of gets used to letting go of commitment and just sort of following their whim, because after that, when they start to begin to rationalize their intemperance, he says they praise them and give them fine names, calling arrogance good breeding, anarchy as freedom, extravagance as magnificence and shamelessness as courage, and so there's sort of this corrupting and co-opting of things would normally be associated with virtue, and they've been supplanted with things that are completely from the realm of the lower class. The ambitious, the drives.

Aneesh 33:42

Yeah. So, what you're saying essentially is that what we're talking about prior to this was a democratic constitution, where the how does it? How does a democracy function and how it changes from an oligarchy to a democracy in the standpoint of a constitution, where, instead of the wealthy having a place in the office, now the wealthy exist inside of a democracy, but they don't participate in office? They don't have to, they don't have to win any of this, because they're just busy, they're just happy making money. They can do, everybody can do whatever they want. So, then the drone class, the ones with the stings, these are the ones who now want power, and but they also want money. So, they want to align with the wealthy, but they also want to rule, and one of the ways to make money is by ruling, and so. But these aren't people who are worthy of ruling, as opposed to in our aristocracy, where you only rule if you're worthy of rule. Only a democracy does not care about a person's foundations.

34:50

Who the person is. It gives no thought as to what sort of practices someone went in or before he entered into politics honors him only if he tells them he wishes the majority well.

Eddie 35:04

Right, and therein is the key to tyranny, because that is, that is, the very potent mechanism of pandering that you see, even our, our, system.

Aneesh 35:15

But even if we, before we go to tyranny, even democracy. That's exactly what's going on. You know it's Socrates says this that you do not speak to the masses. If you are trying to convince the masses, it's not going to work. As a matter of fact, whenever you see somebody talking to a big crowd and the crowd is cheering him on, that person is only telling them what they want to hear. And that is the democracy. The popular man is not that. The crowd is convinced by the man.

Eddie 35:42

The man agrees with the crowd and that's why he's the popular man, and this goes back to the book 6, criticism of, you know, members of the crew of a ship deciding who should be captain, correct, and what ends up happening is that you don't choose the best seafarer or the person who's you know the stargazer. You start picking the person who's good at getting picked at being the captain.

Aneesh 36:04

That's perfectly said so that is the democratic constitution. But how does a democratic man form out of a democratic constitution? What's going on? There is what you were talking about.

Eddie 36:14

And that's what I was getting at Right, and that is like.

Aneesh 36:17

It's true, just like how before we had this man and son concept. I think this man and son concept is actually how one changes into the other inside of oneself. Right, one has these oligarchic tendencies. Then how one rebels against these oligarchic tendencies to now turn into this democratic person. It starts off as you said. The oligarchic tendencies are one has resources and one spends those resources very sparingly on only the most necessary things Good, healthy food as opposed to tasty food. You see what I mean Clothes that are good as opposed to clothes that are luxurious or branded or whatever. So, food, clothing and shelter is a basic need and an oligarch will spend on that, but he wouldn't spend any more than what is necessary Right Now. Out of that comes the son is born into this oligarchic family. The oligarchic father doesn't have the education that he can now bestow on to his son.

Eddie 37:33

So, the son ends up with an incomplete education and has built in susceptibilities to external to the appetites. Right the appetites. The citadel that the son has internally is has defects in the walls. It's susceptible to being besieged by the appetites.

Aneesh 37:51

Correct and the because they are uneducated in the, in the education that Socrates had prescribed for the guardians.

Eddie 38:00

Right the father is uneducated.

Aneesh 38:02

There's no child Son is going to be educated. The son is taught in the oligarchic ways of spending only on what is necessary and not on these appetites, but is raised amongst these appetites. And now the son is constantly colliding against these appetites and these appetites and these people. Now, in the center of a democracy, wealth is still considered to be the good Right. It's it, initially, it's wealth, and then it becomes freedom. But everybody wants to make money. And so, if you are a wealthy, oligarchic son, you're going to always have people who are going to be distinctly the drones with stings. They're going to be hanging around you. Because you are this person.

38:37

It can be easily cajoled and you'll be hearing this, this conversation constantly about how one should spend their money what's the point of having this money if nobody can see it? You know, why don't you wear these great clothes? Why don't you drive this great car? Why don't you, you know, do these things? And this, this son goes back and forth between, as you said, his father's stress on spending only on what is necessary, but his friends and followers who say hey, man, you need, you need to. Why are you being so stingy? Right, show off your wealth. That is what you were talking about. And they say you know he'll keep having, he'll keep going back and forth. At some point these appetites are always going to be stronger than rational thinking In, or even for an oligarch to be able to be thrifty and spend only on what's necessary. That is being rational. That's actually not being emotional.

39:33

Yeah, discipline in a way, this is right.

Eddie 39:36

Because discipline doesn't care if it's rational or rational, but I but. But discipline, yeah, they're very disciplined. But you see, in order to buy it.

Aneesh 39:46

In order to be disciplined, you have to believe in something that you you're spending energy, which is, which is positive energy, but something that is actually not giving you that much back from a, from an operative standpoint, you see, because why I would divorce discipline.

Eddie 40:02

To me discipline is completely divorced from virtue or whether something.

Aneesh 40:05

Yeah, I'm saying that it is virtue, I'm just saying that you believe that this thing to be good even though it doesn't feel good in the value of pursuing it. That's where discipline comes in, right? I mean, no one says that he was disciplined and ate a donut every day, you know, as opposed to, what I mean to say is that it's easy to do not have discipline to eat a donut it is 10 donuts, maybe it's different, but again, my point is that, if it's a donut.

Eddie 40:27

It's a context maybe. What I mean to say is that it was easier to do.

Aneesh 40:32

There's no discipline that's needed. It's gets harder for discipline. And in order to do that, that hard thing that requires discipline, you have to have some rational thinking. You're not just giving him to your appetites at that point, right. So, this person has to give up the business. There's a contest between appetite and rational thought. Appetite ends up winning. If you don't have the right education, we don't have the right upbringing. That's what happens to the democratic son, right. Eventually, he, he starts to believe these things that the appetites are telling him.

41:03

The appetites are saying that who cares about reverence? Right. Who cares what people are saying of how talented and gifted you are? And that's, that's foolishness. You have nothing to show for it, right.

41:17

And then temperance. You know why. If you have the money, spend it, man, you know, are you worried that you're going to lose the money? You're a coward. If you're not ready to show you the money, you know you're a coward. So, temperance becomes cowardliness. And then, yeah, so moderate and orderly expenditures, Like, if you have all this money, why you, you know, spending small parts of it and holding on to big part of it?

41:43

Why are you doing that? That means you are illiberal or boorish. You just, you just don't have the style, you don't have the class Right, and you hear this over and over again and then eventually you're like, yeah man, why should I, why should I listen to my oligarchy father and hold on to all this money? It makes no sense, have it, let's spend it. You don't think about the future, you think about the now and you think about pleasing these, these drones, not realizing that they are drones, they're useless and that's what? Then it eventually leads you to change who you are and like. You think about arrogance. It's true, like, if you look around you right now, in the world that we live in, arrogance is considered to be good, breathing Like who, people who are arrogant, that it's actually not necessarily, not always a bad trait, you know. It's like folks who are, again, kind of only ones who can, who can, be arrogant are arrogant, right, I mean right.

Eddie 42:41

That means you need to have power to be arrogant Right, when the arrogance basically gets sort of twisted, there's this rationalization of things that are vices and signs of things that are not good, and that's what I meant by rationalization of intemperance.

42:57

When you see right, when you see intemperance, it gets rationalized through the system. So, yeah, so that. So, the process is so the person moves from the oligarchic up breathing because of the flaws that are intrinsic to the oligarchic up breathing. They're susceptible and vulnerable to drives and ambitious ambitions hedonistic drives and ambitions and there's an inexorable and systematic process of giving into them. And part of that process is this rationalization of the hedonistic drives. Meaning, oh, just like you said, arrogance must be something good, extravagance must be something good, like magnificence.

Aneesh 43:37

Shamelessness is actually courage. No, that's actually courageous.

Eddie 43:40

But it has nothing to do with virtue. We've talked about courage at length, and so there's so the. What I was trying to say is that that transition is important, but it's also important is the fact that there is a. There's a going back and forth process too, where the son he taught soccer he talks about. At some points there's a sense of shame that arrives in the, in the sun, and they may scurry back to oligarchic principles and then start trying to live in accordance with those, but then eventually those hedonistic drives eventually come back and take over, and the net result of that is that the person gets used to creating an equivalence between the oligarchic that's a beautiful point.

44:25

And that's the thing, and that's the key point here, because then, once they're used to switching, losing their aim. Socrates says he lives always surrendering rule over himself to whichever desire comes along.

Aneesh 44:36

That's right.

Eddie 44:37

And that is the key.

Aneesh 44:38

But see that that part is where we find ourselves, even the ones among us Right now, right, oh yeah. You suddenly find yourself saying you know what? No man, I don't. This life of consumption is not for me. You know, I'm going to. You know, I need to take a break from this.

Eddie 44:57

This is fads. This is everything. This is trends. This is like oh, I'm going to write.

Aneesh 45:03

Do it, any pursuit right, even if you look at the medical pursuit right. You spend your younger days wanting to achieve this pinnacle of whatever this pursuit is right. And when you get there and you keep participating in it, suddenly you're like you know what man this is. This doesn't lead anywhere. Like this is not, this is not. I'm not happy anymore. You know what, I'm going to step away from it, I'm going to quit, I'm going to do whatever else, and so that is kind of going back to your oligarchy. So, I'm going to get my time back, I'm going to spend time with my family or whatever, right.

45:37

But how long do we stay in that state? You find ourselves in that state for a short period of time and then we move on to something else. We're trying to acquire something else. It's a pursuit of you know, you suddenly have this time and now you're in the pursuit of something else and that becomes your obsession. And so, we are never ordered in one direction all the time. Like if you were a philosopher king, there wouldn't be the swaying of going from appetite, power, hungry for money, power, status, and then swaying all the way to social justice and social justice and reform, and then swaying all the way back to your BMWs and your car. You know that's not how it's going to happen. You're going to be constantly in focused in the pursuit of the common good.

Eddie 46:23

Right and the in the aristocrat, the aristocratic ideal. There’re roles. Everybody fulfills their roles Correct and there's no interference between and there. In that lack of interference is where justice emerges. That's exactly right.

Aneesh 46:38

Justice is the ordering of these, this hierarchy of philosopher, king to guardian, to the auxiliary worker class. But in case of a democracy, there's this constant swinging back and forth. As a matter of fact, this particular line, which I thought was really cool, which this is what we want. If you, if you close your eyes and imagine this human being, you want to be this human being. Right, he says this there is neither order, no necessity in his life. Yet he calls it pleasant, free and blessedly happy and follows it throughout his entire life. There's this question that gets asked.

47:19

Adam Smith has this in his, in his works on you know this utilitarianism. Right, he says who would you rather be a happy pig or a sad Socrates? Right, and this is what this is where this comes from, this line where there is neither order, no, no necessity in his life. He calls it pleasant, free and blessedly happy. You just wallowing in your own ignorance like a pig. You know you're wallowing in this. You know you don't whatever you fancy, you do. You know, if today you want to work out, you work out tomorrow. You know you want to listen to one partake in philosophy, partake in philosophy. You know, next day you want to go ahead. And you know, drive fast, do that. It's like you just follow the signal. Is thinking this, this, this is what is happiness, this constant flitting about of you know, of your desires, as opposed to leading an examined life Right. What is the examination there? The examination is, then understanding why order is needed in your life.

Eddie 48:27

And that that phrase struck me to it Like this is sort of like this fat, intellectually lazy indolence. Right, it's all art, we are pigs and it feels great If you read this is.

Aneesh 48:41

That's why that question is not an easy question to answer. Would you rather be a happy pig or a sad Socrates? The pig is oblivious to the fact of its existence and it's happy because of that. And Socrates is examining his life and understands the nature of the common good and is miserable because of it. Who would you rather be? Someone who examines himself as this happy pig? And that's why you cannot convince democratic people who have democratic republics inside of them to care about anything else than their freedoms. Because if you ask anybody man, why don't you participate in the common good? Why should I? What is in it for me? Does it feel? Doesn't make me happy? Does it give me power? Does it give me money? Does it feel good? If I'm doing it, like someone will be massaging my foot, but I do it? No, it's going to be hard, it's going to suck. And so, what am I going to get for it? Well, nothing, except for the fact, the satisfaction that you participate in the common good. Well, that seems like a hard job. I don't want to do it anymore.

Eddie 49:42

Well, and not only that, but like the good, freedom becomes the good for its own sake.

Aneesh 49:48

It is the good in case of democracy.

Eddie 49:51

I'll do it if I feel like it. Man, yeah, you know what?

Aneesh 49:53

Yeah, I'll participate in that. I'll see you. When I feel like it, I'll show up.

Eddie 49:59

Yeah, so there is the democratic constitution.

Aneesh 50:03

The democratic man is happy, because the democratic man is ignorant.

Eddie 50:12

So, then, this essentially lays the groundwork for tyranny. Do you want to move into that now, or do you want to leave that Because?

Aneesh 50:21

I think you should leave it for now.

Eddie 50:23

The tyrannical. The evolution of tyranny is interesting and it bleeds over into the next book. So, we'll probably end up talking about tyranny, but we may end up kind of creeping into the next book when we do so. But I think this would be a good place to stop, because now what we'll do is talk about how the seeds now within the democratic constitution have been laid for tyranny to arise. All right, we'll leave it there, all right.

Be Happy

Lack of control leads to anxiety and anxiety leads to unhappiness. This is the default state of the human mind.

The one who has power over others is not free. The one who has everything is unhappy. The strong man is weak, the landlord is in chains, the honorable have no respect, and the leader has no authority. Meditate on this fact because one’s freedom and happiness hinges on understanding what is and what is not within one’s power, possession, and control.

Does one have power over one’s body, property, reputation, and position?

Body: Humans come in all shapes and sizes, based on genetics, early nutrition, and developmental opportunities, none of which are under their control. One can optimize their physicality through focus, and discipline, but one cannot control the results achieved. The human body is surprisingly weak; injury, loss of limbs, and diseases can strike at any time. The strongest of men have been brought to their knees by old age, and illnesses over which they have no control. One only has to reflect on Lou Gehrig to understand this fact.

Property: Who owns the land that one calls their own? The land existed eons before and will continue to be around long after one is gone. One’s rights to property is at the mercy of large scale human activities like commerce, war, and natural disasters like tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes. No one has control over these forces. Pompeii must have had many landlords who believed they had absolute dominion over their land.

Reputation: One can conform to what society endorses, one could create something that society needs, or one could pursue an endeavor that society respects. One could seek honor, but whether society endorses, needs, or respects their efforts is not under their control. Cancel culture is a good example of that.

Position: A position in a workplace or society requires the presence of others. The person in the highest position is dependent on their subjects to accept that position. To seek the highest position is under one’s control but the acceptance of leadership by others in the workplace or society is not. The French and Russian revolutions are a good example of that.

One desires strength, wealth, reputation, and position to improve their lot in life. But there is no end to power, and possession. There is no absolute power over others. Anything that is measurable by an external standard or requires the approval of others can never be completely within one's power.

How to be happy?
If lack of control leads to anxiety and one is not in control of the things they desire, then the path to happiness is to desire only the things that are in one's control. One has no control over the fate of their body, wealth, reputation, or position but one has control over one’s opinion, emotions, and actions. This is a difficult concept to understand so let’s study this in some detail.

Opinion: One can challenge external forces that influence their current opinions. One can challenge their preconceived notions by participating in discussions with the learned. One can choose to seek out the truth or remain in the status quo of life. To let our minds be carried away by the tide of misinformation is a choice. To take control of the helm is completely within our power.

Emotion: Most desire strength, wealth, honor, and power and are averse to their opposites. Such lives are tossed about in the sea of fate, and chance. One can steady their course of life by critically examining these desires, aversions, and the resulting emotions. To act without desire or aversion is temperance. To desire temperance and to be averse from indulgence is within one’s power.

Action: Action stems from thought. One can choose to act to gain strength, wealth, reputation, and power. One can also choose to forego these desires and instead pursue excellence in thought. To be able to control one’s opinions, and emotions through rational thought is a great achievement. The ultimate expression of excellence is to act according to rational thinking in all spheres of life, socio-political, professional, and personal. Achieving control by living in accordance with this philosophy would secure freedom, and happiness.

In conclusion

One can choose to believe or dismiss the philosophy of control. But if one mistakes the things which are not in their power to be their own, they will be unhappy, and will blame their lot in life on the Gods, fate, and chance. But the one who exercises control over the mind through temperance, and desires only that which is within their control, they will be free from the anxieties that plague the human mind. This is the path to happiness.

-Aneesh

The Stand

A dark place where a fell beast preys on the unfortunate.

After rebirth, with blade in hand and resolute with purpose

I ventured in.

Many a times fear gripped me, and doubt clouded my heart,

But my guardians marched me toward anguished cries.

Then one day I heard him call out to me, my kin who was lost,

With hope and blade held high I set out.

The beast had struck a deadly blow, but together we stood up to the inevitable,

Wounded but alive he returned feeling triumphant.

Our spirits rose, the clouds lifted momentarily,

Then deathly silence, darkness descended.

The beast had doubled back, and my friend was swallowed whole.

I was besieged by guilt and crippled by pain.

Through misty eyes I looked back into the darkness and there she was,

At once both beautiful and terrible, an intoxication of hope and despair.

She was leading the beast back to its lair.

Our eyes met, she laughed, and I sharpened my blade.

-Aneesh

The examination of ‘the Joe Rogan Experience’.

Mr. Joe Rogan created controversy by engaging in a conversation about COVID-19 with Dr. Robert Malone, on his podcast 'The Joe Rogan Experience'. I like his podcast and I listen to his content regularly, but this was not an easy podcast episode for me to listen to because of my own biases. I have since had conversations with my wife, who is an immunologist and my friends, who are physicians and academicians about the role of such controversial media content. 

The role of free speech in society was highlighted by Socrates. Plato's Apology describes Socrates' trial in which Socrates compared himself to a Gadfly that pesters a stallion. The stallion here being the Athenian republic. He used the right to free speech to urge his fellow Athenians to examine their lives. He believed that an unexamined life was not worth living because examination was a pre-requisite to developing virtue. He wanted to help his fellow citizens live a life of virtue because a virtuous life was a good life. 

For his expressions of free speech, he was found guilty of poisoning the minds of the youth and he was put to death. During the trial, in the audience there were several young men who were followers of Socrates. These men were well educated and had the leisure to follow Socrates around as he went about accosting the regular folk in the Athenian marketplaces. As a result of their education, leisure, examination of their own lives, and the ability to engage in civil discourse, these young men formed their own opinions about what was True and False. They were not swayed by public opinion or the words of the Political, and Social elites of their society. 

Plato was one such follower of Socrates, after his mentor was put to death, he went on to immortalize Socrates through his works, the 'Platonic Dialogues'. These works are the foundation of western thought and the basis of modern democracy.  The important thing to remember is that at the time of the trial, Socrates was considered to be an instigator, and a rogue element. The popular opinion was that he needed be silenced. It was not only the free speech of Socrates but also the critical examination of his words by select individuals that led to his immortalization and eventually to the formation of modern democratic republics.  

How does this relate to Joe Rogan? Joe believes in free speech and he has a wide range of interests; from mixed martial arts to the understanding of human consciousness. He has been able to acquire a large audience through his podcast 'the Joe Rogan Experience'. He hosts guests who are experts in these topics. Some of these experts have the same infamy as Socrates had during his trial. The socio-political views of such guests create the controversies that sway public opinion. This leads other media outlets, political, and social elites to call for a ban or censorship of his podcast. They want to put Joe and his guests on trial in an effort to silence them. 

The trial of Socrates teaches us that we should not silence the free speech of Joe’s guests or his platform. But like Plato, we should only concern ourselves with the critical appraisal of the content of his podcast. This requires using our education, and leisure to examine our own lives first. Only by living an examined life, would we be able to engage in civil discourse about the issues raised by Joe, and his guests and form our own opinions about what is True and False. That way, we would not be swayed by the opinion of others, and we will not the fear free speech of the so called 'instigators' or 'rogue elements'. 

-Aneesh

Meditations: Breakdown of the Emperor's journal.

Stoic philosophy is over 2000 years old. It has survived because of its simplicity and relevance to modern life. The basic tenets of Stoicism are:

1. We are a tiny insignificant part of the divine universe (nature) which we do not understand. We cannot control the events that befall us. Whatever befalls us is in line with nature and we should accept it as such (Fate and Chance).

2. Such events are neither good nor bad, it’s our opinions that make them so.

3. The only thing we can control is how we respond to such events. We need to train our will (executive function of the brain/rational thoughts) and through that our emotions and actions.

4. Nature dictates that Man is a social animal. Living well with others is our duty since it is in line with nature.

5. The way to a better life is by performing this duty according to 4 cardinal virtues: Justice (giving others what is due to them based on their merits), Temperance (indifference to material things), Courage (good action despite fear), and Wisdom (the ability to differentiate between good and evil).

Meditations is the personal diary of the Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Within it are contained 12 chapters (Books) that reflect the life and struggles of a Stoic philosopher. The chapters are not arranged in any order. This is probably because he journaled to personally reflect on the crisis of the day. The verses are, at times, difficult to follow, are disjointed, and the central message of each verse is often repeated in other verses. This probably suggests that unlike other surviving stoic literary works which are more organized, this journal was probably not meant for others to read.

I have read the book several times and I have found solace in the words of the emperor. I carry a copy with me everywhere I go. Within the book lie answers to the big questions of life such as: What is a good life? What is death? How to live a good life? How to live without fear?. The book answers questions that every leader faces: What is justice? How to serve? How to take criticism? How to work with others? How to relinquish power?. There are answers to questions faced by citizens: What is the common good? What is Duty? How to find common ground? How to tolerate others?

The book is best read cover to cover. But I have compiled the chapters (books) and verses that inform on common themes and broadly divided them into 3 categories: Life, Leadership, and Character. The list is not exhaustive, and every reader is encouraged to independently make his or her own conclusions about the themes contained in the verses. The purpose of this endeavor is to allow the reader to find pertinent verses that help with the crisis at hand. This will make the Meditations a more practical guide for the reader. I have introduced this book to several of my colleagues and leaders. I have gifted this to patients and friends. I believe that this book has helped them make life changing decisions with confidence. I actively hope that it does the same for you.

LIFE:

Death: Book IV, verse 48 (IV-48); VI-24; VI-47; VIII-31; IX-3; X-36

Time: Book II, verse 5 (II-5); II-14; IV-48; VII-24

Good and Evil: Book II, verse 11( II-11); IV-8, IV-39; VI-41; VII-1

Good Life: II-17; III-4; V-34; VI-30; VII-29; VIII-1; VIII-51; IX-6; X-31; XI-19; XI-37; XII-29

Consequence: IV-3; VII-1; XII-21; XII-32

Philosophy: II-17; III-1; IX-29; IX-41

Worry: VIII-36

Happiness: V-34

LEADERSHIP:

Obstacles: IV-1; IV-49; V-20; VI-50; VII-58; VII-68; VIII-47; X-35; XII-26

Legacy: IV-19; VIII-31; IX-29; XII-32

Opposition: VI-50; VIII-16; IX-27; XI-9; XI-18; XII-12; XII-16

Relationship: VII-4; VIII-14; VIII-59; IX-9; IX-11; IX-42; X-30; XI-9; XI-18; XII-16

Leadership: VII-5

Duty: VII-45

CHARACTER:

Character: I-8; V-5;V-6; VII-69

Moderation: I-16; VII-55; XI-11

Justice: IV-37; VII-55

Tolerance: II-1

Wisdom: II-5; III-1; IV-37; VII-2; VIII-48

Fortune: V-36; VII-34; VII-73; VIII-3; XII-14

Control: VI-16; VI-41; VIII-8; VIII-17; XI-2; XII-12

Anger: V-28

Honor: VI-18; IX-29; XII-4

Purpose: VI-47; VIII-19

Health: VI-35; VII-60

-Aneesh 

Moral Injury, Burnout, & Resiliency

by Edgar LeClaire

The burnout epidemic has reached critical levels among physicians, and studies have objectively verified its negative impacts on providers and their patients alike. Interest in promoting physician resiliency has increased in an effort to reduce burnout. However, recent evidence points to a more complex relationship: resiliency scores remain high even among burned out providers.

Moral injury may be a hidden variable that can explain this unexpected discrepancy. Whether a separate construct or a predisposing risk factor, moral injury’s relationship to burnout and resiliency has not been investigated experimentally. Furthermore, while moral injury has received robust educational attention within military training domains, it has not yet received such scholarly consideration in academic medicine. Given potential implications for physician well-being and positive patient outcomes, educational interventions will be needed to identify and prevent moral harm. 

Physician burnout, a work-related syndrome involving emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a sense of reduced personal accomplishment, is endemic and now viewed as a public health risk [1]. Studies of both attending and trainee physicians have measured prevalence near or exceeding 50% nationally [2]. Alarmingly, the devastating impacts of burnout are not limited to the suffering practitioner [3]. Burned out providers are more likely to commit errors, be impaired, or leave practice, all of which are costly to the healthcare system [4]. Thus, interest in resilience, the collection of qualities that enable persons to effectively adapt and maintain well-being as they face and ‘bounce back’ from adversity or stress, has increased dramatically [4]. A growing number of national and global institutions, especially physician organizations, are promoting physician resiliency with increased urgency. Indeed, in 2017, the World Medical Association General Assembly voted unanimously to amend the Declaration of Geneva, considered the “Modern Hippocratic Oath,” to better reflect this emerging priority by adding the words:  “I will attend to my own health, well-being, and abilities in order to provide care of the highest standard” [5]. However, the link between resiliency and burnout is deceptively complex. Recent evidence indicates that physicians show a high prevalence of burnout while also exhibiting high levels of resiliency [6].

A third, hidden variable may deepen our understanding and clarify the burnout-resiliency relationship: moral injury. Broadly defined as “a character wound” resulting from a coerced or self-inflicted violation of an individual’s moral obligation, the concept of moral injury (MI) arose from research on war veterans [7]. It is a concept that delineates measurable injuries that arise from “moral harm” occasioned by work in life-and-death situations.  Such injuries include the symptoms of burnout outlined above.  Though much is understood about identifying and addressing MI among current and former military personnel, there remains a large gap in what is known about the occurrence of MI among physicians and other healthcare workers who must often work long hours in “high-stakes situations” and persevere through pressures that healthcare systems place on them intentionally or unintentionally [8].  The sources of moral harm can be particularly evident, as during the recent COVID-19 pandemic [9], but can be more insidious as well [10]. In the healthcare context, MI attacks ethical fortitude at its source: “the oath each of us took when embarking on our paths as healthcare providers: Put the needs of patients first” [11].

The Foundations of Moral Obligation curriculum has gained wide acclaim as an effective ‘philosophical toolkit’ for military leaders in training who, all too often, eventually find themselves under the ethical strains of warfare [12, 13]. Could philosophical education be the key component to a successful strategy to overcome the problem of ethical strain and moral injury in the healthcare space? Follow along and join our discussion. Listen to the Resiliency Rounds podcast and get the physician’s perspective as Aneesh and I work through the curriculum.

Listen here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-16-the-foundations-of-moral-obligation/id1499292731?i=1000521955023

References:

1.        Devi, S., Doctors in distress. Lancet, 2011. 377(9764): p. 454-5.

2.        West, C.P., et al., Interventions to prevent and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet, 2016. 388(10057): p. 2272-2281.

3.        Dewa, C.S., et al., The relationship between physician burnout and quality of healthcare in terms of safety and acceptability: a systematic review. BMJ Open, 2017. 7(6): p. e015141.

4.        Epstein, R.M. and M.S. Krasner, Physician resilience: what it means, why it matters, and how to promote it. Acad Med, 2013. 88(3): p. 301-3.

5.        Parsa-Parsi, R.W., The Revised Declaration of Geneva: A Modern-Day Physician's Pledge. Jama, 2017. 318(20): p. 1971-1972.

6.        West, C.P., et al., Resilience and Burnout Among Physicians and the General US Working Population. JAMA Netw Open, 2020. 3(7): p. e209385.

7.        Shay, J., Casualties. Daedalus, 2011. 140(3): p. 179-88.

8.        Mantri, S., et al., Identifying Moral Injury in Healthcare Professionals: The Moral Injury Symptom Scale-HP. J Relig Health, 2020. 59(5): p. 2323-2340.

9.        Zhizhong, W., et al., Psychometric properties of the moral injury symptom scale among Chinese health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Psychiatry, 2020. 20(1): p. 556.

10.      Wiinikka-Lydon, J., Mapping Moral Injury: Comparing Discourses of Moral Harm. J Med Philos, 2019. 44(2): p. 175-191.

11.      Dean, W., S. Talbot, and A. Dean, Reframing Clinician Distress: Moral Injury Not Burnout. Fed Pract, 2019. 36(9): p. 400-402.

12.      Gibbons, T.J., "Foundations of Moral Obligation: After 40 Years". Naval War College Review, 2017. 70(Number 3).

13.      Cullen, J.G., Moral Recovery and Ethical Leadership. J Bus Ethics, 2020: p. 1-13.

You will explode: CrossFit's ultimate gift.

The introduction

I remember the first time I walked into a CrossFit box, I was nervous but I was prepared. I had done my research, visited a few boxes and chose this one. If you have never tried CrossFit, it is best to start at a box that offers an 'On-Ramp'. This was my 'On-Ramp', over the next 5 days, me and 5 other newbies would learn the basic lingo of CrossFit, practice some of the moves and learn some basic safety tips. Most of the basic movements were known to me but I was introduced to something that I had never done before, the Olympic lifts. 

The Challenge

It took me the better part of 2 months to get to experience the various movements and lifts. Most of the body weight, static lifts and aerobic stuff was easy to pick up but the biggest hurdle for me were the Olympic lifts. Till that point, I had never come across olympic lifting. Sure, I had seen it of TV during the Olympic Games, but I had no idea that those moves were done outside of competition settings. The olympic lifts are the clean and the snatch. They are, simply put, a way to get a loaded barbell from the ground to overhead in one dynamic motion (2 motions in case of the clean and jerk).  The thought of starting with a loaded barbell on the ground and in one fair swoop, hoisting it up in the air over one's head seemed impossible for me to perform. But I was up to the challenge, I started attending the Olympic lifting class, offered once a week and I started working out with a friend of mine, in his garage on Sundays. At this point I was working out 4-5 days a week but I was nowhere close to successfully completing an olympic lift.

The Clean

Let's talk about the clean (and jerk). If you have never completed one, it goes like this (do not try this without supervision and professional instruction): 

1. Start with a loaded barbell on the ground.

2. Set up a wider than deadlift stance and grab the barbell with an overhand grip at slightly wider than shoulder width.

3.  Initiate the lift and keep the barbell close to your shins and thighs as you hoist it up. This is a combination of a fast deadlift and an upright row.

4. As the barbell reaches your pelvic line, perform a hip thrust.

5. The hip thrust momentum should carry the bar higher as you drop under the barbell, the elbows shoot through, the grip switches to an underhand grip and you end up in the bottom of a front squat. 

6. Complete the front squat, at this point, the barbell is resting on your upper chest and you are standing staring up, knees slightly bent. 

Now the jerk.

7. In one dynamic motion, perform a military press while dropping into a split squat (or a half squat).

8. Stand back up with knees and hand locked out. At this time the barbell is overhead and your feet are in line with each other at shoulder width.

If you were to break down the individual moves, they are all familiar to the average gym enthusiast. A deadlift, an upright row, a front squat, a military press and a split squat. I had done each of these movements separately, many times. I had never done them together and you won't be able to either. That is the nature of the clean.

The Magic

Yes, you will fail at the clean and let's not even talk about the snatch. The reason you will fail is the reason I failed and everyone who tries olympic lifting for the first time, fails. It's because you, me and every other average guy or gal is not familiar with the hip thrust. It cannot be explained in words, it's like riding a bicycle or swimming. I can tell you all about it, you can watch videos and listen to podcasts but unless you try and fail and try again and fail again, on and on till you finally get it, you won't get it. But once you get it, it's like a superpower. You will be on a high, you will be throwing barbells all over the place. 

The Relevance

But this is not only about barbells or olympic lifting. The hip thrust forms the core of dynamic movements like jumping. For those who are familiar with kettlebell swings, the foundational movement is the hip thrust. I would start there if you are interested in knowing what this feels like. But even a broad jump will get you closer to the hip thrust. Once you get familiar with it, you will be able to lift and move more effectively. It's a functional movement, that we have relied on, as bipedal animals, to rise up the ranks. Our hips have as much to do with out success as a species, as our brains. On a side note, we are neglecting both, by sitting on our behinds all day while filling our head with inane social media content. 

The Call 

The only reason that an average guy like me is familiar with and attempts a clean is due to the popular appeal of CrossFit. In my opinion, high intensity interval training and olympic lifts the two biggest fitness trends that we can attribute to the rise of CrossFit. So, are you ready to explode? Get up off the chair, warm up and broad jump, or fetch that kettlebell that is gathering dust as a door stop and give it a few swings. Check out the YouTube video by Marcus Filly to get you started on kettlebell swings (https://youtu.be/mQDxf8fuMpk). The CrossFit YouTube page has videos on the clean (https://youtu.be/EKRiW9Yt3Ps). Unlock your hips, and thank CrossFit with reintroducing you to your evolutionary physical prowess. 

Aneesh

The Curriculum

The Resiliency Rounds Podcast is back for a Season 2. Eddie and Aneesh will go through the ‘Foundations of Moral Obligation’ curriculum. Episodes will focus on their interpretations of the philosophical texts outlined below. The course will help the audience make rational decisions and avoid the pitfalls that lead to moral injury. The texts are available on the Internet. Although it would be ideal if the texts are read prior to listening to the episodes, it is not a pre-requisite. Hoping that you join us…

The Foundations of Moral Obligation reading list:
Plato: Euthyphro, Apology, & Crito
Plato: Republic
Aristotle: Nichomachean Ethics
Kant: On Enlightenment
John Stuart Mill: On Liberty
Thucydides: Melian Dialogue
Charter of the United Nations
Kant: Perpetual Peace
Tolstoy: Death of Ivan Ilych
Elie Weisel: Night
Epicurus: Letter to Meneoceus
The Bhagavad Gita
Dostoyevsky: The Grand Inquisitor
Neitzsche: Thus Spake Zarathustra
Albert Camus: The Myth of Sisyphus

The Gadfly

The Gadfly

Have you ever encountered a gad fly? Like many of us, I know of others who thought they were wise but as long as they kept out of my way, I didn't bother with them. I was a medical student and I was trying to find my place in the world. She always offered a polite smile and asked how things were going. I always smiled back and gave her the generic response,"I am good. How about you?" She would say, "I am always here if you ever wanted to talk." I found that a bit weird. Who would want to talk to a stranger? What would I say? Besides, she wasn't even a doctor. She looked like a nobody. 

The encounter

My friend, invited her to talk to us one day. I was very uncomfortable and got up to leave. She smiled in her usual way and asked me why I was leaving.

Me: I need to get back to my books, I am too busy for this idle chat. Besides what would you have to offer me? I am a medical student, top of my class, you are a nobody!

She seemed unaffected by my slant. 

She: Why do you want to be a doctor? 

Me: Because I can help others, obviously!

She: That is a very noble intent. Do you always help others out? Would you mind helping me figure something out? 

Me: Sure, I am the guy everyone asks for advice. I am fit to help you.

She: Please don't mind me asking you a few questions then. Why do you want to help people?

Me: Because, it is the right thing to do.

She: Why do you want to do the right thing?

Me: Because I am a good person. I have always been taught to do the right things by my parents and teachers. As a matter of fact, I didn't even want to be a doctor, but my parents and teachers convinced me that it was the best profession. I would have money, and society's respect while helping others.

She: Why do you want money and respect?

Me: You are conveniently skipping the 'helping others' part. 

She: So would you help others even if you were not being paid or if it led to disrepute?

Me: Obviously not. That would not be wise. I would like to be reimbursed for my knowledge. I don't believe in charity.

She: Fair enough but you didn't answer my question about money and respect.

Me: I want to be able to buy the good things and be considered by others as a successful person.  

She: Why?

Me: Because that is a good life. Are we done?

She: Not quite, I haven't gotten my answer yet, you said you would help me so please bear with me. Why do you want a good life?

Me: Because I want to be happy. 

She: Aah! I get it. One final question; Why do you want to be happy?

Me: Umm...

She: You know what you need to do to be happy but you don't understand what Happiness is?

I was dumbstruck and I was embarrassed. She made me look like a fool in front of my friends. She started talking about relationships between moderation, justice, happiness, and the good life. I could not stand this philosophical discussion. What a waste of time. I got up and left. I was angry with her and my idealist friend who invited her. 

The resolve

I was going to be a doctor, rich and successful. My parents and teachers were going to be proud of me.  Society would respect me and those who ever doubted me would be envious of my status. I needed to find a way for this gadfly to be banned from interacting with medical students lest she wastes their time with this idealist talk. First, I would need to find others who felt the same way and get organized. 

The reason

She may be wise but she should keep that wisdom to herself and we won't bother about her until she tries to impart her wisdom to others. That makes us angry. 

A Seldom Used Bridge

The Good Life

The good life

We all want to live a good life. If I was asked, what are the 'things' associated with a good life, I would easily come up with several things; looking good, health, a well paying job, house, car, relationships, fame, etc. But, if I were asked what is a good life, I would not be so sure. On my quest to answer this question, I have found the 'things' or societal indices associated with a good life to be 'goods of fortune'. Goods of fortune are based on chance and some of us may not be 'fortunate' enough. However, a Good life is not based on chance and is possible for each one of us. It's a tall task but I will try to make my point in this blog post.  

Goods of Fortune

When I take a look at the things around me, I feel very lucky. Just look at the way I started my day; warm home, soft bed, hot coffee, conversations and breakfast with my family, and a hot shower. I have a home, a job, money, safety and insurance. I take these things for granted. I am an average human in the western world but I live a life that even the wealthiest of the past could not imagine. I do understand that even today, not everyone is  fortunate to have these 'luxuries'. But it is easy to conclude that because of these luxuries, the humans today have a good life. I can't imagine a life without these goods of fortune, as a good life. If I am right, then a good life is only for a few lucky ones.  

Our role  

What is my role in life? I started asking myself this question very recently. First and foremost, I see myself as a family man and so I decided that my role was to provide for them and set them up with security. But this is not considered an achievement, it's my duty, the most basic of tasks. My responsibility toward myself and my family is not an aspiration it's just Life. For a good life, I have to do more. Maybe I should provide them with all the luxuries. Large house with a pool, German cars, foreign vacations, private schooling, the works. As a physician, I see that all around me, it's what is expected. How can I deny my family these luxuries? All I have to do is work longer hours, see more patients, and do more procedures. All along, I also get to treat patients, so that is the best of both worlds. Making money while making a difference.  

Smoke and mirrors

Plato said, "To know the difference between good and evil is the best fruit in the tree of knowledge." 

I look at that statement and think that I have the ability to differentiate between good and bad, who doesn't? That's why I chose such a noble profession. I am going to leave you to decide if I am right (hint: medicare fraud, health care corporations, insurance companies, unequal access to healthcare). I work in a system that is for profit, 'not for profit' is only for tax purposes. Healthcare for profit, is concerned about the bottom line, and not about the physician or the patient. The longer hours, more patients, more procedures, primarily serve the insured. Longer work hours may pay better and offer more luxuries but keep me away from my family. Luxuries may lead to debt which may lead to worry and stress that may further lead to bad relationships with myself and others. Is satisfying wants, while working in healthcare a good life? It's not that easy to differentiate good from bad or evil, is it?

Socrates said, "No man wants to do evil, they all want to do good. They just don't know what they are doing is evil."

Worthy of a good life.

How does one understand good and bad? I came across this answer through the Great Conversation. I came to understand that some goods of fortune do make my life pleasant. Financial, family and physical wellbeing are important for a good life but even if I have all three, I may not be worthy of a good life. The fourth and most important requirement for a good life is purpose. Purpose is a series of goals that are achieved for the sake of others only, not for self. 'Others' means beyond me and my family. Humans were always meant to have purpose, that's how we became the most successful animal on this planet. We lived for each other. With modernization, we are becoming more isolated and more self absorbed. I never understood the concept of purpose. I felt a medical life was a life of purpose. But I was wrong, I don't work for free, on the contrary I am well paid for my expertise. That is not purpose, that is just living. There are several remarkable people who have found purpose; Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and others. Yes! goods of fortune, financial, family and physical wellbeing are indicators of a good life but only purpose will make me worthy of living a good life.  

Purpose.

I am trying to enlist others and I am trying to be a catalyst for others in this pursuit of purpose. I can only aspire to the greatness of the examples that I gave. Even if I can be a shadow of them, I may be worthy of a good life. If not, I hope that I may be able to pass on this pursuit of purpose to my children. To be worthy of a good live, having this sense of purpose ranks higher than any goods of fortune that they could inherit from me.

A Practical Guide to Resiliency through Introspection

Introspection

What is introspection? How does one get to know oneself? Don't we already know everything there is to know about ourselves? I thought that I knew myself. I was comfortable with being Me. But I was wrong. In this blog I describe how I got to know the 'real' me. It all started after I had a crisis.

My moment of reckoning

I was leading a busy life as a doctor and a family man. I had all the societal aspirations; money, status, power, etc. But I did not know how to answer basic questions of life, furthermore I didn't even know that I should be able to answer these questions. I was ignorant. It took a debilitating back injury combined with burnout to bring about my moment of reckoning. The moment I realized that I didn't know anything about life, was the day that I transformed myself. 

Introspection

I injured my back because I was working out excessively. It got so bad that I found myself lying on the floor of my living room, unable to get up. I went from working out with weighted vests to walking on crutches. I needed assistance with basic activities of daily living; toileting, eating, etc. I could not work, I was in physical and emotional pain. Then a funny thing happened, when I spent time with myself without any distractions, I started having conversations with myself. It was not an active process, I just marinated in my thoughts and did not direct them in any way. Eventually, I went into all those dark places of my mind (which I now know everyone has) and stayed there. I reflected on times of anger, apathy, error, failure, fear, hurt, and shame. It was uncomfortable and a bit scary but the longer I reflected on those thoughts, the more I got to know myself. I later realized, what I was doing was called 'introspection'. 

Transformation

Looking back at my life, I now realize that I had come across several such moments of reckoning, but I was not ready to transform till that day. I started looking for answers to the questions of life. I came across Mortimer Adler, I started participating in the Great Conversation. 

Socrates once said, "You can't teach someone to be just, temperate, courageous and wise, just like you can teach them geometry." 

I was the only one who could transform myself. I started comparing myself to the pre-introspection me and every day I strove to improve myself. 

Post transformation

Now, I take complete responsibility for every interaction, whether good or bad. I have stopped finding faults in others and I have realized that the faults lie in me. This is important because I am in control of my faults and I can fix them. 

This is what Jocko Willink calls 'Complete Ownership'.

I am in control of my thoughts, emotions, actions, and the resulting consequences. Sure, this is easier said than done, and I have lapses. But I reflect on these lapses and learn from them. 

Conclusion 

Crisis bring about a moment of reckoning, if we are ready. The moment of reckoning makes us think about our thoughts and emotions. The process of thinking about how we think and feel, is introspection. Introspection helps us understand ourselves. This understanding helps us control our actions and take complete ownership of the consequences. Complete ownership helps build resiliency.

-Aneesh

On Introspection

Birth of Introspection 

As a kid, I would lie in bed and think about thinking. How is it that I am here, thinking? I pondered my own sense of wonder. I wondered what it meant to ponder.

As a college student, I learned psychologists have a word for this – metacognition. Thinking about your own mental processes.

We all do it in varying degrees depending on the circumstances we find ourselves in: as imperceptible as our own breathing when we are engrossed in the mundane; as all-encompassing as the night sky when we are in awe of the stars overhead.

Erosion of Introspection

My introspective journey began as that kid, lying in bed and contemplating self-awareness. There was a groundedness I felt back then that was slowly eaten away, as life pulled my focus away from inner reflection to external success.

The erosion of introspection, for me, started early. During an elementary science lesson, my teacher once asked “What is the fastest thing you can imagine?” “Sight,” I replied after a reflective pause. The teacher told me that I was incorrect. Then, he went on to teach us about velocity. I blindly accepted that I was wrong and I studied hard.

During another lesson about even and odd numbers, I learned that 3 is not divisible by 2. “But it is!” I thought to myself. 3 divided by 2 is simply one and a half. What am I missing? Again, I was corrected and I continued to study hard.

In both cases, I abandoned my intuition. My reflections had led me astray, I lamented. Only later, in advanced classes, did I learn that light was indeed the fastest thing in this universe and that the categorization of numbers as even or odd was purely semantic. My reflections had not led me astray. But I had been taught to ignore them.

Crowding out of Introspection

As I moved through college, medical, and residency training, my mind continued to fill with technical knowledge. Reflection and introspection were crowded out. New goals were now the focus of my pursuits – money, success, notoriety. That is, until I burned out.

Introspective blindness

I believe burnout, at its core, is introspective blindness. We all come to this world well-equipped for cognition and discovery. But many of us allow meaningless pursuits, educational indoctrination, and poor life decisions to strip us of the most precious item in our cognitive inventory – the contemplation of self. Just as we allow circumstance to rob us of this unique ability, only we, ourselves, can reclaim it from the busy world around us. 

The waterfall

I like to learn and explain by analogy. As a lover of poetry, I understand introspection by borrowing imagery from Vaughan’s beautiful poem, ‘The Waterfall.’ 

Without introspection, we are a leaf, adrift on a fast-moving stream. Life passes us by. With introspection, we fall, as if over a waterfall, inward, within ourselves, into a deep and tranquil sea.

Thinking about how you think is the most important thing you can do in life because self-realization is not possible without it. Thus, introspection, if performed deeply, honestly, and regularly, frees you from the superficial encumbrances of life.

-Eddie

Pandemic = Transformation

What is a moment of reckoning?

It's when a circumstance forces us to change our ways of thinking and transforms our ways of life. These moments may affect a large part of humanity or just a few people. However the ability of the circumstance to bring about a transformation may not related to its size. If we are ready to transform, a relatively small moment could be enough. But if we are not ready to change, even a pandemic may not be enough.

Our moment of reckoning.

This COVID-19 pandemic is the dire event. It spans the entire globe and makes every other problem seem inconsequential. It serves as a warning to humans about what to expect if we don't change. COVID-19 has a asymptomatic carrier phase, long incubation period and a case fatality rate of around 2%, if it had a case fatality rate of Ebola (around 50%), it would be the end of humanity. It is not a question of If, it's a question of When. When is the next pandemic going to start? How many more will die? This should be our moment of reckoning. Let's spend this time at home, while social distancing, and introspect. Let's reflect on our thoughts, emotions and actions. Let's take extreme ownership of our lives. Let's be our own biggest critics and take personal responsibility for our impact on this planet.

Pandemic = Transformation

As human beings we have to unite. This is not an Asian or African problem. We blamed the Ebola on Guinea, Zika on Brazil and COVID-19 on China. We are all the same, it is our resources that are unequally divided. This pandemic shows us that the public health of One is the public health of All. We need to form a global coalition to improve basic healthcare and sanitation across the world.

As citizens of the world we have to unite. This is not a China or Italy problem, it's not a New York or Washington State problem. We are all equally at risk. Some parts of the country are not seeing the surge of cases so it's understandable to be frustrated with the economic and social impact of distancing. But as citizens, it is our duty to flatten the curve.

As healthcare providers we have to revaluate our health care systems. We cannot be driven by the bottom line. Greed has a large part to play in the delayed response to this pandemic. In our efforts to maximize profit, our healthcare systems do not have any room for extra supplies (personnel, ventilators, personal protection equipment, swabs, etc). We need to focus more time and resources on infection control than on money making elective procedures. We need to be more diligent about hand hygiene or isolation precautions.

It takes a village to raise a child. As parents, families and communities, we have to unite and teach ourselves and our children about social responsibility. The next generation will bear the brunt of our actions, it's our responsibility to prepare them. During this period of social distancing, we have unrestricted access to our children. Let's take this time to discuss with them about social responsibility.

If not now, when? If not us, who? 

Everywhere I look, I find that most people have a softer demeanor, we are smiling and showing more empathy. We are thinking beyond ourselves and are more patient with each other. We more attentive toward our families and colleagues. We are more appreciative of our leaders and those in the front lines. We have less ego and are willing to adapt to the changes being adopted by our communities. People from all over are united by a common agenda, no matter our race, nationality, net worth, or education, we are all trying to do our bit to stop this pandemic.

Optimism

I feel hopeful that this pandemic will bring about a transformation. We will remain united after this pandemic is over. We will take extreme ownership of global justice and equality. We will be ready to overcome any eventuality, for the sake of humanity.

-Aneesh 

Facing The Pandemic

How did we get here? 

Late January, 2020, I was visiting India when I heard about the coronavirus outbreak in China. It featured on the daily news but not in my conversations. When I returned to the States, there was no buzz about it. The US was enmeshed in the Democratic Primary. Even as the pandemic was growing, I was unaware, too busy in my daily routine. Coronavirus was in the fringes of my awareness even as it was tearing through Asia and Europe. 

Growing threat.

My in-laws were planning a trip to Spain. That’s when I started taking interest. This was early March and news chatter about this started increasing. Several countries were closing borders. I was getting ready to go on a Spring break vacation. That week, a series of COVID-19 related cases, closures, and postponements were announced State side. That’s when I finally got serious about it. I cancelled my vacation, recorded the pending podcast episode, with Eddie and then went into full social distancing mode.

Ominous presence.

Its late March, this week, as I am getting done with my call and ICU rotation, I have already been involved in a couple of documented COVID-19 patients and several presumed patients. Just like everyone else I have been thinking about it all the time. Eddie and I recorded our most recent episode ‘Facing the Pandemic with Virtue,’ separately, practicing social distancing. It did not have the same feel to it like our previous episodes but we had to be okay with it.

Building resilience.

I have been working my way through very interesting books over the past few weeks, Viktor Frankl’s ‘Man’s Search for Meaning’ and David Brooks’s ‘The second mountain’, along with my regular diet of the Great Conversation. These books talk of purpose and the hazards of individualism. The great books have helped me solve simple problems of life but this is the first time that I have been able to find answers to big, scary, and overwhelming problems too. Here is what I realized that I did wrong and what I needed to do going forward: 

What I did wrong: 

I did not pay attention to the virus due to distraction of local/national politics.

I was self-absorbed with my job, family, and podcast.

I did not immediately plan to take precautions. I also realized that I am sloppy with these simple precautions during other epidemics.

I blamed others for this problem. 

I did not prepare for the crisis by gathering essentials like non-perishable food and disinfectant. 

I did not think of the vulnerable population in my community or at my work.

What I need to do: 

I don’t have a plan but I know I am going to network and tie up with others in an effort to tackle global problems. I will reduce waste. I will try to limit my dependence on animal products. I will recycle more and use less non-renewable energy.

I have and will continue to support small business. Resiliency Rounds will get involved in local non-profit. 

I will spend more time with the ones I love. I will use this time to have the Great Conversation with my family. Eddie and I will continue to build the Resiliency Rounds movement. 

Optimism.

It is easy to get caught up in the negatives but our response to this crisis has made me stop and rethink. Over the past few days, there seems to be a renewed energy at work. Everyone is coming together to form a coalition against the virus. I feel excited about going to work for a change. I also feel like I am part of something bigger than me. Everywhere, we are innovating and transforming our old ways of life to meet the new threat. We are showing genuine concern for each other and not for the bottom line. This pandemic might fix our broken systems. It might make us revisit our priorities. Instead of focusing on money, we might be forced to restructure to face such global threats. 

One planet. 

For too long we have turned a blind eye to animal derived viruses despite several warnings; Bird flu, Swine flu, Ebola, and Zika, all spread via birds, animals, and insects. If we want to prevent such infections, we have to stop our dependence on animal products, curb deforestation and help all nations improve their Public Health systems. I am no expert on this but it doesn’t take a scientist to realize that we require a global coalition. We formed the UN after the World War, these pandemics have claimed more lives that the War. We need to join forces again.

To quote a Second World War hero, Winston Churchill, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

Call to action.

Let’s take this time to reflect on our choices. Let’s stop being self-absorbed. Let’s choose our leaders based on global issues and not local ones. Let’s focus on the healthcare of everyone and not just the privileged few. We are all in this together. Let’s make our world stronger and more resilient.

Introducing Resiliency Rounds

I believed that professional success and money made people happy. I was lucky to have a family that loved me and basic comforts. This luck and some hard work got me into medical school. I was 18 and I felt that Happiness WAS within my reach. 

I traded my 20s for medical training. I completed my residency and fellowship because I believed that as a "specialist", I would be more respected and would have a higher standing. I was in my mid 30s before I got done with my training. I landed my first job as an attending physician. I felt that Happiness was NOW within my reach.

I quickly found out just providing patient care was not enough to get the respect and the higher standing that I coveted. I needed to get titles, publications, and awards too. I needed mentors and professional societies to sponsor me. I needed to expand my lifestyle to that of a 'doctor'. I started pursuing these goals. I felt Happiness was now, FINALLY, within my reach.

After a few years in this pursuit I was burnt out from my work. I blamed the system, insurance companies, healthcare corporations, electronic health records, and societal and professional expectations. I felt less interested in my work. I started focussing on my health instead. I started strength training aggressively, to distract myself. This new found focus felt great, and resulted in physical fitness beyond my expectations. I was convinced that I had found a way to stop burnout. My job was a side gig, my main goal was physical fitness. Having this healthy goal was all I needed. I had FOUND happiness. 

Then one day, I found myself lying on the floor of my home, with a debilitating back injury from working out too hard. I would never be able to work out the same way again. I felt defeated and extremely unhappy. During that time my dog got sick and died a few weeks later. I realized that I had no control over my life. Here I was, in my mid 30s, I had money, family and a successful career and I was still unhappy and not in control. How was that possible? Was I unworthy of happiness? 

The more time I spent on the floor, by myself without being engrossed by the day to day life of a busy doctor or pursuing physical perfection, the more I started looking into myself and asking questions. With each passing day, I realized I knew little about life. I could save lives but I did know how to live one.

What is happiness? What is my purpose? What IS purpose?

Freud said, " the opposite of happiness is not tragedy but neurosis." 

I was anxious because I was uneducated, not in the technical sense but uneducated in the philosophy of Life. Once I realized that I didn't know anything, I knew what I needed to do, I needed to get educated. If I could not define happiness, how could I be worthy of it? 

I started reading, listening and participating in the Great Conversation. I was no longer anxious about my unhappiness. The great minds of western thought became my mentors. I began conversing daily with Socrates and Plato. I began learning from Kant, St Augustine, and Locke.

My conversations are being lead by Mortimer Adler. I do not travel alone, I met a brother and together we are on the path to Purpose. We have started a movement that helps us and others build resiliency through virtue. I am not burnt out anymore, I feel resilient. I can answer basic questions about life, I know the virtues, I have a purpose. I know what makes one worthy of happiness. This road to resiliency is not a secret, it was paved for us by brilliant minds over thousands of years. We just need to get our heads out of modern day distractions and find the path. We believe that we have rediscovered the path to resiliency.

We want to share this with you.

Hi! We are Eddie and Aneesh, we are practicing doctors and it's time for Resiliency Rounds.