Step 1: Find a box.
Step 2: Power down1 with my wife at 6:30 PM and put our phones in the box.
Step 3: Close the box and put it somewhere inconvenient to reach.
Step 4: Relax, intimately be with those I live for, and read a physical book.
This new ritual has been good thus far. It has allowed for greater peace in my body, a better sleep schedule and more relating and reading time. As mentioned in my previous entry, the virtue of temperance has been a focus. My primary source of intemperance is related to screens; "emotional eating" via snacking when stressed comes in second place. Neither is super bothersome, but they are annoying enough, leading to subtle behavioral ripples that place me out of a sense of integrity.
I have overcome many temperance challenges before, and my path to respond to them requires addressing uncomfortable underlying emotional states that are not acknowledged. However, I am critical of the psychologization of everything2, a reductionist view that every personal challenge can be traced to some psychological issue. This perspective is not only lazy thinking but a form of "psychotherapeutic bypassing,"3 using feel good therapeutic tactics when more hardy approaches to living are needed.
In addition to emotional integration, I engage in value clarification. When lured away from the virtuous path, I'm fleeing from something and lacking a clear destination. Values, particularly those bespoke for specific life situations, act as existential blinders, blocking out what is foolish and making the destination clearer. I find gently inviting values into my life, acknowledging that their mastery takes time, is the prudent approach.
It is important to wisely name the objects of focus for temperance training, as misnaming can lead to scope creep, widening one's focus too broadly, which drains the will and results in discouragement. The principle of "naming it to tame it" is vital to temperance training because it places one's focus squarely on what is tangible, leading to philosophical coherence with practical responses.
I find the phrase "having a less foolish relationship with..." helpful while considering the object of focus. It is essential to assess the level of abstraction associated with the object and the embodied feeling it carries. For example, concentrating on establishing a less foolish relationship with food differs from being in a less foolish relationship with one's body; while both may ultimately resolve the same temperance challenge, the project scopes are quite different.
The most challenging intemperance focuses are those deeply woven into our daily lives. For me and many others, it is having a foolish relationship with screens. My livelihood and passion projects, whether they're Zoom sessions inquiring with people worldwide in my philosophy practice or writing on this Substack, all require me to gaze into a screen. Much of my time is spent peering into plastic portals, promising access to boundless information, entertainment, and connections.
While there are other commonly used descriptive options gesturing toward this challenge, I find them all unhelpful. “Technology addiction” is too broad, not getting at the essence of the concern. For example, lawnmowers are a form of technology, and I don't believe many people are addicted to mowing the lawn. Here are additional labels I see being used: "internet addiction disorder," "problematic internet use," "pathological internet use," "digital addiction," "communication addiction disorder," "social media addiction," "extremely online individuals," etc. I am not favorable to any of these, seeing the internet focus as too overwhelming and intangible.
"Screen time" feels like the less foolish focus, affording me more agency. I can now narrow my screen time to two sources: my phone and computer, tactile things I can touch with my hands and put in a box. I can then narrow my focus further, such as specific messenger apps or social media sites that are easy to rabbit hole on. Still, my physical and emotional relationship with manifest devices is the highest leverage focus.
I am focusing on being in a less foolish relationship with phones first. "Nomophobia," anxiety when one's phone is absent, is a real thing. As an illustration, Camille and I were driving without our phones yesterday, and doing so felt somewhat dangerous. What if something bad happens or we get stuck somewhere? We would be unable to call anyone and would have to rely on strangers. A simple reminder that our ancestors existed without mobile phones since time immemorial disabused us of this atomized-induced irrational fear. Nevertheless, a hint of fear was there, exerting a subtle, energetic pull that challenged my sense of integrity.
Another reason I am starting with phones is that I am finding it increasingly culturally ugly seeing everyone's face glued to their phone4, mindlessly entertaining themselves, recording every moment. This cultural uglification via phones was perfectly illustrated in the recent New Year celebration in Paris5:
I do not want to participate in whatever society emerges from this slavish devotion to the phone. Of course, my temperance project is not to eliminate screens entirely but to gradually reduce my unconscious impulsiveness related to them. This unscreening will take patience, but it will be worth it, fostering a deeper connection with what matters most.
I have been experimenting with other methods of unscreening, such as "digital detoxes" or "digital sabbaths," having one day of the week where you do not look at any screens. The tactics from the Centre of Humane Technology are helpful, and while I have not fully delved into it yet,
’s "AIR method" and seems promising. ’s “Cognitive Liberators of Substack” entry provides a wholesome rabbit hole for all things unscreening.The living question for today’s post: How can someone get into a less foolish relationship with screens? Leave a comment if you have an answer.
In my philosophy practice, I undertake daily inquiries with individuals, addressing their most pressing concerns, including designing bespoke plans to address temperance challenges. To see if there are any openings for long-term inquiry partnerships, contact me at thestoa at protonmail dot com. Additionally, I'll be offering single-session inquiries throughout the year, which you can schedule through the link below. You can read more about my practice here.
To all those who are new to this Substack, a warm welcome. Less Foolish is primarily funded by its readers, and I endeavor to keep most of the content accessible to everyone. If you wish to contribute to my work, you might consider subscribing, whether for free or as a paid member, and sharing this post with those you sense will resonate.
A power-down practice allows us to honor the day, contemplate potential improvements, prepare for tomorrow, and shift ontologies, transitioning from “having mode” to “being mode.” See
’s “power down ritual” approach for practical implementation.Sociologist Philip Rieff calls this phenomenon the "Psychological Man,” referring to the modern societal shift where the individual's self-interest and psychological well-being become the central focus, replacing traditional religious and social values. “Religious man was born to be saved, psychological man is born to be pleased.” - Philip Rieff, The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith after Freud
See the “Impossible to Possible” entry for more on this form of bypassing and how it is related to the other main forms: spiritual bypassing and self-help bypassing.
Sociologist Niklas Luhmann calls this “second-order observation.” The philosopher
gave an excellent presentation on this mode of observation at The Stoa.