Philosophy & Privilege
I wanted to give this it's own page because philosophy is so much more than logic and reasoning. It's curiosity and bravery of the soul; a state of mind that favors the lifestyle of the those who can afford both leisure and free thought.
Introduction
In an era where philosophical ideas flood social media and self-help books, it's easy to assume that deep thinking about existence, consciousness, and interconnection is accessible to all. But as the creator of Nodalism—a philosophy emphasizing distributed consciousness and compassionate networks—I've come to a sobering realization: the ability to "get" to think this way often requires privilege. Otherwise, it's literally not practical. This isn't a dismissal of philosophy's value but a call to recognize its inherent barriers. Pondering profound questions like "What is consciousness?" or "How are we all connected?" demands mental and emotional space that's not available when basic survival is at stake. To explore this, we'll draw on a range of theoretical perspectives, from socioeconomic critiques to feminist analyses and evolutionary psychology, highlighting how privilege underpins philosophical engagement.
Theoretical Frameworks
Philosophy's accessibility is shaped by intersecting factors—economic, social, cultural, and biological—that favor the privileged. Socioeconomic critiques, for instance, reveal how class structures gatekeep intellectual pursuits. Pierre Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital—accumulated knowledge, tastes, and dispositions passed down through education and family—positions philosophy as a tool for maintaining social hierarchies. Those from affluent backgrounds inherit familiarity with "high culture," including philosophical texts, enabling them to engage deeply while others focus on material survival. Karl Marx's analysis of class further underscores this: philosophy often serves as an ideological superstructure justifying economic inequalities, primarily produced and consumed by the bourgeoisie. In academia, this manifests as egalitarian philosophers enjoying wealth and privilege while advocating for equity, a hypocrisy rooted in socioeconomic advantage.
Feminist critiques add another layer, exposing how gender and intersectional privileges exclude marginalized voices from philosophical discourse. Simone de Beauvoir, in her existentialist feminism, highlighted how ruling-class privilege is masked in thought, critiquing how existentialism's emphasis on freedom assumes agency that women and others lack due to oppression. Existentialism, often seen as liberating, has been faulted for ignoring how privilege shapes one's ability to "choose" meaning amid absurdity; de Beauvoir herself navigated this by addressing women's experiences, but broader critiques argue that existentialist ethics overlook systemic barriers like misogyny and heteronormativity. This extends to racialized critiques: Western philosophy's "whiteness" privileges certain perspectives, demanding immanent critique from marginalized thinkers to expose its biases.
​
From an evolutionary psychology standpoint, abstract thought itself may be a luxury of secure environments. Human brains evolved for survival, prioritizing immediate threats over introspection; factors like superior pattern processing enable abstract reasoning, but this capacity thrives when basic needs are met, as evolutionary pressures favor concrete problem-solving in resource-scarce conditions. Emotions and instincts geared toward survival—such as fear responses—override philosophical pondering when threats loom, explaining why existential questions emerge more readily in stable, privileged contexts. This biological lens complements social theories: without the "survival benefit" of safety, abstract thought remains impractical.
​
These frameworks converge to show philosophy as embedded in systems of power, where socioeconomic class, gender, race, and evolutionary adaptations intersect to privilege certain thinkers.
​
The Privileged Nature of Philosophical Pondering
Philosophy, by its nature, requires leisure—time and mental freedom unburdened by immediate threats. Ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates or Aristotle pondered ethics and existence amid relative stability, often supported by societal structures (including, problematically, slavery). Today, engaging with ideas like existentialism, stoicism, or Nodalism demands introspection, reading, and dialogue—activities that presume safety and sustenance.
A poignant historical illustration is Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor and Stoic philosopher who authored Meditations. Born into privilege and ascending to the throne in 161 AD, he transitioned from a life of conquest—leading defensive wars against invading tribes like the Marcomanni—to deep philosophical reflection. As a conqueror, he secured the empire's safety through military campaigns, but it was only in the privilege of his power and relative stability that he could contemplate the futility of such actions. In Meditations, written during his campaigns, he expresses a philosophical detachment that borders on remorse for the violence of conquest, reflecting on the vanity of earthly pursuits and the shared mortality of conquerors and the slain: "Alexander the Great and his mule driver both died and the same thing happened to both." He believed his wars were defensive duties, yet his writings reveal a self-critical striving for virtue amid the bloodshed, acknowledging human vices and the need to fight them daily. This mirrors our own paths: only when basic safety is achieved—often through privilege—do we gain the space to feel remorse for past actions, question existence, and pursue philosophy. Marcus's story underscores how power enables such introspection, a luxury not afforded to those still fighting for survival.
Consider Nodalism as a modern case study. It invites empathy for all "nodes" in the web of consciousness, from spiders to societal archetypes, and practices like self-compassion rituals (e.g., massaging tired muscles with gratitude). But if you're working multiple jobs to afford food or fearing eviction, such contemplation feels irrelevant, even indulgent. The hot take rings true: nodal thinking—or any deep philosophy—isn't practical without privilege. Privilege here isn't just wealth; it's the absence of oppression, access to education, and emotional bandwidth. Systemic inequalities exacerbate this: marginalized groups often face compounded barriers, making self-actualization even more elusive. Critiques of philosophy as a "cult" dominated by privileged, white men highlight how it excludes diverse voices, perpetuating hypocrisy. This isn't to gatekeep philosophy but to critique its inaccessibility. For instance, Nietzsche's philosophy of risk appeals to the dominant class, ignoring the realities of the less privileged. Similarly, Nodalism's call to dismantle fears of permadeath or repressions of communion requires a secure foundation; without it, survival instincts prevail.
Implications and Pathways to Inclusivity
Acknowledging philosophy's privilege fosters compassion, aligning with Nodalism's ethos. It shifts from elitism to empathy: those with privilege can advocate for systemic change—universal basic income, accessible education, mental health support—to broaden access. For the underprivileged, philosophy can adapt: community-based practices, like mutual aid networks as "nodal teams," offer entry points without demanding solitary introspection.
Inclusivity means democratizing ideas—short, relatable formats (podcasts, social media) over dense tomes; integrating philosophy into everyday survival, like using stoic resilience in adversity. Nodalism evolves here: start with practical compassion in shared struggles, building toward broader webs. By addressing barriers through policy and cultural shifts, we can make philosophy less a vice of privilege and more a tool for collective equity.
Toward a More Equitable Pursuit of Wisdom
Philosophy’s privilege—seen through socioeconomic, feminist, and evolutionary lenses—reminds us that contemplation is a gift, not a guarantee. It is “privileged by nature” because human systems and bodies rank survival over speculation. So for Nodalism—or any framework—the stance is humility: celebrate what it clarifies, translate it into tools ordinary lives can use, and expand access without trespass. Honor plural ways of understanding and the protective boundaries people set; treat them as lines of consent, not obstacles to overcome. If we dismantle barriers together and respect the ones that safeguard dignity, we turn philosophy from a luxury into a shared nodal resonance.
