The main difference lies in the ultimate goal: while classical philosophical approaches frequently attempt to discover “Truth,” establish final answers, or decode the ultimate nature of reality, this approach fundamentally abandons that pursuit.
We argue that because human perceptions are inherently partial and distorted, we can never truly know or understand the ultimate inner workings of Reality. Because achieving absolute certainty is impossible, the approach shifts entirely away from philosophical theorizing and instead functions as a highly practical system of removal—specifically, the removal of unfounded mental “stories” that distort our perception and cause suffering.
Here are the specific ways this approach diverges from classical philosophy:
Rejection of Debates over Ultimate Truth: Classical philosophy often debates theoretical concepts like free will versus determinism, universal justice, absolute meaning, or cosmic purpose. This framework considers these debates futile; because we cannot know how ultimate Reality operates, we cannot draw final conclusions about it, making judgments about concepts like “universal justice” meaningless.
Experience Over Meaning and Merit: Classical philosophies frequently attempt to assign overarching meaning or “merit” to human actions, often establishing systems where actions lead to objective moral rewards. Because this approach accepts that the dynamics of Reality are unknowable, it abandons the search for objective meaning. Instead, it advocates analyzing life solely through the lens of direct experience and its varying levels of intensity, completely dropping complex theoretical structures like “reward-stories” or “merit”.
Moral Intuition over Universal Moral Codes: While classical ethics often seeks to establish universal moral codes or rules for society, this approach explicitly discards them. It replaces external philosophical rules with “moral intuition”—a deeply personal, subjective compass that guides an individual to “do the right thing” in the immediate present, without relying on social conventions or absolute philosophical standards.
A “Computer Manual” Style vs. Cryptic Theory: The author actively rejects the “cryptic” or “poetic” explanations historically favored by philosophers and sages. Instead, the framework is designed to be as clear and functional as a “computer manual,” focusing exclusively on what works to eliminate mental suffering rather than engaging in purely philosophical exercises.
Constant Skepticism over System-Building: Where classical philosophy often builds comprehensive systems of thought with fixed assumptions, this approach demands a worldview so flexible that it holds no fixed assumptions. It strongly encourages a constant attitude of skepticism toward all assertions, specifically advising readers to challenge anything asserted by “gurus, sages, or philosophers”. The ultimate goal is not to adopt a new philosophical system, but to reach a state where you are willing to call absolutely everything into question.
I think you'll find that Pyrrhonism - a classical philosophical approach - is very similar to what you're describing in your Substack.