Over a year and half ago I sent a copy of these notes on working philosophical premises to Desh Subba, although he has not responded, I think they are still worth more inquiry, whomever is interested. I'm sure if I thought more about these today, I'd add more new ones, but this is lots for starters. As a serious scholar and proponent of the philosophy of fearism since late 2014, I wish to see more philosophy and less rhetoric, opinions, and such... as this philosophy is going to need a good deal of rigorous thought before it will be accepted seriously by an real philosophers or graduate courses today in higher education, and in the future. The aim I have is to make philosophy of fearism justifiable through testing it empirically, as well as arguing it rationally. The high gold standard in this I have witnessed over the years in watching Ernest Becker's existential philosophy be eventually translated into social psychology (i.e., terror management theory) and 'proven' that his philosophy has some valid truths that are very important to our world today.
PHILOSOPHY OF FEARISM: 9 Premises (version 1.0)
R. Michael Fisher, Aug. 18, 2015
[Note: none of these premises are fixed in stone; I chose them to build common ground in each of our diverse understandings of fearism and its philosophy; they are presented here only as working ideas to be changed and grown as we gain input from various sources/research, experience and good critiques.]
A philosophy of fearism has the basic agenda of raising conscious awareness of the nature and role of fear in our lives and helping us to understand it better, in order to improve the quality (happiness) in our lives along a path to potential “fearless” existence. To do so, claims are made, often with premises that are not yet fully examined—this is the underlying purpose of this philosophical exercise. Volumes could be written on any one or a few of the premises, and sub-sections, as well as the interconnectivity of all of them together. Other premises and sub-sections also exist and can be added, but this is at least a start of examining a core of them more closely.
Premise 1 – Fear actually is the predominant motivator of the foundational aspects of human existence/behavior.
1a. Should we not therefore build a philosophy (e.g., fearism) around the predominant (if not, the greatest) motivator?
1a (i). What if Love is the predominant motivator? How do we know?
What implications do the Love vs. Fear dynamics portend?
1b. Humans are always, more or less, for better or worse, managing fear(s)
1c. If 1, 1a, 1b are true, then, what kind of fear management/education (and socialization and governance) is best suited to these truths?
Premise 2—Humanity, in general, is experiencing a precipice of extreme fear at this time in history, of which it is thought to be a most serious crisis that cannot be put off analysis without grave danger to our species and the planet’s ecosystems.
2a. What reliable and diverse (cross-disciplinary) sources can we accrue in order to reasonably invoke the crisis of the current Fear Problem, without panic?
Premise 3—The current state of knowledge about fear is inadequate to the demands of the Fear Problem, and this has caused a great deal of unnecessary suffering
3a. Philosophy of fearism is the best way to remedy this crisis and better than alternative philosophies, myths, religions and other ways of trying to manage
the Fear Problem—in that sense, how can we justify a “dephilosophy” agenda within the current philosophy of fearism critique?
3b. Contradictions in our society’s general knowledge of fear need to be revealed and arguments (based on the philosophy of fearism) made that
respond to them and “correct” them if possible
3c. Where is the philosophy of fearism most weak, philosophically? and/or scientifically?
3d. How can a philosophy of fearism self-reflexively “correct” itself in order to avoid becoming an ideology (embedded in ideologism)?
Premise 4—A philosophy of fearism is unique (and important) because it recognizes the Fear Problem not merely as an individual psychological problem, but as
central to evolution itself and developmental conceptualizations of human nature, the human condition and human potential.
4a. As with some other perspectives, a philosophy of fearism accepts there is no one and only right definition or meaning of fear, but it is multiple and will
likely always be such.
4b. What is a substantive ontology of fear that is useful to, and consistent with the defining and making meaning of fear within a philosophy of fearism agenda?
4c. What is a rigorous epistemology of fear consistent with the philosophy of fearism agenda?
4d. What is a rigorous axiology of fear consistent with the philosophy of fearism agenda?
4d(i). How do we know whether fear is positive or negative in value?
4e. the dialectical nature of fear and fearlessness ought to be understood within the evolution of the global concept of a “spirit of fearlessness” and the world’s
for discernment of quality, if not liberation.
5a. Is there a way to accurately discern and evaluate “fear-based” feeling, thinking, acting? If so, how? What practical applications as well?
Premise 6—Fear evolves (develops) “naturally” towards Fearless (i.e., a telos), at the level of individuals, groups, and entire eras of history
6a. We are currently (globally) in a peak of an “Extreme Fear Age”
6b. Is a philosophy of fearism a ‘natural’ response to the Extreme Fear Age?
6c. Is there a precedent for what we are going through in history, that may be useful to us as a global community?
6d. Is the East or West more matured (evolved) generally, to best assist us through this "Extreme Fear Age" (a la Subba)? Why?
6e. Are the less developed nations less fear-full than the developed nations? And Why? And, what implications does this have for world developmental theories and practices?
Premise 7: The evolution of consciousness, like fear, is moving toward a "Fearless Age" and Society (a la Subba)—not that it will occur all at the same time in the same
places but it is at least probably, expectable, but not totally inevitable.
7a. On what substantive, and diverse grounds, can such a positive claim of telos be defended by a philosophy of fearism?
7b. And on those same grounds, what arguments can be utilized to counteract the predominant discourses that suggest no such movement or telos exists?
Premise 8: The greatest fear is humanly created, in the mind, and thus, the greatest corrective to fear is humanly created, in the mind.
8a. On what substantive, and diverse grounds, can such a claim be made?
8b. And on those same grounds, what alternative arguments could also be put forward that are different but complementary to a philosophy of fearism?
8c. What alternative arguments would go against (and/or modify) Premise 8?
Premise 9: The philosophy of fearism (as currently articulated) is adequate to being called a legitimate, new, and essential philosophy to the betterment of
humankind and the earth ecosystems.
9a. What arguments are for this and what arguments are against accepting this
 Through out these premises, as building a defense for this philosophy, I am using Desh Subba’s (2014) version of a philosophy of fearism (sometimes, he refers to as a theory of fearism)—this, is an exercise intended to ferret out the thinking and support for claims he has made, of which I mostly agree but realize they need at times to be filled-out in creating a better convincing defense. My own theory of fearism-t is not included here.
 This is particularly (if not uniquely) important to Fisher’s philosophy of fearism conception based on the groundwork of his research on a philosophy of fearlessness.