I spend my life around philosophers. Sometimes, these philosophers are bodily dead but immortalized in their books. As I read on my sofa, I find myself enrolled in Plato’s Academy or cavorting in a Parisian cafe alongside Jean-Paul and Simone. These days, and with fewer apricot cocktails, I spend my time around academics, authors, and denizens of the modern Academy. I read their articles, meet them at events, and, of course, I interview them for Mini Philosophy.

If you spend enough time around any group of people, you start to think and talk like them. When I log off from an online interview and join my family for dinner, my wife will sometimes say, “You’re talking like that again.” Because philosophers talk a certain way. There’s a beat and cadence to their sentences. They often call on certain words like “necessary,” “sufficient,” “absolute,” and “contingent,” and they never shy away from a good hedging phrase: “It’s at least plausible to assume,” or “broadly speaking.”

If we believe Ludwig Wittgenstein, the way we talk reflects the way we think. So, if you talk like a philosopher enough, you think like a philosopher too. Even if we’re not hardcore Sapir-Whorfists, it’s at least plausible that our thoughts are contingent on how we speak.

After a lifetime of being around philosophers and several years interviewing and talking with them, here are three ways to think and talk like a philosopher.  

1. Keep your epistemic plasticity

In 1951, the British philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote an article for The New York Times Magazine where he laid out “ten commandments” we ought to follow. The first and, we assume, most important, was: “Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.”

Epistemic plasticity has a few forms. On one level, it’s about being open-minded and willing to see the world in different — even rival — ways. In this Mini Philosophy Masterclass clip, Hilary Lawson talks about our tendency to “close” the world in certain ways. For example, we can “close” a tree as “something to take shade under,” “something to climb,” “something to enjoy,” or “a source of firewood.” Lawson argues that we can all “relax a little” and learn to shift our closures, even if it’s impossible to hold two or more closures at once. On another level, epistemic plasticity is our ability to zoom out — to see things from other people’s perspectives and even through time. See ourselves as if a God were watching us. See ourselves as a unit in a great socio-economic bloc. Shift your mind. Always keep your mind plastic.

In practice:

• Zooming in and out. In this Masterclass clip, Alex O’Connor teaches us the twin benefits of zooming out sub specie aeternitatis – from the view of eternity – but also the less considered opposite: zooming right into the cells on your fingertips. The result is that we feel relaxed with our place in the cosmos and also more in awe of who we are.
• Timeframes beyond our lives. In this clip, Rutger Bregman explores how some of the most morally worthy moments in human history are catalyzed by those who know full well they will not see change in their lives. Abolitionists, feminists, reformers – they all plant the tree they will not see grow.  

2. Find the practical in the abstract

Philosophy has a reputation for being lofty, theoretical, and so totally parochial as to be laughably disconnected from our everyday lives. “How many angels can dance on a pinhead?” the scholastics asked, and “Is water wet?” the analytic tradition hit back. But in my experience, every philosopher I’ve spoken to grounds what they are saying. In fact, I’d argue that most major texts of the philosophical canon are littered with practical, day-to-day examples. Because the workability of a theory is a test of soundness. If a moral theory cannot accommodate 60% of moral actions, it’s not fit for purpose. If an epistemology cannot explain the variety of our beliefs, that’s a problem.

One other reason philosophers need to stay grounded is that the human mind doesn’t really operate on a rational, logical, or statistical level for long. We are much more susceptible to stories. We care more about how something looks in the real world and how it’s lived. As Elif Shafak told me:

“Imagine we read about war, we read about violence, we read about so much suffering in this world. But whether it’s 1,000 people died or 2,000 people died, the mind does not exactly process the difference. But the moment you start focusing on the stories of each and every individual who might have suffered because of that tragedy, then suddenly you have a very different connection.”

In practice:

• Lifehacks and reality. In this clip, the bestselling author Matt Haig talks us through his initial attraction to Stoicism – and especially Marcus Aurelius’ idea of the “citadel” — and lays out why it didn’t work for him. For Haig, the theory of Stoicism runs into problems in the gritty reality of life.
• The joys of philosophy. Christine Webb is a primatologist and philosopher, and in this video, she lays out the real-life benefits that come from reorienting how we see ourselves in the world. It’s a great example of how theory – a mental shift – can bring us joy, happiness, and fresh experiences.  

3. Embrace opportunities to test your beliefs

I’m an amicable, genial sort, and my interviews tend to be gentle rambling rather than fiery clashes. But one thing I’ve noticed is that when you do push back against philosophers, by and large, they come alive. They love the moment. They don’t get angry like many people tend to, but see this moment as an opportunity to use their minds, to test their beliefs, and to possibly grow in their ideas. At number eight of Russell’s ten commandments, he puts it like this: “Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.”

For example, when I spoke with Kwame Anthony Appiah last year about his political philosophy, he told me he was currently re-reading Frantz Fanon for his upcoming book. And, in his wonderful British understatement, he put it like this: “It’s interesting trying to write a book about someone with whom you’re somewhat out of sympathy.” (Fanon argues for violent revolution; Appiah does not).

Philosophers engage with those they are “somewhat out of sympathy” with. They tackle rival views, rarely back away from a debate, and are willing to test their own values or beliefs whenever an opportunity comes up.

In practice:

• Three marks of extremism: Leor Zmigrod has written the book on radicalization and ideological rigidity, and in this clip, she lays out the marks of extremism. Of course, the key to all three is the fact that extremists tend to reject any contrary argument and view dissent as treacherous or an attack.
• Those we respect and dislike. Ryan Holiday has recently alienated some of his core following by being quite openly critical of Elon Musk. In this clip, he explains what his issues are. It’s a great reminder that people are never one-dimensional, and that in life we often have to deal with the bad or even repugnant aspects of someone’s character if we are to deal with the good. We have to discuss ideas even when those ideas — and those people — are hard to accept.