But one person’s jargon is another’s helpful terminology, and Setiya makes occasional use of specialized words. Setiya often writes in the second-person singular: “You should …” (as in “You should not prefer to rewind time, erase your son, and try again.”) He also sometimes uses the first-person singular or plural: “I wish …” “We think …” Midlife reads like a conversation that reports Setiya’s real efforts to combat his ennui in order to improve your life, too. A clue that he is trying something different in Midlife is the book’s grammar. He is a professional philosopher in the Anglophone, analytic tradition. Setiya shows that it can be practiced today. It has been relatively weak in the modern West. That is exactly the combination offered by the Hellenistic Schools (Stoicism, Epicureanism, Skepticism) and by the classical Indian traditions. So we need habits that are at least consistent with the best arguments, and, ideally, habits that actually include argumentation. We may train ourselves to be foolish or selfish. But a mental habit or practice can lead us away from the findings of our critical reason. We also need practices or mental disciplines to accompany our arguments. Therefore, arguments-no matter how valid and rigorous-will not change us. And we must remember that people are habitual and affective creatures. However, arguments should have a purpose: to improve a life. The philosophical life is one of critical reason.

I read Kieran Setiya’s Midlife (Princeton, 2017) not only because I have that condition and am sometimes troubled by its complaints, but also because I appreciate the style of thought that Pierre Hadot named “ philosophy as a way of life.” Practitioners of this style acknowledge that it is important to develop and test arguments.

Midlife setiya