[lit-ideas] Re: Why Philosophy?
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:57:30 -0230
In philosophy, there are no "personal applications" to speak of. Philosophy does
not differentiate between the personal and the public. The ideal is one of
autonomy and autonomy requires that any "personal" reason for a course of
action or maxim be universalizable across all agents in relevantly similar
circumstances. Personal biographical narratives referencing such
ethical/cultural variables as sexual orientation, religion, gender, cultural
affinities, etc. are of epistemic value neither for philosophical justifiedness
nor for legitimacy within a constitutional democracy. (Yes, anyone who claims
that "My sense of justice is rooted in God's word" has no business being in
public office. Charles Taylor got at least that one right.)Am I missing
something here?
Walter O.
MUN
Quoting Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> John,
>
> Your approach to philosophy is one I recognize and more or less agree with.
> I had some trouble, on the other hand, with a statement made the other day
> by Walter which may (at least it seemed to me to) imply a different
> approach, and I wonder if you did as well. It was,
>
> "I try to avoid autobiographical reflection; it interferes with the
> philosophical project of inquiry and analysis."
>
> Does he mean that he never feels a personal connection to the subject of his
> inquiry and that he never makes a personal application? Or does he mean
> something like the modern historian would mean when he says that he attempts
> to be as objective as possible while recognizing that utter objectivity is
> impossible?
>
> I recall a statement made about people who study psychology along the lines
> of the following: they begin their study because they have problems and hope
> to solve them through their study. Some of them are so persistent in
> seeking help through study that their studies qualify them to practice, and
> they do. Couldn't something like that be said about people who study
> Philosophy?
>
> In Hindu Philosophy there is a teaching called "Maya." The world is
> illusion. This is not so very different from what Plato taught and I read
> (long ago) arguments suggesting a connection. Wisdom consists of seeing
> past the illusion to the truth, and don't all philosophers, or rather
> shouldn't all philosophers seek the truth? Isn't that the goal of the
> philosopher, to seek the truth? And if that is true, that all, or at least
> all serious philosophers seek the truth no matter where that search leads
> them, shouldn't we suspect that this search is motivated by a personal need?
> Would we be amiss employing Collingwood here and examine a given
> philosopher's "constellation of presuppositions" and perhaps suspect that
> there is a strong autobiographical connection, a personal need to find this
> "truth"?
>
> Lawrence Helm
> San Jacinto
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Wager
> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 11:37 AM
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Why Philosophy. (Was: On Nip Thievery)
>
> wokshevs@xxxxxx wrote:
> > . . .What is the role of philosophy in these postmodern, internetized,
> globalized,
> > multicultural, post 9/11 days? Why do we continue to teach this
> discipline? Is
> > it for its relevance to contemporary problems and issues, or is there a
> > timeless, intrinsic worth to philosophy independent of any promotion of
> > interests and consequences for states-of-affairs in the world?
> >
> Both for its results and because it's a noble human quality to think
> about life, regardless of the results.
>
> (I went to a conference in Leeds, England a couple of years ago at which
> a French philosophy teacher led a room full of British philosophy
> teachers through some exercises in thought. The room got more and more
> angry and argumentative--even combative--as the French session leader
> just took the conversation as it progressed and continued to ask
> philosophical questions about their reactions. Quite a few of the Brits
> got up and left, complaining that the whole session was a waste of time;
> the conversation didn't "get anywhere."
>
> The French session leader left with a smile on his face; it had been an
> enormously satisfying exploration of some interesting issues of the
> nature and limits of different kinds of philosophical discourse.)
>
> My personal history may be relevant: I started in pre-med, because I
> thought that would be a good life, and it would do some good in the
> world. I thought that people needed help being healthy. But in college I
> saw lots of people suffering because they didn't stop and think much
> about what was important to them, what obligations they had, what made
> something important, or what kinds of things were real and what were
> illusory. I saw philosophy as a kind of intellectual therapy. But the
> more I got into it, the more it because an interesting pursuit
> regardless of how far one got in answering fundamental questions; it
> became important to raise the questions and try to answer them, as a
> worthwhile activity in itself.
>
> The first year I taught philosophy, a student committed suicide over
> Christmas break, leaving behind a note saying that his reading of the
> Phaedo (done in my intro philosophy class) had convinced him that a
> "better place" awaited him. (As in most cases, there were other suicide
> attempts, so I don't really blame my course as "the" cause.)
>
> His death disturbed me greatly, but I saw that the consequences of
> getting philosophy wrong, or not taking it seriously, could literally be
> deadly. The opposite would also have to be true: Doing philosophy well
> might "save" someone from various kinds of death.
>
> The main problem with philosophy is that the results are almost always
> too remote and too unpredictable to be calculated and appreciated.
> Someone who is cancer-free for five years is often counted as a
> successful outcome, but it's impossible to know how much influence
> Kant's focus on dignity and respect of others has had on a student.
>
> It probably takes more "faith" to teach philosophy in this spirit than
> it does to preach the Gospel; at least preachers have some evidence of
> the success or failure of their efforts.
>
> > All of us who work in the discipline have made significant sacrifices in
> order
> > to contribute to the philosophical literature and/or to help others
> develop
> > philosophical skills and dispositions - sacrifices similar to, if not
> identical
> > with, sharing living quarters with lizards. We all, surely, have our
> "lizard"
> > stories. But what is it that motivates you to pursue and promote this
> > discipline? ("Discipline" here not simply as a distinct scholarly form of
> > inquiry and analysis but also in the Greek sense of a way of life, an
> acquired
> > and educated attunement to the world, others, and oneself.)
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------
> "Never attribute to malice that which can be
> explained by incompetence and ignorance."
> -------------------------------------------------
> John Wager john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Lisle, IL, USA
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts: