So, the other day I agreed to give a talk in October on the question, ‘Why Philosophy?’ This is, of course, something I’ve thought about in the past. But I’ve never strictly delineated an answer to myself, to the extent that I could at this very moment deliver a clear and confident paper on the topic. I thought it might be interesting to, in a sense, ‘crowdsource’ my talk. In the interest of doing so, I’d love to hear from readers about why they think philosophy is a necessary, or at least worthwhile, pursuit. Of course, the risk of cliche and redundancy looms large here. If you have some thoughts, whatever they may be, please pass them along.
plastic bodies
thinking about material identities
My response will be largely biographical, but I think it exemplifies certain issues that are less common in the canned responses.
I chose philosophy after having achieved much success in a career in software engineering very early in life, and thus I give an answer from a viewpoint that is not from a typical humanities background. Ultimately, I wanted understanding, which I now know to be both theoretical and practical wisdom. I wanted to understand because I grew up in the radically plural environment of being an overseas Army brat, who when transplanted to each locale had to engage radically different social and cultural environments on their own terms. I wanted to know why each did what they did and what sense I could make out of it, which for me was an issue of (socio-cultural) survival distinct from those who lived in pluralistic urban environments where the synthesis of disparate cultures is evident along with the cultures. This lead to questioning all the most basic assumptions and sacred cows fo every culture, because their discrepancies were obvious. With Rorty, “socialization” somehow didn’t take, although for very different reasons in my case, since it was neither rejection nor failure, but confronting seemingly irreconciliable difference since infancy without seeing a synthesis. (I now see a synthesis for the first time in my life, living in Houston, that others of pluralistic background usually take for granted.)
Aside from the biography, “why?” Because I sought to understand all things, for philosophy did begin in wonder. But the wonder came from very concrete circumstances and not imagination, and thus I think it in a very concrete manner.
When I explain it to my students, I often lead into a question. “Do you know why you believe what you believe?” Per my background, I point out the social, historical, cultural, etc. contingencies that many likely exemplify and how little these are internally or externally reconciled … which I note even in many philosophers. Whatever they say, I point out the contingencies, although I do no dismiss what they claim, and ask is the accident the only reason? Or is there more? You can probably guess how this goes.
I don’t think there is a subject that one could say is philosophy, but that said to the degree that one can learn to think through the implications of things/ideas and to imagine new possibilities/combinations by engaging philosophers that is of value (of course one can learn these capacities in other ways).
The philosophers that I love, and return to, have a common interest in creating works that are existentially gripping/transformative, that go beyond knowing about to showing how, and to offer living/livable alternatives to calculative reasoning. here is a recent talk that I have been inspired to pass around which might be illustrative:
http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/2010/02/stephen-mulhall-philosophy-literature-and-the-difficulty-of-reality-j-m-coetzee-and-elizabeth-costello/
Curious to learn the responses.