Letter to Philosophy

Dear Philosophy,

Where can I begin? Philosophical inquiry is everywhere – In studies, in interactions, in reading and conversation… I have been formally and informally studying you for the last four years and, although this is my last semester of undergraduate philosophical study, I’m not going to stop studying philosophy. I’m making a reading list to fortify myself against the world of random information and unstructured learning! I’m a bit worried about it actually. I will always ask philosophical questions, but to really delve into ideas, to really pursue “philosophy,” to actually gain true clarity beyond that which contemplation of my immediate experiences bring, I need books and discussions. Discussions require other people who are equally engaged in learning and questioning – discussion is one of the most valuable ways to learn. I thought there were not very many people who liked asking the questions I did. Then a few weeks ago someone initiated my help in stating (restarting) the philosophy club on campus. Suddenly I was surrounded by insightful, ponderous people! I suppose these sorts of groups are natural at institutions dedicated to learning and fairly easy to form. In the “real world” people have lives and jobs and families and the day to day activities of maintaining life and even if they enjoy contemplation, there may be no time to do this – what if I have no time! Laura Rediehs said the other day that, if possible, finding an occupation that pushes you to do the things you truly want, rather than feeling that your occupation prevents you from doing the things you want is an ideal kind of job. It makes me wonder: perhaps I should make philosophical study the main focus of my life…

Philosophy, it’s been good – you’ve really open my mind, as cliché as that sounds, and completely transformed the “me” I assumed I was. Sometimes I talk to other students about the debt I’ve incurred while learning about you but I always come back to the same point: education, particularly the one I’ve gained, cannot be understood or measured or associated with a monetary value. It truly is invaluable. To think how much ideas can change one!

Philosophy, I promise to keep at it. I’m going to plow through my reading list, I’m going to try to find people who enjoy you as I do, and I am going to try to do something that allows me room to be philosophical. Let’s remember, this is just the beginning!

My Philosophical Future

Philosophy will always be part of my life. I don’t think I can ever stop asking “why.” I like to know how things work, how they are, and I find people and lives, and human associations the most interesting things to consider. Given this I had planned on going to law school as a way of incorporating contemplation, human interaction (and aid) with action (activism). Towards the end of this past semester however, I’ve begun considering alternative possibilities, specifically of continuing to study philosophy. Ironically, when I consider myself in the field of philosophy, I can’t imagine what I could write about, what I could discover. I suddenly revert to thinking everyone else has said it so well, and while I am sure other philosophers will publish incredibly insightful works, I could never possibly do so! I hope, however, that this is only a feeling, similar perhaps to the one I faced at the end of many philosophy courses when asked to assemble my own philosophical conceptions from the many authors we had read. Whether I go to law school, try to get my philosophy PhD (or do something else!), philosophy, or rather, philosophical inquiry (and reflection) are an essential part of my life. True meaning in life comes, I think, from reflection, contemplation, and an attempt to understand things which occur. It may be impossible to know exactly “why” something happened, but the ability to understand one’s own reaction to it and the various effects it has is invaluable and likely the most enriching part of living. Finally, surrounding myself with people who are also inclined to ponder their lives and ask questions in an attempt to bring clarity to their understanding of life, as well as attempting to understand how we should live, is invaluable. I understand philosophical inquiry as the pursuit of constant learning. I don’t think I can ever stop learning, and I know I can never stop asking “why!!”

Preferred Types of Philosophy

It seems that philosophy in general is about restructure and redefining conceptions. This can be done in any number of ways, historically, analytically, comparatively… etc. I think the kind of philosophy I find most exciting is that which particularly relates to human interaction and our place in the world. Perhaps as a product of embarking upon the activities of deciding what kind of life I will lead, I am particularly interested in questions of “to live the good life.” Elements of this are certainly found across most subfields because, fundamentally, philosophy is about understanding; understanding, for example the ways I perceive objects in the world, affects how I think and live. Perhaps the most comprehensive attempt to discuss “the good life” has been in my political theory courses. The authors employed many different techniques, including a kind of historical conceptualization of human activity, how it has changes and the problems or benefits of those changes, as a way of highlighting certain things about our current conceptions and behaviors.
I am also drawn to continental and Asian philosophy. The implementation of paradox, and the almost poetic way of expressing certain theories enabled authors to get to the heart of what it means to live and the struggles involved. Regardless of geographical style, however, I am most interested in theories that contemplate the questions, “How should I live?” and, “How should we live together?” Where this places me on the philosophical “map,” is interesting. I looked again over my map and realized I had left certain philosophical issues out. Bellow is my original map with a few extra categories thrown in.


A. The self
i. Ethical/Moral Philosophy (in C regarding human interaction and in B regarding the environment)
ii. Existential Philosophy
iii. Philosophy of the Mind
iv. Maybe: Philosophy of the Sages, some philosophy of psychology, some philosophy of religion.
B. The world
i. Philosophy of Science
ii. Epistemology
C. Human Association
i. Political Philosophy
ii. Environmental Philosophy (B as well)
iii. Philosophy of Religion (A and B as well)
D. Tools of understanding:
i. Philosophy of Language
ii. Basic Logic/Reasoning
iii. Second Order Logic (B as well)

I think I am interested in nearly every area on this map!! Probably, however, I would fall mainly in the Human Association category, and also somewhat in the Self category. Understanding these things through language, however, is particularly interesting to me, but I know very little about it.

The Future of Philosophy

I remember thinking, sometime in the midst of my philosophical studies, that the field of philosophy could not possibly become more complete. As recently as this past semester in Contemporary Political Theory, after each author I read (John Rawls, Alasdair MacIntyre, Michel Foucault and many others), I could not imagine there was another, more accurate way of understanding human association, human nature or the ways in which individuals might live the “good life.” Yet each subsequent author provided a different but equally insightful theory about human association. and each of these authors has been published in the last one-hundred years.

Perhaps the one of the most significant activities I’ve been required to do at the end of several of my philosophy courses, is write a paper assembling, critiquing and extrapolating elements from various authors I read throughout the course, and form them into my own idea of how the world is, how we can know it, or how we should conduct ourselves within it. This is an overwhelming activity but in the end, one of the most satisfying. While none of the things I extrapolated and reworked into my papers were particularly ingenious, the activity of moving beyond the established philosophical authors to “what I thought,” has encouraged me to believe there is evermore material and possibility for philosophy!

One of the authors I have read this semester was Hannah Arendt who emphasizes, as a part of her theory, the human capacity for action. Social science in particular, she says, attempts to understand human behavior, not action. That is, statistics and studies are about finding how likely it is that groups of people will behave in certain ways, and tends to ignore the true spontaneity and unpredictability of human interaction, association and the choices individuals make to consciously do something. Arendt emphasizes the endless possibility found in the humanity for action. The world is always changing, allowing for new philosophical inquiries. For example, the rise of technology, or science, and now in particular the issues of the environment and human consumption, provide extremely important fields of philosophical contemplation. The way the world changes and the way people change, and the endlessly changing relationship between people and the world, allows for the possibility of endless philosophical considerations.

Additionally, I think it is unlikely that philosophical questions will be taken over by other disciplines. Philosophy, it seems, provides a very holistic analysis or critique of systems of thought or ways of engaging in the world. At the very minimum there is always room for “philosophy of…” – the ability to critique the very structures of disciplines and always, asking the question “why” at every level of discussion.

If any significant transformation occurs, I think it will pertain to new emerging technologies and the changing ways humans engage with one another, in and with the world, as well as how we understand ourselves in these new relationships.

Particularly, I think that hybrids of fields (for example Asian and Western-continental) might be particularly informative and bring a greater understanding of how we exist, perceive our existence, and should conduct ourselves in the world.

There is much hope left for philosophy! As long as people continue to fundamentally ask “why,” in a way that relates beyond statistics or probabilities, philosophy, pertaining to every part of human existence and action will remain a viable and lively field.

What is Philosophy? - Revisited

What I originally wrote:
Philosophy is primarily concerned with how we should live. In other words, what is the good, and best, way to structure our society, behave towards one another and the environment, understand the world through science and religion… etc. The starting point for these inquisitions, and what allows determinations of value (that something is good or bad, better or worse), is our emotive capacity – specifically our capacity for empathy, care, duty, responsibility and respect. These emotions, combined with the desire to better our situation, enable us to begin the process of finding out what is, what is good, and how we can achieve that good. The essential element within this, however, and the attribute which makes philosophy an academic discipline, is the application of reason, logic and argument to these questions. The necessary quality of reason and argument enables an intra-personal, or community pursuit of Truth (big ‘T’ or little ‘t’).

If philosophy is about finding truth, then it has a great reflective power. Even if Truths are not found, the process of examining, questioning and arguing brings clarity of thinking and a greater awareness to oneself, the greater community and academics as a whole. One might say philosophy is a proactive reflection on what it is to be human in the world.

I would wholly agree with these statements, but I think philosophy is fundamentally about providing clarity of thinking. Existentialism for example, is of course about how to live, but more basically, it is about what it means to live at all. Philosophy of science, while it is partially about reshaping beliefs which may impact individuals’ behavior, it is about trying to clearly understand the internal assumptions of science, and the implications certain methodologies have. Philosophy is most powerful, or revolutionary, when it steps beyond social/historical paradigms and attempts to examine a system of thought from other perspectives. This is particularly apparent in great social-peace activists like Mahatma Gandhi, or even Friedrich Nietzsche. This past semester in reading many different contemporary political theories, I realized that each author strove to clarify or redefine either common conceptions or historical processes. Although their main goal was to suggest the ways in which humans could best (or most justly) live together, their basic purpose was to clarify perceptions. Clarity of thinking therefore, while certainly essential in determining what a good life is and how to lead it, is, I think the primary purpose of philosophy.

Reflection on Methodologies

I used logical analysis, which is probably the most structured kind of methodology primary in my reasoning course. It is also useful in conversations (philosophical discussions), but I have not used it often in my other courses.

I find the methods of Conceptual Analysis particularly interesting. I have noticed that many of the authors I have read this semester, particularly in my contemporary political theory class employ this method. I have certainly attempted to do this in many conversations. This method seems to get at the heart of the purpose of philosophy, to bring clarity of understanding and for that reason I find it particularly enlightening.

Deconstruction has been used in nearly every one of my philosophy courses, as well as many psychology courses. When trying to find out “what really is,” it is often necessary to know “why” it is, and that often leads back either, to scientific or socially constructed roots. One of the ways in which I have found this method particularly interesting, was in the course, Philosophy of Science, and the deconstruction of accuracy of scientific knowledge. Additionally, this fall I read Michel Foucault’s Crime and Punish which dramatically altered my awareness of “citizen behavior” and the prevalence and regulation of the state.

I employed the Phenomenological somewhat in writing essays for my creative nonfiction course, but nearly all the authors we read attempted to examine a personal experience from how they were at the moment of the experience, in retrospect, and then as an understanding of both the initial experience and then ones own interpretation of one’s understanding of the experience. When done well, this method can provide incredible insights!

I have never actually written a letter to an editor of a newspaper though I remember reading for my Reasoning course, many letters to the editor which were either very thoughtful or quite incendiary.

I have never engaged in what I would call a platonic dialogue, but I do thoroughly enjoy conversing/discussing/arguing points with people. Often the issues I find myself talking about are not ones I am extremely knowledgeable about and so the conversations usually take the form of mutual learning, rather than an attempt to prove or disprove the other’s points.

I have employed philosophy as explication of meaning in nearly every course I have taken. When writing any kind of paper it is necessary to clearly explain a theory or passage before either critiquing it or comparing it to another theory.

I have done a lot of “comparative-descriptive” papers for my contemporary political theory course this semester. It is an excellent way of showing a full grasp of the material, but it is not nearly as interesting as comparative-constructive.

I find comparative-constructive a fascinating and difficult method, but one of the most important in philosophy. It is a way of bringing further clarity and understanding of human existence, perception, or engagement with one another or the world, and for that reason I find it quite interesting.

I very much like the idea of integrating philosophy with other experiences. While I have never distinctly thought, “I will engage philosophically in this activity and then reflect on it,” I have (and increasingly so), incorporated philosophical analysis of and reflections on situations as and after they occur. I find myself more and more engaged in relating people’s comments or activities to theories or concepts I’ve learned about. This is extremely exciting and very rewarding in that it shows this my philosophical studies have and are “sinking in!”

Explication of Meaning - William Ophuls on Liberalism

“Because the basic premises of the liberal paradigm are intrinsically self-destructive, it has spawned deep and intractable problems that are propelling us toward political succession toward a fundamental change of regime just as radical as that introduced by Hobbes when he sired modern politics. In brief, the politics of amoral individualism has failed. In consequence, while conserving many of its important features, we now seem obligated to transcend the liberal paradigm.”

This is the primary thesis of William Ophuls’ book, Requiem for Modern Politics. Liberalism is inextricably linked to capitalism. Ophuls explains that because liberal principles are based on economic gains of the individual, as first articulated by Hobbes, all interpersonal conflict is transformed into economic competition. Notions of private (individual or family) responsibility are now shaped in terms of public (government) allocation of resources to each person. What were once communities of cooperation that shared responsibilities of life have fragmented into individuals’ pursuits (and competition) for economic gains. As the individual is exalted, and his/her primary focus becomes only economic gain, communities, once centered in a specific place around shared interests, erode leading both to the destruction of the environment and liberalism as a whole. As individuals detach from community concerns, the state becomes ever larger, detached from the values of human life and ever concerned with power and economic gain leading to a despotic state.