Barrett, I must say, you have an uncanny ability to carry the philosophical themes presented in class far beyond the realm of relevance. For that, I would say you exemplify the select few (whose names may be inferred from my previous blogs) who tend to get wrapped up in the technicalities of existential arguments. Time and again in class we hear an enthusiastic individual rattle on about how physics, biology, this-or-that wouldn't support such claims as are being made in particular text. To that I must ask: What good does assessing the worth of a thing, B, do us if we are limited to only perceiving it through the lens of a different thing, A? Similarly, Barrett, if you assess the value of philosophizing by its instrumental value alone, you overlook a great deal of its significance. For example, I thoroughly enjoy contemplating life and the many themes presented in class. And yet, I do nothing with this. I simply relish in the pleasure it gives me. If you try to measure the instrumental worth of this aesthetic appreciation you will most certainly find none. To better elucidate my claim, let's look to the often-cited research that suggests religious individuals tend to be happier, on average. This says nothing about whether or not those sampled actually make use of their religious dogma in everyday life; but religion is undeniably valuable to their psychological well-being. The function of philosophizing can be understood in a similar light, and for many, it is. This sort of approach to philosophy coincides nicely with Heidegger's "we cannot do anything with philosophy, [and yet] might not philosophy...do something with us?" as presented on page 150 of Robert Solomon's Existentialism. This is to suggest that while the reader may not be actively doing anything with the ideas put forth, the ideas themselves may be actively shaping the reader (so, there, maybe something is actually being done after all).
Yours Tru.ly
No comments:
Post a Comment