glass house philosopher / notebook 1
Wednesday, 23rd May 2001
A couple of days ago, I had an e-mail from Laura Laine Kelley:Thanks for your latest Glass House entry on the practical philosophy. Maybe if your poster included something about love or sex...
I have heard academic philosophers describing certain problems or topics as 'sexy'. I don't know how widespread this usage is amongst academics generally. A sexy philosophical topic is one that fills the lecture halls, sells books. It doesn't need to have anything to do with love or sex. I've seen the philosophy of time done in a very sexy way.
However, I think Laura is making the rather more obvious point that sex sells. Philosophy should be right up there, because one of the central questions for philosophy is human relationships:
No personal relationship is so secure that it has not, on some occasion, been unexpectedly thrown into question by a word or gesture. The sense of certainty, of which we were perhaps not even conscious, gives way to intimations of something unknown and dangerous; an unexplored region, a depth that has never been plumbed, an order threatened by chaos. Before the threat has time to materialize, the moment passes and certainty returns. And so it is with our relation to the world itself. Unconsciously taken for granted as the backdrop to all our experience and action, the world suddenly becomes visible as a subject towards which one stands in a precarious relation. At such a moment, the very attitude of certainty seems a distortion of reality; the world is and will always remain something absolutely other than I, it is not mine to take for granted. But then, as before, the moment passes and is forgotten.
Dedication to Naive Metaphysics
The Dedication is to my wife June. Now, I would put the point more succinctly: the experience of love teaches us to philosophize.
(My heart was broken when I was 19. I don't think that the experience did me any permanent damage. But it quite possibly altered the course of my life.)
Although philosophy can be sexy, good philosophy, worthwhile philosophy, can be boring too or at least seem so to the uninitiated. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It all depends where, for you the researcher, the Buddha resides. Whereas if you are a teacher looking for issues to grab your students' attention, to fire them up with enthusiasm, then the worthwhile but seemingly boring topics are best avoided.
I don't agree with that!
For me, it would be a matter of professional pride not to avoid an issue just because it was difficult to get my students fired up about it. You just have to work harder. If I can feel enthusiastic, then I know that there must be a way to convey that enthusiasm, to get others who have not yet had the opportunity to see deeply into the problem to feel the same way as I do about it. Mind you, I don't always succeed. But when that happens, I don't blame the student, I blame myself.
That still does not answer Laura's question!
Hmm. I think what I shall do is set a competition to design a more attractive poster for Pathways or the Philosophical Society. Reference to love or sex is optional. Closing date, lets say 1st September 2001. The winner to receive a copy of my book Naive Metaphysics. Just email your poster as an e-mail attachment.
The forthcoming Issue 9 of Pathways News will be featuring Laura's contribution to Round 3 of the Pathways online conference on the Use and Value of Philosophy. (Before I forget, we are now issuing usernames and passwords for people who wish to observe, but not take part in the Pathways conference. If you would like one, just e-mail me at the above address.)
In her conference piece Laura writes:
This past Tuesday I went to Prairie Lights, a local bookstore, to hear Alain de Botton read from his Consolations of Philosophy for a stop on his brief tour through the U.S.'s Midwest. From the outset he explained to the seated and radio audiences that his style of philosophizing is other than what one would find at universities. He practices a "wisdom" philosophy in the fashion of thinkers of the past, and proceeded to recount brief biographies and related commentaries and contemporary anecdotes inspired by Socrates, Epicurus, Seneca, Montaigne, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.
He's a terrifically witty and succinct synthesizer but not, I think, a philosopher.
Afterwards, as I reflected on the reading with a friend over a glass of Pinot Blanc at a nearby restaurant terrace, under full moon and trees in spring bloom (and de Botton entertained by a zealous co-ed within), I wondered how my notions of philosophy have evolved over the past couple of years. These are timely musings since I hope to wrap up my Pathways courses in the next couple of months: What drew me to philosophy to begin with? How would I have responded to de Botton prior to my Pathways studies? He speaks to a mainstream audience, and inspired my friend, a high school English teacher, to read further; but now that I have been tutored, is the de Botton style of philosophy spoiled for me?...
Laura's question has made me think once again about my reasons for writing this notebook. It wouldn't be putting the matter too crudely to say that I am looking for a bit of practical wisdom in my life. A bit of Seneca, a dose of Epicurus, a nice fat slice of Socrates. Yet I would question the premiss of de Botton's book: it seems defeatist to look to philosophy for mere 'consolation'. I want my life to be transformed by philosophy. I want to be better than I am now, more fit and able to meet life's challenges better equipped to succeed and not just better at coping with life's annoyances and disappointments. Is that too much to ask?
Now I can let you into a secret. Two days ago, I thought I had it, then I lost it again. A mental 'power boost' button which you can access just by the act of remembering who and where you are.
Ah! but that's the whole problem! Most of the time, I don't exactly know who or where I am. I can't make that philosophic ascent to view this present anxious moment as part of a greater whole, a meaningful continuation. Or maybe that is the illusion. In certain moods, we are able to make that ascent, because of the mood we are in. You can't achieve that mood merely by the mental act of willing that one rise above the moment. Maybe there is no mental power boost button after all.
I started off this notebook with the resolution, "I will meet up with all my former selves. I will become whole again." Shall I? Is that all it will take? I suspect that some of my former selves don't very much care to meet me.
Send me an Email
Ask a Philosopher!