The Value of Philosophy

philosophy1small

As a philosophy professor I often am called upon to defend my discipline. When it comes to the media and any examples of “useless humanities,” philosophy ranks way up there, probably along with comparative literature and art.  As colleges around the country tighten their belts and work hard to justify the high cost of higher education (a genuine concern but consider what drives up the cost…), the first departments to be chopped off are the liberal arts, the humanities in particular.  After all, “what are you going to do with a degree in philosophy?”  Academic departments are asked to complete a PPR, “Program Prioritization Report“–admin-speak for justify your existence in terms of quantifiable numbers or else.

Emerson

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Now much of this rhetoric against the humanities is fueled by administrators in two camps:  those who have but a nodding acquaintance with anything beyond business subjects and those whose entire college education was composed of the subjects that they are rushing to condemn as useless.  It reminds me of the Transcendentalists in 19th century America who scoffed at European values and especially a classical education and used the very language of that education to do so.   While they  may have been making some good points about authoritarianism and rigid thinking, many of their ideas became the foundation for an anti-intellectualism that we still see thriving in our country today.

OK, all that aside, in a world where college = job training, how does one defend the humanities?  Majoring in accounting, hospitality and tourism, nursing, computer science clearly signals a paying job at the end.  However, this kind of thinking is driven by a mid-twentieth century notion of career: one majors in x and works in X for the next 45 years, retiring as the CEO of a X-firm with that gold watch. Hmm… not the way it works any Career-Change-at-50more, folks.  Most of our young people will change careers many times in their lives and work in jobs and careers that do not even exist today.  Imagine being in college in the 70s and now working in the IT industry.  Oh wait, you do.  What did you major in?  Chances are it was not Social Media or even Programming.  To do the business community credit, most companies will clearly say that they want young employees who can write, speak and think creatively–regardless of their major.  In fact, most corporations will train their new employees as they want them to be trained.  They do not want the business majors whose thinking has been shaped by their 50-60 year old profs.  But all of this has missed the ears of anxious parents (and yes, the cost of college is worrisome), college administrators hoping to lure more students to enroll, and government officials.  They stick with the script that college’s duty is to train workers.

So, what can anyone do to defend the humanities in ways that does not simply look rantings from self-serving luddites?  I hate to use a generation of college students as guinea pigs so as to say in 10 years, “we told you so.”  Some research minded colleagues at the Daily Nous blog (extra points for the great title, right?) are working on collecting data and reasoned arguments so as to provide philosophy–and other humanities–with some ways to argue asimovfor the continuing value of the liberal arts. And in a country that is skewing more and more towards ignorance, this may be the needed wake up call.  So, let’s stop and think about the value of philosophy, but not only in terms of those data-driven mandates, but really–what kind of life do you want to live?  What values matter?  How do you determine truth from ‘truthiness’ or falsity?  Who are you and how can you create a meaningful life?  These are some of the fundamental philosophical questions that every human grapples with.  Oh, and yes, thinking philosophically can help you get that job if you can present a clear argument and listen carefully to objections.  And to end with words of wisdom from  Steven Wright:

I was in a job interview and I opened a book and started reading. Then I said to the guy, “Let me ask you a question. If you are in a spaceship that is traveling at the speed of light, and you turn on the headlights, does anything happen?” He said, “I don’t know.” I said, “I don’t want your job.”

Kallos/to Kalon: Beauty, beautiful/the mystery

P1000425This coming week I am fortunate to participate in a seminar sponsored by the FRN at NYU in New York City.  The topic of my seminar is on beauty.  We have yet to meet as I post this but the leader, David Konstan, asked that we right a page or two abut our own idea of beauty.  I look forward to the other participants as their fields range from literature to design to fashion to accounting.  The interest among so many diverse discipplines is the first clue that defining beauty will not be easy.  What could we all possibly have in common?  I worry that in the very act of defining beauty we will be pinning the butterfly to the board.  While we have it there for us to inspect, have we loss the butterfly in the process?  So I think I will simply point to examples and wait to see where our ‘team’ collectively goes this week.

I do not want to limit my thinking to the visual but I will start there.  Here are a collection of images, each of which I would suggest is beautiful (which could be seen as shameless plug in some cases for my skills as a photographer–never mind) or depicts the beautiful. I have chosen images here to speak for me and you will find people, landscapes, art, architecture, and animals included.

But what of the non-visual examples? Well, in music I cannot begin to choose.  So many… But here is one:

And while again, literature abounds and I defer to the experts, my current poet choices would be Charles Wright and Mary Oliver.

By highlighting beauty as multifaceted I think we can allow for some “ugliness” to be included.  the beautiful is not the pretty.  But that should wait for further reflection.  I suppose in the end I am in the Platonic camp: beauty is the longing for the eternal, the acknowledgement of the effervescence of life that is both tragic, beauty, and our destiny.

 

Being and Time

IMG_4681

OK, that title may not be original with me, fair enough. But I find myself ever drawn to trees and clouds. Trees are permanent testimonies to life while clouds capture the temporal epoche which moves from being to nonbeing in a continuous vanishing point.

P1000427Trees represent being: the hard nerve ends of sentient life, the enduring ones, the witnesses to the ephemeral who persist, who silently or only by whispering see it all pass by. In winter trees reveal their secret geometries, a geometry of meaning that eludes us mere humans. We see their branches arch, bend, twist, like ballet dancers frozen into permanence. Each bend, each shoot, each twig–their emergence mustP1000425 be governed by some grand law of physics, of life, that defies us to see it as anything other than chaos. Ah, but that is their trick: it is not chaotic at all but mirrors in its woody fibers the nerve endings of sentience. Silent, seemingly permanent, quietly growing… trees speak being.

 

IMG_4653Clouds–the stuff whereof dreams are made. They entrance  with sheer colored beauty. They mesmerize us and tantalize us to love them even as they vanish before our longing eyes. No wait! we cry to them as the sun sets and time cruelly mocks our wishes. Clouds are often used to suggest heaven, which is odd if you think about it. Heaven is supposed to be eternal but clouds are the precise opposite of eternity. They are time itself: massing, unfolding, floating, scurrying along in the celestial vault, dissipating into nothingness. Like us. IMG_4752Clouds remind us that the permanence we so long for is illusion. We are but clouds on the horizon. Or better yet, the bird that flies through the great man’s hall in winter time. Venerable Bede captures that moment of warmth, light, joy as the bird flies from darkness through presence back out into utter darkness again. Those are clouds mocking us, luring us to hope for an eternity that cannot be for us.

P1000354