Midterm Blogpost-Eli Feck
Three
men sit around a table, deep in thought and discussion. This is not the
beginning of some lewd joke unless one finds pondering the benefits of
philosophy to be humorous, in which case the following discussion will likely
not be of any value to that individual. As I gaze at them from my seat just a
few feet away, I cannot help but wonder just where this evening’s discussion
will lead us. The three figures do not look back at me, nor at each other. I
have just posed the questions which seemed necessary to ask, and each man is
deep in thought. The questions were these:
“Do you think
philosophy can help people learn to respect truth, facts, reality, and one
another, and to reject falsehood, superstition, selfishness, polarization,
partisanship, and mutual hostility based on differences of race, religion,
ethnicity, nationality, belief, etc.? If so, how? If not, why not?”
“How would you answer William James's “really vital question
for us all: What is this world going to be? What is life eventually to make of
itself?”
The
first to respond is Kurt Andersen, author of Fantasyland. Andersen says
that, although he hopes people will be able to correct their course, it seems
rather unlikely. He proposes that people, least the American people, have gone
too far down the path of illusion to completely reverse their track. He says
that Americans will always have their superstitions and that, to at least some
degree, they will continue to reject truth, so long as it suites their needs. Andersen
claims that, “…we are freer than ever to custom-make reality, to believe whatever
or to pretend to be whomever we wish. Which makes all the lines between actual
and fictional blur and disappear more easily. (FL10)” Is freedom not something
that every American believes that he or she has, that it is a right that can
not be taken from them? Does that not mean, therefore, that they must be free
to believe whatever they like, whether it be proved false or disclaimed. “As we
let a hundred dogmatic iterations of reality bloom, the eventual result was an
anything-goes relativism that extends beyond religion to almost every kind of
passionate belief: If I think it’s true, no matter why or how I think it’s
true, then it’s true, and nobody can tell me otherwise. (FL49)” Americans today
have this mindset, and it is a dangerous mindset that rejects the objective,
proven reality and substitutes it with each individual’s subjective reality,
one that is based off the experiences and personal truths of each person.
I think this quote depicts Americans today, especially with all
the unusual circumstances that we are faced with in this strange time, and this
quote really captures the essence of Americans today. I think Kurt Anderson
would agree that we have become a stubborn nation that replaces truth with one
that suites our needs and that if we notice it in others, and maybe even if we
were to point it out, then the culprit would likely take a hostile tone with
us. For how dare we attempt to correct their stated falsehood or provide
evidence that contradicts their own statement. I believe Andersen would say
that while we do not like people that take this hostile tone, we do not recognize
when it is us who have stated something false, or we are outmatched by logic.
http://www.notable-quotes.com/s/stubbornness_quotes.html
At this
point Nigel Warburton, author of A Little History of Philosophy spoke
up, saying that, while he agreed with some of what Andersen was saying, he felt
entitled to view the question from a variety of perspectives. To view the
subject skeptically, he said, he would have to agree with Andersen completely,
but to view it in an optimistic manner he would have to disagree. Warburton goes
on to say that humanity has been down on its luck, that there is selfishness,
but philosophy can play a part showing people how to accept reality and respect
one another. Warburton says, “That’s the nature of luck. It is fickle. The
wheel of Fortune turns. Sometimes you are at the top; sometimes you are at the bottom.
A wealthy king can find himself in poverty in a day. (LH42)” Warburton persists,
admonishing that philosophy is a necessity for humans, it is not something that
they can survive without. Through philosophy, humans can grow, to reach their
highest potential and live happy lives in harmony with one another. Warburton uses
the analogy, “Think of a flower. If you water it, give it enough light, maybe
feed it a little, then it will grow and bloom. If you neglect it, keep it in
the dark, let insects nibble its leaves, allow it to dry out, it will wilt and
die, or at best end up as a very unattractive plant.(LH11)” Warburton, clearly
excited now, did not relent; people are like the plants he said, let them think
freely and grow and occasionally talk to them and see what kinds of thoughts
and ideas they have, and they will flourish. Leave them to their own separate corners
of existence, and they will think only about themselves, and they will learn to
resent their neighbors and to envy them, and there will be no harmony, no sharing
of thoughts and ideas, society itself will cease to exist. Keep in mind,
Warburton says, that it is not something that can happen overnight, for there
to be harmonious societies, there must be virtue, and virtue is not something
that simply pops up overnight. Virtue is a sign of a flourishing human; just as
green leaves are a sign of a flourishing plant.
This article is relevant because it talks a lot
about Aristotle and virtue, just like the chapter in the book. There are also
some videos at the top of the page that elaborate on some of the points.
Individual links for the videos are below as well. These videos talk about some
of Aristotle’s views about virtue and happiness in depth a bit more than the
reading.
http://www.stmartinspre.co.uk/virtue-ethics.html
Julian
Baggini, author of How the World Thinks, decided this would be a good
time for him to chime in. Philosophy, he said, is certainly important and vital
for helping people learn how to respect each other and accept their
differences. Concerning virtue, I would have to say that “In the virtue
tradition, we might seek a similar transformation of the Golden Rule. Following
a principle is second best to simply being the kind of person who treats others
as they ought to be treated. The Golden Rule prescribes the way for those who
need help identifying the good, but it describes the way in which those who are
truly good act without its guidance. (HWT266)” No one, he said, has yet to
bring up the link the between philosophy and religion, that subject that often
divides and causes conflict among groups. Has it not been brought up because it
is a sensitive topic, or simply because it is so complex and could have so many
different examples that no one has breached the subject for fear of being lost
in it? “A comparison could be made here between later Indian philosophy and the
natural theology of medieval Europe. There too faith and reason were seen as
being in harmony, with reason’s role not to provide the foundations of faith,
merely to explain it. Philosophy was largely apologetics: the rational
justification of revealed truths. (HWT 15-16)” Can there be harmony between two
philosophical groups, both of which rely on religion, both of which have different
religions, and therefore different ideas? Well, of course there can. Have we
not already discussed virtue, and the Golden Rule? Groups may learn to accept
each other and their differences of opinion if only they would put aside their
selfishness and their pride, and simply come to the table with an open mind,
receptive to new ideas, new possibilities, that may not have been thought of
before.
https://www.chs-sixthform.org/openevening/rpe/
The talk continued, as it most certainly had to, for
everything had not yet been laid out upon the table, and there was still much
to discuss.
People are indeed like plants, they require nurture and care... and then they can achieve their "blooming" potential (as Aristotle said).
ReplyDeleteIt sounds almost too simple, but getting people to treat one another as they'd like to be treated would undoubtedly take us a long way toward becoming a society that respects truth, facts, reality, and one another. Sometimes the oldest and most familiar philosophies are still the best. But how do we get there from here? I'd start by introducing philosophy in grade school, not as an abstract subject but as a daily activity. Learning in childhood to listen and respond respectfully would surely make all the difference in later years.