MAMA SAID EAT YOUR VEGETABLES

I began my own study of philosophy because I felt a powerful need to understand things as they truly are. In my own naïve way, I thought not only that this was possible, but also that it was necessary … at least for me. Why I felt that I cannot say. Because of this belief that true knowledge exists, I initially approached the subject dogmatically, committing to memory the minutest aspects of the various teachings of the presocratic philosophers (the first philosophers I studied in meaningful detail). I felt that this was important in order to determine the exact place where each philosopher went wrong – to identify and categorize their exact logical mistakes so that I could more closely approximate the “correct” theory. Their theories seemed childlike to me. Now, my way of thinking back then seems to me equally childlike. To think that such a project was possible, and that I could succeed where men far far far superior to myself had failed can only be explained by the arrogance of youth.

I did learn one critical lesson from the presocratics. They are the first philosophers. The word philosopher means lover of knowledge, but like most words, the literal meaning has lost much of its potency. But, these truly were the first lovers of knowledge. Up to this point in human history, people explained the world around them by appealing to myth rather than to reason. The early philosophers, in their awkward, groping way, looked to a different source for answers.

Mythos versus logos could very well be the subtitle of a course in the history of ancient philosophy. The importance of this change is momentous, and, at least in my opinion, it should not be one that is taken for granted. We cannot assume that this change was the next step in the evolution of humankind.

Why philosophy is important is because it represents the history and refinement of the most important human attribute, the organ of reason. Biologically, there is very little difference between yourself and the proverbial caveman. How then to explain the vast difference in the way you see the world and they way he saw the world? Obviously, millennia upon millennia of history have intervened. But that begs the question – what, exactly, precisely, accounts for the advancement of the species of animal called homo sapiens from being a glorified ape to what we are today? (glorified apes with Starbucks)

Philosophy does not answer this question completely – the answer is inter-disciplinary, complex, and most likely incapable of adequate resolution. However, philosophy is essential to understanding the development of reason (in written form anyway) from the earliest attempts to discover what reason is to today. For a time, people became infatuated with reason, and they used it for all sorts of purposes – to argue for the existence of pure concepts, to prove the existence of God, to show that space and time are illusions, to construct moral codes, etc. Philosophers took reason too far and ascribed too many powers to it; the story of philosophy from then on has largely been to define the outer limits of reason’s legitimate scope.

Then science happened. Just as the ancient people looked to myth, and the modern philosopher looked to reason, we now look to science to answer all questions. However, I think that a blind reliance on science is just as foolish as a blind reliance on myth or sophistry. There are some questions that science cannot answer. I’m not referring to theological questions, but philosophical questions. There are some problems that are as intractable today as they were thousands of years ago. What is causation? A causing B is the essential assumption of science and modern life in general, but our understanding of “cause” is imperfect at best. And, of course, ethical questions are wholly beyond the reach of science. Science is an extremely powerful, undoubtedly the second most powerful tool we have. Reason, however, is the most powerful, and its constant exercise and evolution is essential.

Practically, the philosophical method is important because we need smarter people, not just people with more knowledge of facts. We need “deciders” who can shine a laser-beam intellect on a problem and tear it to shreds … not bean counters. The ability to critically analyze the “facts” as they are presented is something we need more of. However, the pressures of modern life tend to reward people who tow the line rather than those who question the status quo. That is the surest way to disaster.

Finally, I want to say something in a few words that would be better said in about 5,000. I’ll have to keep it brief because I am incapable of getting into it in any detail – this is more of a personal belief that I have than a well thought out idea. The post modern world that we live in is an intellectually destructive one. It is easier to destroy than to build, so that’s what people do, especially the media. Our culture tears down our heroes, re-writes the history, blurs concepts, and just generally puts people in a state of confusion. This attitude did not spring from the ether – the horrors of the Twentieth Century, and the modes of thought that rose to prominence as a result, created a world in which Man is no longer the noble creation of a loving God, but rather a isolated animals floating in a sea of nothingness.

It’s a pretty sad way to think – that we’re all alone, no God, no sure foundation onto which we can build a sturdy edifice of morality and truth. We can’t completely trust our own thoughts and we can’t rely on the written history either. However, there is a lot of truth in this way of thinking. We are alone. Even the faithful must admit that, at least for the moment, we are alone. I haven’t seen God recently, and it is not my belief that He intervenes in the daily world (often). There is no such thing as absolute truth, there is no such thing as absolute right or wrong. [Man, how irresponsible of me is it to write a sentence like that with absolutely no explanation whatsoever? Unfortunately, I'm getting a J.D. not an M.A. in philosophy, so that's the best I can do.]

BUT this isolation and doubt, rather than degrading humankind, is evidence of our most noble nature. Out of the nothing we have created something. Human history is not an invincible monolith, but it stands nonetheless. A recognition that free will can sometimes have terrible results should lead to a more steely resolve to police our own conduct according to our own moral constructs, not nihilism. And the fact that our moral constructs change over time is something to be studied, not mourned.