A Closer Look At Philosophy
My Name is Julia Heuritsch and I did the PoC course last year. And I simply loved it! Without any exaggeration it was the best course I have ever attended, because I have always been interested in exactly those kinds of questions and I was fascinated by the way they were taught and explained and that we, students, could discuss! That’s why I am still looking at the discussion page and trying to read through some posts if time allows ;-) I am doing a very interesting Philosophy of Mind course (PoM; in Vienna) at the moment and this inspired me to write sth about what philosophy means to me and how I got involved in that field!
But before I go into detail, I want to quickly introduce myself: I am a 22-year-old Austrian and my actual study is astronomy. I have just finished my bachelor. In addition I have been doing some interesting philosophy courses (e.g. “Weakness of the will, evil doing, behind morality, evolutionary epistemology, etc) just as a hobby – so to say.
Well, actually it’s not only my hobby – it’s my way of thinking. And it’s always been like that – when I was a kid I noticed that my way of thinking was so different to most of the others’. Philosophical questions fascinated me without me knowing that such a thing like philosophy even exists. I want to tell you a few examples:
• During the PoM-course we dealt with the following question: „Can you imagine sth without having the idea that there could be sth else/ without having the comparison?“ And that’s sth I asked myself when I was around 8 years old: We were reading the legend about the “Basilisk” in school. The “Basilisk” is an animal mixture of a chicken and a snake. I was so fascinated by the idea of such a creation and asked myself if I could imagine another creation – but this time a mixture of sth which doesn’t exist. And I tried really really hard, but everything I could imagine was sth made out of sth that I had already known about before. It really drove me crazy that I couldn’t solve that problem and postponed the question until later. This “later” came across my life when I was reading “1984” by George Orwell. In this book he introduces the “Newspeak”, which the citizens have to use in order to be under control. That’s a language where words are redefined and some others are cut out completely. My first impression was that it’s a really extreme book and that the controlling methods described would never work in reality. But after a while I realised that the “Newspeak” is comparable to my “Basilisk” example: You can not imagine anything which is not made out of sth you already know about. Therefore if e.g. “freedom” and anything having to do with that word is cut out of “Newspeak” it is ensured that citizen’s won’t even be able to think about such a thing as freedom.
• A second example of my philosophical thoughts of my childhood is the colour problem. I asked myself if people with differently coloured eyes would perceive colours differently. I imagined what would happen if e.g. people with green eyes saw the world through some kind of green filter. Or if it could be possible that some people see blue as red or the other way round. The latter is the actual colour problem: Could you tell if sb sees “your” blue as “your” red or the other way round? Back then I got to the conclusion that we could not determine that difference; The way we get taught the names of the colours works in the following way: sb shows you a coloured object and tells you the colour’s name. That does not require that we see the colour in the same way, but only that we can differentiate the colours in the same way. Otherwise confusion is caused like in the case of colour-blind people.
• Also, I have always been fascinated by paradoxes; I think that started in my early childhood when I was confronted with the following question: “In what situation will you never be able to say ‘yes’ honestly?” … It is the question: “Are you asleep already?”
So most of my live I thought I was weird and until a few years ago I didn’t know that there is a whole sector dealing with exactly those kinds of questions as mentioned before – namely humane sciences. And that’s the reason I could have never imagined being able to use that kind of thinking in an economic way … but to be honest I don’t know if my dream of becoming an astronaut was that much more realistic :D
Anyway back to the question of what philosophy is: For me, philosophy is very simple to define – by the term that Ferdinand Lassalle introduced and Hannah Arendt and other philosophers have been using – namely „Sagen, was ist“ – or in English – philosophy is: „Saying it as it is“. We are truth seeker. Furthermore:
• It is said that children are the best philosophers and I definitely agree. Whereas most children ask a lot of philosophical questions, that ability gets commonly lost as they grow up. That’s because of various reasons, but I think a main one is the problem, that facts become too self-evident as to question them any further. Children ask a lot of “why”-questions whereas adults often don’t dare asking them or they are simply not interested anymore. Just take the standard example: “Why is the sky blue” – How many adults question that or would even have an answer? My experiences just prove that: Often I get told it’s annoying that I always ask, why. For me it’s just natural and whereas my questions often get answered by “That’s none of your business”, I have never ever used that phrase once in my life, because for me curiosity is just natural – and that’s the next point:
• Philosophy implies being curious, questioning and critical. During the PoM-course it was said that, the “likelyhood to find out sth that makes you mad is pretty low when you are a philosopher, because you discover more ways for coping with the fact that we are mortal“. But I also think that another reason you can cope better with negative facts than non-philosophers is the philosopher’s curiosity. I have experienced that in most situations of my life my curiosity is a bigger feeling than the fear of finding our sth which hurts me. BUT that leads us to the next question: Can we really always cope with our philosophical knowledge?
So, is philosophy a burden?
• Being a philosopher definitely is a curse and blessing at the same time. Honestly I have to admit that sometimes I am so thankful of how I think and what I have found out due to my philosophical way of thinking that it feels as if I had been enlightened. But on the other hand sometimes I feel like a robot, not human and getting punished for my way of thinking and questioning.
• First of all, it definitely can be a burden in a social context:
Non–Philosophers commonly just do not understand your way of thinking and acting. I have often been labelled as selfish, because those people just can’t explain my behaviour otherwise.
Further a philosopher has to cope with the fact that so many people on earth don’t give a shit about truth and often don’t even want to know or even deny the truth or in the worst case they lie. So you have to learn how to deal with those kinds of situations. That leads to the next aspect:
Often you feel commiserative with those people who don’t listen to you and who are not even honest to themselves. It happens often that I feel really bad because I know how bad I would feel if I was that person and knew that sb else thinks in such a negative way about me. But the worst is that I know I can’t change anything, because that person doesn’t let me and is not interested in a change. Then you start feeling guilty for your own thoughts. This leads to the aspect:
Often you feel too powerful and hence too responsible: I used to get really mad about the following: I thought that from an action–theoretical point of view every other human being is “only” a constant, because if you weren’t there they would behave in a certain way and because you exist you are the only person who is responsible for any changes, because only you can influence them. The same applies to any other human being from their point of view. It took me very long to accept that this is a valid theoretical view but not practical at all because it drives you crazy. Then it took me ages to accept the practical benefit of the Serenity Prayer –by the American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr probably a lot of you might know it (see Wiki if not). Nevertheless, accepting that you can’t change a certain thing takes often your hope and just leaves sadness behind.
• Then of course there is the inevitable question of the sense of life. Most of the times I can deal with the fact that there is no absolute “God”-given sense of life and I just try to set goals and create my own sense. But I also have to admit that sometimes I get kind of depressed that it is all so relative.
• In addition I don’t think that the ability of having feelings and a brain like ours (that whole questioning system) can actually cooperate or even co-exist in a stable peaceful way. If we just had one out of the two our lifes would either be more “liveable” or more “robotic” but there is no certain way to connect them both.
So I get to the conclusion that I love being a philosopher, I love to question and to try to understand as much as possible, plus I love looking “behind the scenes” and finding out truths which are tried to be hidden. But I also agree with what was said during the PoM-course: „Being naive is sometimes good for your own well–being“. So I have experienced that in some situations it is better to pretend you are a little bit dumb, so that you avoid being called strange.
As my last point I’d like to write sth about the connection between natural sciences, so what I am actually studying, and humane sciences – philosophy in particular:
Actually I think it’s remarkable how difficult it is for me to justify spending my time on philosophy courses, because unfortunately a lot of “real” scientists (natural scientists often consider themselves as the only true scientists) characterise philosophy as sth rather “esoteric” – I have often heard some of my professors and colleagues saying sth like: “What for do you need philosophy; Maths and physics is enough to describe the world”. Philosophy fell into disrepute. And I think this unfortunately did not happen without good reason:
There is a lot of Blah-Blah going on in philosophy, whereas I think that facts and even speculations should be described by using easy words (cf. Occam’s razor) & metaphors BUT NO poetry.
I do believe that there are lots of philosophers who refuse taking one of Einstein’s most favourite quotes seriously: “Everything is relative”. And this is because of a fatal mistake: they confuse relativity with their biggest fear “anything goes”.
I noticed this problem when I was doing the “Behind morality” course last semester: I simply didn’t understand much of what was written in the literature and because I thought the reason must be my imperfect English I let my Australian boyfriend (who is also really into philosophy) read the texts. And … he also didn’t have any clue of what the main claim could be.
So I have reasons to believe that a lot of philosophers are just trying to invent concepts from scratch because they want to weasel out of the fact that even subjects like morality are relative. BUT there is just such a simple solution, which separates relativity from “anything goes”: consistency and flexibility!
Consistency means: If I say A is right/ true today then I will still say that tomorrow unless some circumstances have changed (due to relativity). And it’s my flexibility which allows that I will first notice that change and second adapt my valuation. Therefore you need to have all 3 (acceptance of relativity of morality, consistency of your morality and flexibility) for being able to be the perfect moral person!
Therefore for me philosophy does not only mean “Saying it as it is” (as I mentioned at the top) but also “Seeing it as it is”.
Furthermore I think if philosophy could get rid of poetry and the denial of relativity natural scientists would not have any excuse anymore for not talking philosophy as a serious contribute to science in general!
—-—
I think philosophy is subordinate to, well, just about everything else. (as in it stems from who you already are - nobody is born a philosopher). Nietzsche makes a lot of good points about this, and is probably right that all the great “post-socratic” thinkers have been driven by an unhealthy, neurotic will to power (ha ha).
The only thing I clearly remember thinking about as a (very young child, about five) is the following: how can a man who can do everything, also kill himself (and stay dead).
Hi Julia. It was fascinating reading your thoughts and background. I have recently completed a major in Astronomy/Astrophysics (at ANU) and I’m currently doing a minor in Philosophy and Science (almost completed PoC), so I can relate to what you’re saying. Like you, I thought about philosophical topics as a kid. I thought I was a solipsist before I’d ever heard of one. I told the other kids when I was about 10 that I didn’t think they really existed.
I read 1984 ten years before 1984 (yes, I’m old), although I don’t remember much about it - it was one of those books we had to read at school. My son is doing Honours in English Literature and loves reading novels, but I’d rather read a text on philosophy any day.
I’m not sure that age reduces one’s inquisitive side - I studied a bit of philosophy in Western Australia a few years ago and was fascinated. I couldn’t decide between astronomy and philosophy, but fortunately I can now do both to finish by degree. It gives me something more interesting to do than my boring full-time job (which pays very well so I have money to invest, which makes it worthwhile).
I find consciousness and the brain really interesting (including perception etc) and almost did a minor in biological neuropsychology, but I’m glad I chose philosophy instead. I was amazed to find out recently about some of the studies on non-human animals that indicate that verbal communication with them is possible (Doctor Dolittle was right!).
The “Serenity Prayer” - I know it well - been there done that - I agree that “accepting that you can’t change a certain thing takes often your hope and just leaves sadness behind”. But I also think that the practical purpose of this “prayer” is to help people to help themselves by realising that they CAN change themselves (if they need to) but they can’t ALWAYS change other people or events outside their sphere of direct influence. But they can still influence others if they approach it in the right way. The critical part is having the WISDOM to know the difference between what you can change and what you can’t. You can’t change the past but the future is an open book - whether its about changing yourself or doing something really important to help change the world, in a big way or a small way. Similarly, you can’t prevent most tragedyie, but you can change your attitude to them and maybe help prevent them happening in the future. Anyway, that’s my two bob’s worth on that topic.
I like your comments about “acceptance of relativity of morality, consistency of your morality and flexibility”. Makes sense to me.
Anyway, I’d better get back to my final PoC assignment.
Dave Clarke
—-—
Hi again,
I am really sorry fort he late reply and also that it will be much shorter than I’d like it to be, because I would have to say so much on this. But i can’t help it; My exams will be in 2 weeks, I am very behind my emails and I need to get prepared for my Masters in Holland.
Anyway I’ll try my best:
In reference to the first commenter (who are you?): I think it’s the other way round: (Nearly) everybody is born as a philosopher, but unfortunately being questioning and honest seems too dangerous for too many people. Of course it’s more complex than that and there are many reasons why children lose their philosophical way of thinking as they grow up, but anyway narrowness of mind is what REALLY annoys me. In the long run I think you will have a calmer and better live if you are honest and questioning (e.g. trying to understand how other people think (e.g. by asking)). Well, I don’t exactly know what you meant by “will to power”, but the only thing I have really experienced in that connection is that my friends, colleagues and I want make a change somehow. But I don’t think this is because of a will of power. It’s more the striving to an ideal, like an honest and peaceful world (of course that sounds kitschy, but philosophers also know that this is an optimum which is not practically possible). For me it’s just unbelievable how people can not take the full responsibility of all the consequences of their decisions. And that’s because they even often don’t (want to) see them!
As for the 2nd argument: Haha, isn’t that sth that is used as an argument against God? Like if there is a God that has the power to do everything than he should also be able to create a stone which is so heavy that he can’t carry it anymore; but then there would already be a contradiction …
Okay, now I am turning to Dave: It’s so great to read from people who had the same experiences when they were kids or even now! It was such a long time that I believed I am just strange and dedicated to be an outsider that it still feels great to see that there are other human beings who are also strange ;-) Haha and what did they say?
Oh really? Last year I did “From Stars to Galaxies” and a Research project in Astronomy at the ANU … maybe we have met …
Yes, I agree, I am sorry if that was misunderstanding. It’s not the age itself which is the main reason why humans don’t want to question that much anymore. As I indicated above (in this comment) I think it’s many factor. E.g. the way you were educated, brought up, which friends you have, how your family thinks etc. And also I think that lies seem to be more convenient at the first glance, but people often forget that they also have to think about the long term consequences. So that’s why I think in the long run it’s even easier to be honest (see what I have written above).
Haha, I can really understand the difficulty of deciding between astronomy and philosophy. Astronomy is my first subject and I definitely want to stick to it, but I my dream job is one were I could combine both subjects!
Yes, the brain, unconsciousness and all that stuff is so incredibly interesting!! Okay you have an interesting point, I haven’t seen the serenity prayer from that point of view as I have only always had the problem that I want to change too many things, so also things that I can’t change. And those things that I haven’t been able to change often were indeed in my sphere of direct influence. Until not too long ago I just couldn’t understand (and for me it’s still incredible) that I still can’t change those things because they are connected to people who don’t want a change or who don’t realise that there is a change necessary (even if you try to tell/ show them in any possible way). Well, then I can only hope that more people out there would see the prayer from your point of view!!
Thank you! Hearing that from a (natural) scientist’s point of vie means a lot to me as I think that’s a very important topic!!
Just one more thing to say: Recently I met a former fellow student again who is totally against philosophy (he thinks the only way you could connect astronomy and philosophy is as follows: “Ah, I see a star, but is it really a star?”). It really annoys me if those scientists only reduce philosophy on aspects like that (not mentioning the fact that maybe it is really not a star but sth else that we haven’t discovered yet or maybe just seen due to lensing effects etc). And it is just an enormous shame if a scientist is that narrow-minded that he/she can not even accept the usefulness of another part of science (without that that person would have to actually understand the concepts or would have to have the required interest/ way of thinking).
Oh noooo, I need to go ;-)
Good luck with your assignments and most of all: enjoy them, because they are so much fun!!
Julia Heuritsch
Hi Julia
We wouldn’t have met, as I did my last astro course about 4 years ago.
What was your research project? I did some research in second year in modelling chemical reactions in the atmosphere of venus (using my supervisor’s model of course - he and his colleagues developed it at CALTECH back in the 80s I think). I’ve been thinking (for a couple of years) about doing some research in astrobiology, maybe with Charlie Lineweaver. I did a couple of first year biol courses (molecular and cellular) and found it really interesting.
‘Honesty’ is a tricky one - I watched this TED talk and thought it was funny - “my year of living biblically”. http://www.ted.com/talks/a_j_jacobs_year_of_living_biblically.html?utm_source=email&source=email&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ios-share
There are some things it’s not good to be completely honest about. Then there are others that one should never be dishonest about. Then all the things in the middle.
Well, I managed a HD for Philosophy of the Cosmos. The last assignment was to summarise the whole course in 3,000 words (I cut it down from 5000 to 3800). I think I enjoyed it more than any other assignment. (I must be a nerd??)
And now for something completely different… it’s time for one of those violent action movies….must go
All the best
Dave :-)
