We
here in the DoD are delighted to announce that we have been officially named
“wise and good!” Since such encomia don’t
come around every day, we here in the DoD shall vigorously enjoy the compliment
while and how we can. The full
announcement is here, but since we do love a good “contentious dialogue,” we
thought we’d make parts of the announcement – especially the parts involving Confucius,
that old Deviant – more dialogic and agonistic just to celebrate:
“Not All Things
Wise and Good are Philosophy”
Philosophy
originates in Plato’s Republic. It is a restless pursuit for truth
through contentious dialogue. It takes place among ordinary human beings in
cities, not sages and disciples on mountaintops, [Someone’s been reading too many old New Yorker cartoons with
orientalist imagery! You do realize that this hackneyed imagery of sages on
mountaintops is like seeing The Thinker sculpture and concluding that western
philosophers sit around naked clutching their heads, right?] and it
requires the fearless use of reason even in the face of established traditions
or religious commitments [Fearless? Socrates was pretty brave. Still, the folks wandering around most
philosophy departments don’t get to ride on those superhero cape-tails
literally forever. Go to the APA and
then tell me here resides “fearless use of reason.” Oh, by the by, Confucius
also faced Mortal Danger in his mountain-top wise guy disciple-wrangling. It was just that his Plato-types – the folks
memorializing him - didn’t make much fuss about it, which, if you think about
it, is a intriguing writerly choice.]. Plato’s book is the first text of
philosophy and a reference point for texts as diverse as Aristotle’s Politics, Augustine’s City of God, al-Fārābī’s The
Political Regime, and the French philosopher Alain Badiou’s book Plato’s
Republic
(2013). [Uh, if general wow-power over many
and millenia is the issue, it might be useful to recall that there have been people,
lots of them, in East Asia over the two millennia since Confucius. And a quite large number of them, it turns
out, spilled much ink over Confucius.] The British philosopher Alfred North
Whitehead once said that the history of philosophy is a series of footnotes to
Plato. [Yeah, and he also said that it is
more important that an idea be interesting than that it be true. So maybe he was being “interesting” when he
said that bit about Plato and footnotes.] Even philosophers who do not
mention Plato directly still use his words – including ‘ideas’ – and his
general orientation that prioritises truth over piety. [Yeah,
we once said “justice” so call us Philosophers!
And we like truth. In fact, truth
is what motivated us to read a whole lot of stuff before trying tell other
people what’s up with Confucius.] Philosophy is the love of wisdom rather
than the love of blood or country. [E.g.,
Socrates didn’t give a damn about his Athenian identity. That’s why he strode off into exile to make
wise elsewhere… oh, wait…] It is in principle [if not in actual fact] open to everybody, and people all around the
world heed Plato’s call to live an examined life. [Plato would like to teach the world to sing. In perfect harmony… This global
kumbaya moment has drawn a tear of joy from us.
Just one more reason to say, “Thanks, Plato!”]
I
am wary of the argument, however, that all serious reflection upon fundamental
questions ought to be called philosophy. [Which
is why we started the Department of Deviance.
We dislike wariness and thought we could be more seriously serious and
fundamentally fundamental if we didn’t have to worry about provoking wariness
in others, especially the “fearlessly” wary.] Philosophy, at its best,
aims to be a dialogue between people of different viewpoints [But never too different and never with any different
ideas about philosophy. Wait. We just used ideas™ in a sentence.
Maybe that makes us Plato’s children after all?], but, again, it
is a love of wisdom, rather than the possession of wisdom. [Fun aside:
This is why Confucius is always depicted with large sleeves. He owned wisdom, and kept it tucked up
his generous sleeve, just like our grandma does with her tatty tissues.] This restless character has often made it the
enemy of religion and tradition. [Often? How often?
Thinking you’re a force of opposition when you’re reflexively echoing
ideas™ born out of a contingent tradition may make
you “restless” but we’re less convinced it makes you the enemy of all
that is holy. More like the occasionally
nippy lapdog of all that is holy?]
Likewise,
Confucius (551-479 BC) might be worth reading, [We sure do like to think so!] but it stretches terms too far to
call him a philosopher. [As we learn in
the Analects, Confucius was really into the rectification of names and hotly
opposed name-stretching.] In The Analects, ‘The Master said,
“When someone’s father is still alive, observe his intentions; after his father
has passed away, observe his conduct. If for three years he does not alter the
ways of his father, he may be called a filial son.”’ Confucius presents a
comprehensive doctrine of a good life that includes filial piety and respect
for elders. By contrast [with this one context-free
sentence], in the opening pages of the Republic, Socrates
ridicules the old man Cephalus for his poor understanding of the meaning of
justice. [Sorry, Socrates seems like an
amateur here. Unlike Confucius, who once hit an elderly guy with a stick while simultaneously
pointing out that some old people lack even the grace to die. If you’re going to get rough with the
elderly, best to go all in!] Plato’s
message is that philosophy has no patience for elderly people who like things
the way they are and don’t want to wrestle on the terrain of ideas. [Confucius adored the way things were. It was a love that dare not speak its name,
or indeed dare show up in really any form in anything he actually said.]
For the Confucian, Plato’s defence of critical
thinking might seem like a recipe for family strife and social disharmony. [Yeah, because when we’re thinking
critically, family can take a flying leap.
Seriously: Fuck them if they
can’t take a thought! The priorities
here are obvious to anyone who dwells on them.]
I
doubt that philosophy departments are the natural home for scholars of Islamic
jurisprudence or Confucian ethics. [Speaking
as scholars of Confucian ethics, we gotta say, we are sooooo with you on this!
Preach!] Should philosophers converse
with scholars of different religious and moral traditions? Of course. [Wait, why “of course”? How does
this seat with all that’s been said so far?
We’re just not seeing what’s in it for the philosophers and besides,
wouldn’t that reduce the time they have for naked head clutching critiques of
their families?]
To
understand why the limits of philosophy matter, we need to situate the debate
within ongoing debates about the funding of higher education. Last year, the
Republican senator Marco Rubio said: ‘We need more welders than philosophers,’
a blunt articulation of a widely shared view among taxpayers and policymakers
looking for reasons to eliminate, cut or defund philosophy departments. In that New York Times op-ed, philosophy
departments are accused [by philosophers
themselves] of being ‘temples to the achievement of males of European
descent’. The implication [according to
these actual philosophers working in philosophy departments] is that
academic philosophy is racist, sexist and worthy of an imminent demise. This
will be welcome news for policymakers who want to prohibit federal funds from
subsidising the study of philosophy, say, at community colleges or state
universities. [Because policy makers were all just waiting for the signal from philosophers
to conclude that philosophers are useless.
Still, as Plato wrote, “The unexamined curriculum is not worth teaching. Unless an unexamined curriculum can secure
future institutional funding and the good will of Marco Rubio. Also, poo on welding!” (Republic 643b)].
Let
philosophy departments evolve organically as scholars convince their peers that
a new author, idea or tradition is worth engaging. [And when those scholars inevitably fail at making the incurious
interested, they can self-deport and leave philosophy to those with actual
ideas™.]
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/276/747/bf9.gif
ReplyDeleteYou will have to forgive me, I am no scholar. I do not have enough background to quote passages on a whim, but I do feel as though the comparison between Socrates and Confucius meant to illustrate their difference is sound.
ReplyDeleteChallenging an elder on the definition of something as core to civilization as "justice" seems to me to be the essence of what philosophy should be. Without it how would ideas evolve? When compared to a line from Confucius which seems to encourage quite the opposite, that one always be "filial". Which apparently is to "not be disobedient".
It seems it woukd be difficult to conduct what I have come to understand as philosophy in my mind without a degree of disobedience, but I maybe philosophy is not what I think it is.