Why study philosophy?
I don't know if any of you care about this question, but hey, since when has this blog been about the questions you care about? That's what I thought. Thus, my apologia:
Claim: Our most tenacious dogmas are not those we assert, but those we assume. Lots of people are pretty quick to question assertions, and even check them from time to time. But rarely do we give a second (or first) look to the things the people around us (and by consequence, we ourselves) take for granted--for better or for disastrous. Philosophy (on one characterization) is the study of what everyone takes for granted.
Claim: The apparatus of philosophizing must be kept in good repair--knowing an assertion from an argument, or a premise from a conclusion. Everyone uses these tools, but they are easy to misuse (c.f. the opinions page of your favorite newspaper). The philosopher's job (on another characterization) is to clean, hone, apply and train others in the application of tools for being reasonable.
Claim: People (like me) ask--or are asked--or are plagued with--deep questions about knowledge, reality, God, themselves, and so forth. Ignored, these questions fester. Treated superficially, they cripple. Addressed frankly and diligently, they heal and strengthen.
Claim: Honest grappling with philosophical questions is essential training in humility. C.f. David Hume: "...the observation of human blindness and weakness is the result of all philosophy...."
Claim: To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, if you do not have good philosophy, you will have bad philosophy; there is no such thing as no philosophy. Therefore, injunctions like St. Paul's, "See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition" (Col. 2.8)--far from warning against studying philosophy--are (at least for some of us) a command to do so--and to do so well, and with much trembling.
Claim: I like philosophy. And I think I'm reasonably good at it. Ergo (and in light of the foregoing), why not give it a stab?
Claim: Our most tenacious dogmas are not those we assert, but those we assume. Lots of people are pretty quick to question assertions, and even check them from time to time. But rarely do we give a second (or first) look to the things the people around us (and by consequence, we ourselves) take for granted--for better or for disastrous. Philosophy (on one characterization) is the study of what everyone takes for granted.
Claim: The apparatus of philosophizing must be kept in good repair--knowing an assertion from an argument, or a premise from a conclusion. Everyone uses these tools, but they are easy to misuse (c.f. the opinions page of your favorite newspaper). The philosopher's job (on another characterization) is to clean, hone, apply and train others in the application of tools for being reasonable.
Claim: People (like me) ask--or are asked--or are plagued with--deep questions about knowledge, reality, God, themselves, and so forth. Ignored, these questions fester. Treated superficially, they cripple. Addressed frankly and diligently, they heal and strengthen.
Claim: Honest grappling with philosophical questions is essential training in humility. C.f. David Hume: "...the observation of human blindness and weakness is the result of all philosophy...."
Claim: To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, if you do not have good philosophy, you will have bad philosophy; there is no such thing as no philosophy. Therefore, injunctions like St. Paul's, "See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition" (Col. 2.8)--far from warning against studying philosophy--are (at least for some of us) a command to do so--and to do so well, and with much trembling.
Claim: I like philosophy. And I think I'm reasonably good at it. Ergo (and in light of the foregoing), why not give it a stab?
Posted by Jeff on Wednesday, February 01, 2006
2 Comments:
awesome.
Sold me
Now, why didn't you use this for your grad applications? =)
Post a Comment
<< Home