My philosophical thought has undergone significant and at times radical developments during my four years at SLU. . My philosophy has evolved in to one that certainly regards all three sub-areas of philosophy as necessarily interconnected. As I read through one of my main papers for Theories of Knowledge and Reality, which I took during the fall semester of my sophomore year I am fascinated by both the common threads and discontinuities in my philosophical development. The title of this paper is I Am, which when I first saw as I was looking through all my old coursework I scowled at and thought wow did I have it wrong or what then. As I discuss in my posts on epistemology and most especially metaphysics, my understanding of reality has greatly shifted away from essences and towards a relational ontology. Reading this paper after writing it over 2 years ago has taught me, once again, that I should not judge a book by its cover. One paragraph was particularly striking and most profoundly and surpisingly in line with some of the relation ontology that I philosophize about and through today:
All ideas are interpreted in relation to other ideas. By changing or abolishing the meaning of a certain term, for instance black, one would have to proportionally amend the definition for white. Simply imagine how one would consider good, lacking the existence of a bad or evil. Could we then just live in some kind of a utopia? I beg to differ in that our entire system of reasoning is dependent on associations and contradictions with other terms, and by removing or adjusting but a single term, one would subsequently alter the entire framework of reasoning for all the terms’ meanings are interdependent on one another. Just the concept of nothingness seems inexpressible in our present reality as there is always something to occupy one’s senses (I had yet to encounter Buddhism at this point). Therefore, there are dreams, but their existence is dependent not only on a real world, but also on a subject who in fact does the dreaming. Lacking reality would be like lacking white and then trying to define black, for clearly their meanings are interdependent.
This notion of interdependence and the relational foundation of both metaphysics and epistemology definitely corresponds with the main vein of my current philosophizing. Moreover, I was particularly excited to read by removing or adjusting but a single term, one would subsequently alter the entire framework of reasoning for all the terms’ meanings are interdependent on one another in that it is this slight and subtle but powerful adjustment that I have read about and consent to in many respects in the work of Georgio Agamben in his book, The Coming Community.
On the other hand, throughout this paper I seek to defend the self in a way that I would never attempt today in that I see the self as Descartes did as a rational essence which checks and is supreme to our bodily sensations. My last sentence concludes Highlight the characteristics that separate you from the crowd and find your essence, make yourself what you were meant to be, what you yearn to be, what you may die to be. While I continue to believe that our individual self-reflection and particular critical analysis of reality is valuable to epistemology, I no longer consent to the notion of metaphysical essences. I continue to struggle through this process of finding myself, and while much of this exploration involves working through these problems on my own, through Eastern and feminist philosophies I have also learned to turn back to the social, and make the double negation as Watsuji so advocated, when trying to find myself. Two years ago I definitely saw philosophy as a vehicle to escape problems of the everyday world. In comparison to the big questions of philosophy, everything else just seemed so trivial. I think I have now discovered that in order to ever find myself I must do it both as an individual and as a member of society which requires going through rather than around the social arena.
My philosophy is no longer about transcending reality through philosophy, because even if I still wanted to I severely doubt I could. My notions of authenticity have greatly evolved from an existentialist one (I’m particularly thinking here of Heidegger and Sartre, such Sartre's notion of others as hell) of being distinct from others towards an authenticity that while unique can only exist and derives more satisfication from accepting this existence within a broader social nexus. Ethically, Watsuji and Badiou have revolutionized my understanding that to be ethical is not to avoid evil or even to push it to another place, but to confront it head on, to go through it, to learn from it, and never to really defeat it in any ultimate sense but rather to illuminate the good through one’s actions. According to Watsuji, “He who cannot experience badness, cannot achieve goodness” (Watsuji-Ethics).
It was also fascinating to read over one of the first philosophical papers I’ve ever written. The one I looked at was from my introduction to philosophy class about Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy and titled Without Evil There is No Good. As I read through this paper I chuckle to myself as I remember how brilliant I thought this idea that good and evil are relationally dependent was at the time. It’s really quite commonsensical but I suppose that’s one continuity throughout my philosophy, in that, I try to examine and articulate the most simple elements in our world in order to show them in a new light. One objection that I now have to this paper is that while hinting at an ethical relational ontology it first of all isn’t very practical as it provides nothing to try and actually address the problem of evil in its lived context. Secondly, I essentialized evil and goodness as if they were truly polar opposites, while implicitly they existed interdepently in my argument there seems to be the claim that they originated in two distinct places with two distinct essences.
After reading through some more of my early writings, which I denote as prior to my semester abroad in
My philosophical certainties have dissolved and solidified over and over again in the course of the last four years. However, I honestly believe I have now found a more or less solid philosophical foundation upon which I hope to construct and live a truly fruitful life. Metaphysically, I believe in the interdependence Watsuji talked so much about in Japanese society. My conviction in this interdependence is the result of my experiences within relationships just as much as my exclusion from them. I live in a certain void. I don’t feel at all really a part of the St. Lawrence community, and while I have many friends from many walks of life, I am skeptical that all my relationships are truly reciprocal and open. Nevertheless, I see the potentiality of such transparently interdependent relationships in every aspect of my life. Moreover, even when the relationship fails to be reciprocal, a slave is not a slave without a master just as a master is not a master without a slave. This interdependence is always already operating, however, a realization of this operation changes the operation and spurs the development of a certain balance where all parties can live in authentic appreciation of all and with all of their relations.
Epistemologically I believe there persists a dire need to breakthrough and transcend the dichotomy between absolutism and relativism. This necessitates, first and foremost, transcending the objective-subjective dichotomy. The myth of objectivity strives for power through a façade of truth. In a sense, I believe in the inversion of this myth, that is, affording the opportunity for a myriad of subjectivities to sit down at a table, whereby their very participation wields a considerable degree of power. Yet in this ideal situation the intentionality of the epistemic process is truth rather than power. To allow for this process to actually materialize in real life, however, I stress the necessity of many of these long silenced marginalized voices to be allowed seats at the table. How this will actually come about I am not sure and because this is a philosophical blog and not a sociological one about social movements I will not get into my ideas of transforming this epistemic process. The one point I must stress, yet again, is that, to borrow a line from the women’s liberation movement, The personal is political, and this applies to CEOs as well as single mothers on welfare. What I mean is that our subjective experiences and the values that they necessarily entail cannot be separated from the epistemic and political process and the epistemic and political processes cannot be separated either. As Francis Bacon said long ago, Knowledge is Power. Now what one actually does with that power is the key question that all knowledge producers should be ethically compelled to ask themselves.
Ethically, I believe in the realization and actualization of the metaphysical interdependence so stressed in the writings of Watsuji Tetsuro, in addition to other Eastern thinkers. I believe, more than any other field in philosophy, the most progress I have made in both theory and practice during my four years at SLU has been in the realm of ethics. Despite the fact that as mentioned earlier in this post I am skeptical of the reciprocity in all of my lived relationships, I am most aware of my ethical insufficiencies. I struggle with even, what most would consider the most trivial of ethical decisions on a daily basis. Often, I am paralyzed by my hyper-conscious analysis of such situations and fail to act according to my authentic convictions.
I struggle with my own moral development every day yet I wouldn’t have it any other way. “My people” have not been oppressed, but rather my provenance is one of slave holders, bigots, racists, sexists, and self-righteous and hypocritical liberals. I am not above good and evil. I am within good and evil, and I shall never leave it. I sincerely doubt I will ever achieve a Buddhist enlightenment, but even if I did, I would be a Boddhisatva and never leave the pain and suffering of this world until I could share my enlightenment with all living beings, even those beyond the formal realm of humanity.
It is comical to reflect upon my once proud ambitions to be an “ethicist”. In hindsight, to think that I could be the judge and decider of others’ ethical dilemmas seems absolutely absurd(then again perhaps I still do not really know what, in fact, an ethicist does). Just as I mentioned in the paragraph (and post) addressing my views on epistemology, I don’t believe there is any objective view from nowhere that is capable of judging appropriately on any ethical matters. Sure, there are people who can give their input and suggestions in such matters, but the choice rests on the individual in all such choices. As Sartre once said, “Man is condemned to be free”, and as Nietzsche once said, “God is dead”. These statements express a certain ambiguity as both blessings and curses. The key is to accept the “thrownness” (Heidegger, Sein und Zeit) of one’s situation and accept individual responsibility for one’s ethics. We must begin by looking in ourselves, and through ourselves, examine the relations with our society that have so constructed this self. We are not individuals in a vacuum. We were and continue to be made, to be socially constructed to believe certain things and live in a certain way, yet the construction of ourselves requires our own personal consent. It is in our power, at all times, to reject or accept what our community deems ethical. The key is to realize that whatever the consequences may be of this choice, it is fundamentally a choice. It is our choice.
In our chains lies our freedom. In social construction lies social deconstruction and reconstruction. We are made and we can be unmade. This process begins with the individual but does not end until the multiplicity of our relations are transformed to be equally cognizant of the power of volition which they all necessarily wield.
In all, I believe my philosophy can be refined down to: humility, interdependence and faith in one’s power to choose. I call this last aspect “faith” because it is precisely that and can only be that, that is, until it is actualized. We can never know until we live it, but we can live it at any time, wherein lies our salvation.
No comments:
Post a Comment