It was thanks to my friend Grant, who does a great deal of work in public Philosophy, that I was introduced to the problem of how to make philosophy accessible to the public. After all, I feel philosophy has greatly enriched my life, and I want to share that enrichment with as many people as I can. My discussions with Grant have lead me to the conclusion the philosophy as it is done today needs a makeover. (How I wish I had a GIF of Rene Descartes in What not to Wear that I could insert here)
At the beginning of our lectures on Sartre's Existentialism is a humanism, our professor told us about how Sartre had spontaneously delivered this entire piece to a room, packed elbow to elbow with people from all kinds of different backgrounds- Catholics, Communists, Philosophers and the common person. the room had been so packed that several people had to be taken to the hospital for fainting from the heat, and Sartre had sent them into a hushed silence the moment he spoke. Sartre was a rock star, and philosophy was on top of it's game in that time- everyone wanted to know what he had to say, which was great, because he had an important message. Today, I am lucky if prospective undergrads even know what the word philosophy means. What has changed and what can we do about it?
In my undergraduate honors seminar, which focused on identity, the students were expected to lead the discussion instead of the professor. We had a lot of fun and it was more relaxed while still being intellectually engaging, but one thing that quickly came to the fore when student led the discussion was that our early philosophical texts- the ones from which we drew our illustrations and thought experiments- were anything but texts. Most of the time we used films like the Matrix, Blade Runner and Dark City (a personal favourite of mine) as the currency of concepts. This was a great annoyance to our professor, who, likely being on the brink of retirement, had grown up and learned about philosophy in a completely different media landscape.
Today, media has changed even more form the days when people mostly read books for entertainment, and philosophers, as a result, are beginning to look at argumentation differently. Leo Groake for example, has been talking about visual argumentation. What this makes me wonder however, is why academic philosophy has not taken advantage of the diverse media landscape. In his day, Sartre wrote tons of entertaining fiction and some marvelous plays that no doubt led the average French citizen to wonder what philosophy was all about, and today with web 2.0 we have even less of an excuse to abstain. Philosophers have experts on hand to help them navigate the world of text publishing, so why do we not have access to experts in art, film, game development, or theatre?
No doubt this is partly because of tradition and partly because of expenses, but I think one very legitimate reason philosophers work mainly in text is because this makes clear communication (and therefore clear response) easier. Still I wonder if there is a way we could both communicate in a way that is clear and easily addressable and still accessible and engaging to the public. One other concern that I imagine I would hear from theorists like Neil Postman (I love his Teaching as a Subversive Activity) is that as philosophical works become more entertaining students are more likely to sit back passively and expect to be entertained (which is interesting because I find him to be a very entertaining writer). That may (or may not) have held true in an age where such entertaining education came in passive forms such as television or film, but I think in the age of web 2.0 we see a very active response to new information. On the internet, people can't resist the temptation to leave a comment (though such comments are not always well thought-out or rigorous), but we also see people responding to media by creating their own videos, writing blogs, reupholstering furniture, dancing, protesting, or inventing new memes. I think the media climate we have right now is the perfect opportunity to bring philosophy back to the people.
Wednesday 14 August 2013
Thursday 8 August 2013
Rational Discourse and making the world a better place.
When I was applying to different programs for grad school, one of the topics I wrote on was philosophy of sexuality. I'm especially interested in discrimination against LGBT people, and I love the work of John Corvino. I think it's great how he takes a question that is very relevant to people's everyday lives, and present the philosophical arguments surrounding it in an accessible way (I mean accessible not only int the sense that the arguments are clear and understandable, but also in a convenient cool medium like a short entertaining Youtube clip--I really think this is a great way to get the public to understand what philosophy is about and why it is important, but I'll save that discussion for another day)
So I told one of my professors that I was considering working in this area and he said to me that these sort of arguments shouldn't even be a concern for philosophers because it's obvious that "you shouldn't discriminate against people for stupid reasons" (please note this conversation took place in a very casual context). Even though I think what people like John Corvino are doing is incredibly important philosophy, I sort of agree with my professor.
In fact, it seems like many fields of philosophy are exploring issues that seem obvious from a rational standpoint, and yet many people have failed to catch up on. It seems very confusing that the basics of such topics as sexism or racism (and for me, animal ethics) seem obvious while in the 'real world' there are many people who have yet to accept them. For example, it would be absurd in my mind for a philosopher today to support the position that violence against women is OK, and yet many people must believe that considering the rate of violence against women that happens every day.
So the average person does not stop and think philosophically about their actions before beating their wife or shouting at a woman on the street. How could they? What this leaves me wondering is, does philosophical discourse really make the world a better place? I feel like philosophy has made me a better person, but what if I am the anomaly? I often feel like people around me have come to their beliefs through some other means than rational discourse,such as following tradition, but does this mean they are incapable of changing that? Can philosophy be used as a tool for a better world or is there some other tool that would be better (like brute force, indoctrination, or social pressure?) I also wonder, if philosophy can;t be used to make the world a better place, is it still worth pursuing for it's own sake?
So I told one of my professors that I was considering working in this area and he said to me that these sort of arguments shouldn't even be a concern for philosophers because it's obvious that "you shouldn't discriminate against people for stupid reasons" (please note this conversation took place in a very casual context). Even though I think what people like John Corvino are doing is incredibly important philosophy, I sort of agree with my professor.
In fact, it seems like many fields of philosophy are exploring issues that seem obvious from a rational standpoint, and yet many people have failed to catch up on. It seems very confusing that the basics of such topics as sexism or racism (and for me, animal ethics) seem obvious while in the 'real world' there are many people who have yet to accept them. For example, it would be absurd in my mind for a philosopher today to support the position that violence against women is OK, and yet many people must believe that considering the rate of violence against women that happens every day.
So the average person does not stop and think philosophically about their actions before beating their wife or shouting at a woman on the street. How could they? What this leaves me wondering is, does philosophical discourse really make the world a better place? I feel like philosophy has made me a better person, but what if I am the anomaly? I often feel like people around me have come to their beliefs through some other means than rational discourse,such as following tradition, but does this mean they are incapable of changing that? Can philosophy be used as a tool for a better world or is there some other tool that would be better (like brute force, indoctrination, or social pressure?) I also wonder, if philosophy can;t be used to make the world a better place, is it still worth pursuing for it's own sake?
Tuesday 6 August 2013
Abnormal Bodies are a Thing People Have
Today I was at work and my boss started talking about how her daughter had a herniated navel. I had never heard of a herniated navel before, but I imagined it was some kind of a large painful and soft lump on the stomach. her young daughter was incredibly self-conscious about it.
"does it hurt?"
"no"
"Is it harmful to her health?"
"not really, we tried to have it fixed with surgery when she was two but the surgery failed."
"So it's just an aesthetic problem?"
"Yes, it just sticks out a bit."
As the conversation progressed I realized my boss was trying to say that her daughter had what we had called an 'outie' as children.
"I thought she was the only person in the world who had it" she said, half-jokingly.
"Oh no, it's just a thing some people have, like attached ear lobes." and for the rest of the day I was silently preoccupied with this interesting problem.
Why was it that some human variations, like being able to roll your tongue, having a bent-back or straight thumb or having brown hair or green eyes are seen as just 'things people have' while other differences are measured as aesthetically displeasing, morally significant or even medically unacceptable (despite not actually being unhealthy)? Why is it that some human variations are just 'variations' while others are better or worse or at the very least invitations for others to judge? This reminded me of all kind of human differences I had seen and the different responses and assumptions people had made to them.
Some people have no hands and little tiny thumb-stumps. It's just a thing people have.
Some people weigh 400 pounds. It's just a thing people have.
Some people have a large birthmark on their face. It's just a thing people have.
Some people need a hole in their stomach to eat. It's just a thing people have.
Some people have purple hair. It's just a thing people have.
Would it be possible to live in a world where people's bodily differences were acknowledged without being judged as abnormal or unacceptable? What if we began looking at stigmatized body differences as normal human variation? Is there anything stopping us from doing that? I think the world would be a better place if we could look at the differences in bodies around us as just 'things people have'.
"does it hurt?"
"no"
"Is it harmful to her health?"
"not really, we tried to have it fixed with surgery when she was two but the surgery failed."
"So it's just an aesthetic problem?"
"Yes, it just sticks out a bit."
As the conversation progressed I realized my boss was trying to say that her daughter had what we had called an 'outie' as children.
"I thought she was the only person in the world who had it" she said, half-jokingly.
"Oh no, it's just a thing some people have, like attached ear lobes." and for the rest of the day I was silently preoccupied with this interesting problem.
Why was it that some human variations, like being able to roll your tongue, having a bent-back or straight thumb or having brown hair or green eyes are seen as just 'things people have' while other differences are measured as aesthetically displeasing, morally significant or even medically unacceptable (despite not actually being unhealthy)? Why is it that some human variations are just 'variations' while others are better or worse or at the very least invitations for others to judge? This reminded me of all kind of human differences I had seen and the different responses and assumptions people had made to them.
Some people have no hands and little tiny thumb-stumps. It's just a thing people have.
Some people weigh 400 pounds. It's just a thing people have.
Some people have a large birthmark on their face. It's just a thing people have.
Some people need a hole in their stomach to eat. It's just a thing people have.
Some people have purple hair. It's just a thing people have.
Would it be possible to live in a world where people's bodily differences were acknowledged without being judged as abnormal or unacceptable? What if we began looking at stigmatized body differences as normal human variation? Is there anything stopping us from doing that? I think the world would be a better place if we could look at the differences in bodies around us as just 'things people have'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)