September 25, 1999
Greetings Norman,
Earlier this evening I attended a philosophy lecture given by a
professor of mine. The seminar was geared for professors and
graduate students. The goal of the speaker was to dismantle
anti-metaphysicians and to shield metaphysics as a worthy
endeavor. As a wee undergrad, I found much of the lecture
esoteric and had difficulty following it. When my prof ran out of
time and the questions began, I was rather shocked.
A young man in his late twenties was the first questioner. He seemed
really irked and was voicing his criticism in a demeaning manner. I
figured he was atypical, and yet the next questioner was hardly
any kinder. Every question asked was more of an insult than a
question. What surprised me most was the comment of an older,
very well-spoken and rude individual who began thus: "Well, I
disagree with so many things that you've said I couldn't possibly
address all of my concerns... But..." (Afterthought: Looking at the
statement written, it doesn't seem as offensive as it did
when uttered.) He spoke vehemently, extendedly, with huffs and puffs. When
the lecture was adjourned, he did not applaud.
The rude questions continued at the reception, but at this point
the questions were being addressed to me! A graduate student,
'A', was asking my opinion and that of another graduate student,
'B'. After 'B' and I agreed that the question-period was rather
cutthroat, 'A' again asked our opinions of the lecture, which I
think 'B' also had some difficulty understanding. After neither
of us commented, 'A' continued to ask us if we even understood
the lecture. His comments were such as "How can you have no
questions whatsoever? Did you understand any of it?" He asked if
we understood the question he had posed during the lecture as he
was unsatisfied with the 'answer' given to him and wanted to
press the prof further. 'B' left the scene and I was left
conversing with 'A' who now presented his thesis to me, expecting
me to immediately grasp fine details and follow the thought he
has spent months preparing. I escaped his pretentiousness and
found some other students who also had difficulties comprehending
the lecture and who were also surprised at the attack against our
prof. One of these students directed me to your article.
A milder form of insincere criticism is experienced during class
– some students pass the time by trying to debunk each other's
ideas and those of the prof. This is far from bloody, but one can
easily trace the acquisition of attack-technique to practice in
these kinder arenas. I am enrolled in three classes this term to
complete my honors BA, all of which are crossed undergraduate and
graduate courses. I find two of these lectures difficult to
follow; it seems that in such split courses a few of the PhD
students take over and things remain at their level for large
portions of the classes. This leaves me wondering if I have had a
brain lapse or am deficient in some mineral that might be
affecting my comprehension. Though now I can realize that it is
the extra training that differentiates my knowledge from that of
the students who already have their MAs, while they are throwing
about names and talking their talk, I can't help but be
frustrated and feel as though I'm less intelligent rather than
less educated. I also sense that many profs have much more
respect for graduate students and assume them to be more
intelligent than the underdogs; one professor repeatedly mentions
'undergraduate-ish ideas'. Though I can relate by comparing
high-school educated to university educated people, such talk is
much less than encouraging. All this is just to say that the
situation is intimidating enough without witnessing relentless
attacks. Not only must the young maybe-will-be professors endure
the almost inevitable self-doubts that arise when reading
difficult texts (e.g. Aristotle's Metaphysics) and conversing
with very intelligent and learned people, they must also deal
with the disapproval of their non-philosopher peers, parents, and
society-at-large. It is enough to write and defend a thesis, one
should not have to fear detailistic nitpicking and inauthentic
prodding by rhetorical experts who delight in tearing the flesh
off any foreign theory in their path.
After attending the lecture this evening, I drove home wondering
whether or not I want to continue on in philosophy. It seems to
me that so much of contemporary 'philosophy' is but grave
stirring of past philosophers. I do not want to argue about what
so-and-so meant. I'm not overly excited to read through
Aristotle, Kant, Hume, and the motley gang (in part because the
sexist language does not seem very enlightening to me. These
texts need to be translated into the nonsexist language of true
philosophy). While much can be learned from reading the
philosophical ancestors (and they should be read), I'd rather
expound what I find pertinent, in the Nicomachean Ethics for
instance, than I would like to try to discover if Nicomacheus was
Aristotle's son or student or both (this is not the best example
of what I'm trying to say). I think the book is full of gold but
that this is forgotten or unrealized when the specifics are the
focus.
It is better to try to make sense of something than it is to make
nonsense of it. If philosophers are taught to make nonsense of
everything, what sense will they ever have? This goes with all
philosophy – we should be lovers of wisdom and not nitpickers.
Our goal should be to improve our life and life in general, not
to inflate our egos at the expense of our peers. As Zhuangzi
writes, "When the lips are gone, the teeth are cold." It is
comfortable for academics to stay under the cover of past
philosophers. So long as they piddle away with details, they do
not have to question their own behavior and society. I believe
that genuine lovers of wisdom are good people, and thus they need
not attack each other.
I hope this letter interests you in some way, I've enjoyed typing
it.
Sheri Lucas
email: slucas@simcom.on.ca
|