I’ve always had this problem of loving and hating philosophy. I love philosophy’s ability to help me break down some of my walls and to occasionally bring out some of my bullshit, I love it’s ability to grow me and make me feel alive; but I’ve never been sure what it is that I dislike about it, which is a problem when I’m needing to decide whether to do grad work or not.
But I finally get it, it became really clear recently.
To explain it let me begin with this. So, you know how the most annoying thing is when you’re going through something hard, complex, scary or new in your life and your parents give you their ‘awesome’ advice…cause you know….you were really fucking asking for advice lol. It is suffocating, terribly suffocating, because often you want someone to just vent to, and to hear you, to affirm you as this suffering person, not to claim they ‘get’ you by telling you the awesomely objectifying and condensending, ”I know what you’re going through and this is what will solve it.” Often venting IS fixing the problem, we need a vent not advice, and sometimes after venting then we’re open to adivce, but parents…well…in reality yes, they ARE older and wiser than you just because they’ve had more experiences than you, and yes, they probably HAVE had a similar experience and probably have good advice, but giving advice isn’t what helps us grow and face these events. Just because you see what someone is doing wrong, doesn’t mean what will help them is to tell them what they are doing wrong.
But you know that feeling when someone is really really listening to you, letting you be, letting you vent, letting you expand and unwind all the coiled up thoughts, tensions and emotions about whatever is going on, it’s that awesome, non-judgemental, active listening (rather than just hearing what we’re doing wrong) that helps people change and grow, or at least be open enough to then hear the advice of their peers.
So, what’s this have to do with my future decsions about academic philosophy you might be impatiently asking? Well, academic philosophy is very often, critiquing and ellucidating what other people are doing wrong. Sure you build on the ideas of those you learn from, but in the end, if you don’t show something to be wrong, or show something to be the correct way of seeing the subject, then, well, you’re not really doing academic philosophy. So, my problem is that what I love about philosophy isn’t what I get in academic philosophy on its own, it doesn’t allow that growth for myself or others, because trying to help someone see something they’re doing wrong by writing a paper about what they are doing wrong would be a failed venture for the reasons mentioned above. And you can’t exactly hold philosophy conferences where the speaker doesn’t speak but just stands there and listens! But don’t hear what I’m not saying here, I’m not hating on academic philosophy here, nor am I saying philosophy professors don’t have this other love of philosophy besides academia, I’m just bringing out what academica philosophy’s nature is; granted, I’m an undergrad, so I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Either way, this is why I cannot do academic philosophy, because what I love about philosophy is not what academic philosophy is. Writing papers about compassion is not the same as practising compassion. Writing papers about truth is not the same as seeking truth. Writing papers about wisdom is not the same as having wisdom. And this is why I cannot do academic philosophy.
But then again, I did just write to you all about the problem I have with academic philosophy; in the end didn’t I just write a article saying what is wrong with something. Well maybe I will do well in academic philosophy after all!
