Just When I Thought I’d Escaped (P.S. Don’t Forget to Save Your Work: A War Story) – Fiona
I am thoroughly convinced that my blogging karma has come back to bite me in my mule… Not only has my work been devoured twice despite saving it constantly (out of fear of the dreaded text muncher) but, it has now crashed on me and will not load regardless of what methods I use. So, after several days of attempting to get anything accomplished, here is a half-recalled segment that will hopefully explain my original thoughts sufficiently.
While discussing the philosophies around teaching/school and speaking/interacting as separate topics, I came to realize; the deep connection between the two areas, how they influence each other, and how they relate to the other topics we have discussed so far in Philosophy 12. On the other hand, I had flashbacks from Talons as well as an oddly comfortable confusion in regards to this entire document.
Going into Philosophy I knew it was going to roll out in a similar way to Talons and our socials projects. I knew there would be the standard self-made rubric with a smattering of ‘guidelines’ to keep us from going over the edge, but in a similar fashion; I had absolutely no idea what to do or expect. I have always had my own idea and image in my head of what Philosophy is/was and what it should look like when being communicated in a class. I find myself often relating my image of Philosophy to one of the forefathers of this field, good old René Descartes. As odd as it is for someone to be relating their daily lives with a philosopher without any real meaning to their readings, I have read of him a number of times before and find his views that philosophy,
“was a thinking system that embodied all knowledge, and expressed it in this way”
I’ll admit that I was first drawn to him because of our similar heritage (who doesn’t like a friend from the motherland) but, I dug deeper and realized his views were the vague breath of practical air I needed. A rationalist. Ah, the beauty of accepting that the liquid in that cup should not be valued based on the volume, but taken into account that it may, in fact, be quite unsavory.
During our discussions in class about the value of dissent, I found another item that linked me with my philosophical ‘bromeo’. I am a firm believer that if dissent is formatted, presented, and researched properly, it can add a wide variety of branches in the road for various types of philosophers to explore; however, if your dissent is invalid due to lack of information or just general incorrectness I believe it to be a waste of space in the grand scheme of the discussion, especially since it most likely wouldn’t contribute any significant points of discussion. René, of course, said this in a much more eloquent way (though I doubt it was accurately quoted by Wikipedia but, at this point, I can’t care anymore), stating that,
“the quality of this reasoning depends on knowledge, because a well-informed mind will be more capable of making good choices, and it also depends on mental condition”
This also came to play during our discussion on the definition of Philosophy, “To Love Wisdom”. As my auto-correct would like to agree, this is a very odd phrase that is difficult to comprehend considering the two abstract phrases involved. I decided to leave behind my companion on this journey and try making my own philosophical trail into the unknown along with my deskmates as we struggled to grasp at the hems of the greats’ robes. This is what we came up with after dissecting the two words “Love” and “Wisdom” and then smashing them into a sentence:
“To appreciate the knowledge and experiences of yourself and others.”
While this may seem like a very simple phrase that doesn’t even begin to address the massive scope of what we were assigned, we felt it was a decent way of sandwiching all of this…
Into some form of coherent sentence or phrase that would mean anything to ourselves or any outsiders not privy to out thought process. Unfortunately for me and my lack of motivation (*cough* senioritis is going to be the death of me *cough*), we didn’t stop there.
As we continued on and dove into the writings of Nigel Warburton in his piece Talk with me, I found that my opinions on that piece were mixed (hence my blurb about dissent earlier on). He addressed the viewpoints of philosophers such as Moore, Machiavelli, and Plato, while always making it clear that his opinion was that of dissent being the almighty foundation in which to build your own arguments and theories. While I did find the article to shed some light on how the other side lives, I didn’t feel it speak to me on a very personal level due to our differences in opinion. This made me question what my passions regarding this course may be, which logically (and with some guidance from the rubric) led me to the forming of some goals for this semester’s philosophical journey I am about to undertake.
– Remove self-censorship: share more individual/personal perspectives, even if they are outside the ‘norm’
– Allow myself to be more open to the opposition, and, as much as I love arguing, learn to accept the open ended questions as being eternally open ended
– Develop methods and experiment with ways of narrowing down a topic of research/exploration rather than blowing it out of proportion
This is just a basis for me to extrapolate from and continue to grow and form new goals and timelines for myself. I am hoping that this will be a fantastical journey and that this is just the beginning for all of our trippy texts.