What I say, not what I do
So, my latest existential crisis goes something like this: I have a lot of idealistic beliefs--most college students do. 'Adults' don't tend to have these beliefs. They say that our ideas would never work in reality. Thats what makes them idealistic. I've come to the conclusion that the reason this happens is that people talk a lot more than they act. For example: I was first drawn to philosophy because of ethics. I want to know the most valuable life to live. But now I realize--I would be doing a lot more good (or what I defined as good) in the world if I donated my life to charity. Being a philosophy professor is being about as selfish as I could possibly be. After all, its my dream, and as much as I think philosophy is intrinsically valuable, the vast majority of the public doesn't benefit from me becoming a professor. I had this problem once before; I kind of cheated my way out of the situation by telling myself that teaching philosophy is valuable. And I still believe that--but is it really more valuable than saving lives in Africa or something? I don't even donate money to charity. Its pathetic.
The fact is, I don't follow through on things I truly believe in. I tend to be a utilitarian in general normative situations. But I choose to eat what I want and buy what I want instead of living off of the bare minimum and giving the rest away. Sure, this is an extreme belief, but I honestly believe that is the right thing to do. I am not much of a consumer, but I still have more than my fair share (of resources compared with all other human beings in the world), and that is unjust in my mind. How can I justify preaching against consumerism and selfishness when I engage in it myself? How can I justify engaging in unethical actions?
I can't.
These are only a few examples. My life is constantly in this turmoil. I have a lot of beliefs that go against society, but this doesn't make it ok for me to ignore them, does it?
And how far do I go? Do I drop out of school and donate my life to charity? Do I quit my job to protest corporations use of people as means and not ends (yes, that is one part of Kant's categorical imperative I strongly agree with)? Do I refuse to buy anything but bare necessities? Sell my car?
Or do I just do what everyone else slowly allows themselves to do as they "grow up", and give up what I believe as 'idealistic'? I may know that widespread giving up on these beliefs is all that makes them 'idealistic', but how else can I justify not doing all of the things mentioned above?
posted by Preston @ 9:23:00 PM
6 Comments:
hey preston, I'm mister material to a fault, and i know that i should spend some of that money on someone else who may need it. I read somewhere that even the poorest American families have things that in the third world would be considered a material purchase. And that's really pretty sad when you see the excess, especially when we stroll to the food court when we go to work.
You're a good person Preston, I don't think you're materialistic by any means, you're just catholic, therefore you must be guilty about everything...always
*laughs at the "you're just catholic"*
Okay Tiger- I've been through the same thing. This could be a long-winded comment, so bear with me. I don't know how much you know about my "journey" to philosophy, but I'm thinking it may be helpful to share that:
I worked at a Crisis Center and Women's Shelter with victims of domestic violence and sexual assault for 2 years before I decided I needed to go back to college. At first, I just wanted the education so I could achieve a higher position in the field and make more money- but knowing I'd need an MSW eventually, I went for a bachelor's in Sociology (thinking it would be more interesting and less review). When I took an Intro to Philosophy class my second semester, my professor sat me down (after having read the blog I had at the time) and told me that I was wasting my time in Sociology, because I was really and truly a philosopher and wouldn't be able to avoid it. He pointed out that all of the great Sociologists I was studying were essentially philosophers (some actually were, some just did work of a philosophical nature). In a long discussion with him one day, I came to solidify that which I'd been thinking all along: The only way to really "change" the world is to change thinking. We can dirty our hands, break our backs, devote our meager mortal lives and strength to physically helping those less fortunate, or we can do something that will last. John Stuart Mill changed the world when he wrote "On Liberty". I don't think he knew he would change the world and the thinking of the masses when he wrote it. I'm sure he never saw the results of his labor in his lifetime. But how much of his ideas have been integrated into the very being of our society since then? And what about Plato? Think about how much he framed the thinking of the rest of the world for centuries to come. What about contemporary thought? How challenging has the thought of Peter Singer been to the ethics of our society today? Maybe we just defend ourselves against them, but there is still THINKING going on- thinking about practices that we have just accepted as "normal" and taken for granted without even beginning to consider the implications.
We are at a very exciting point in philosophy today. There is a struggle between theologically based morality and secular morality. While theological morality may seem to be winning, we gain more secular individuals every day. We need a secular morality. We need ethicists. There is a rise in people seeking out careers in the bio-medical fields. They need bio-ethics. There is a rise in people seeking out careers in business. They need business ethics. Yeah, you can argue that philosophy as a whole might be a complete waste (although I cannot assent to this proposition), but Ethics is becoming more and more necessary. Maybe you won't write a treatise that will change the world forever- but surely you can see the benefit of teaching 100 students per semester a little something about ethics (especially bio-ethics) and then sending them out in the world to make better choices.
If you want to be a utilitarian, consider the "good" produced:
- Working in a field strengthening a community of 30 people OR
- Teaching 100 students per semester to go out and do other work that helps the same community (and the way that those students will pass on that information/learning)
If you were thinking about devoting your life to studying Sartre, I'd agree it is a waste. But you love ethics. It is tangible, it is useful, and it is absolutely positively necessary.
This is going to be another long comment:
One of the higher ups in the Dalai Lama's government sometime between-'99-'03 contributed a forward to the quarterly Buddhist magazine Tricycle. If I had access to all the crap I had stored at my parents house, I could give you his name, rank in the government and an exact quote, but I don't. So, instead I'm going to give you a bad paraphrase. In this forward he talked about war and destruction and he said that people often told him that they didn't believe in peace was possible because it was so obvious war would happen anyway. He said that his standard response to this was that nothing could be more dangerous that just submitting to that inevitability when peace is something so many people want and the world so clearly needs.
My point in telling you this?
Because of your philosophical education and your ideological beliefs you are in a position to see what people "normally" do, to comment on it, to suggest changes and to attempt to apply those changes to your own life. I do not think it is a selfish dream to want to continue on in your education in order to get to a position where you yourself can educate others. And, regardless of whether or not you like or agree with it, you were raised in a materialistic culture and still depend on that culture to a certain extent for your livelihood and various other needs (such as your social needs.) Beating yourself up over having materialistic tendencies is a little like a fish beating itself up for being wet. All you can do when you slip and are more materialistic than you would like to be is acknowledge this and move on while trying to do a better job next time.
Regardless of the fact if you are selfish in the one reason of your decision to be a philosophy prof., you forget that you can also satisfy your unselfish desires while you satiate that of the selfish. Who is to say you cannot do both at once and work with charity while teaching? And you forget that the act of being a professor spreads the beauty of learning to those who need it. Working to teach others is not selfish, only the fact that you want to be a teacher is selfish. In this matter, I would consider the good to out weigh the bad. Do you truly think there is only black or white? Of course you don't.
Luck, fella.
-Jilla (Hyperballad@gmail.com)
Hey do you really think that being a philosphy porfessor can help noone? The women who have most empowered me & shown me that oppression/violence can be resisted in ways that can work have all been philosophy professors, so i think that by teaching philosophy in the right community i can do alot of work. Professors can either help or hurt & they choose that, i mean what if you had a student who had never known anyone who went to college, who had nothing their entire life & then you could show them ways to resist that & show them that they are just as worthy as other people? That is about as helpful as one can be, to give someone a way to find sel frespect & a way to reject the oppression & violence in this country, u don't give yourself/ideas enough credit!
Post a Comment
<< Home