An Introduction to Phenomenology

I have been meaning for some time to present a brief introduction to the phenomenological method developed by Husserl and his followers. Over the next few weeks, I will be posting excerpts from my presentation as I continue to work on it.

End of the Semester

Here we are at the end of the Fall semester and I realize that I have not posted anything new since before the election. As this semester comes to a close, I find myself reflecting back over what I have taught, what my students (hopefully) have learned, and what I should take away from my experiences. Overall, while I enjoy teaching foundations of logical reasoning, most of the enjoyment I get from teaching came from my seminar on the existence of God. Teaching the seminar for the first time allowed me to see what works for teaching freshmen philosophy, and what does not. I am very happy to say that most of the students did extremely well, both in their papers and in the disussions we had in class. The days when I saw the "lightbulb" go off when a student grasped a difficult concept, or when a student would take an example or image I used and tweak it to make it work even better, were some of the happiest times of my young teaching career. I wish to thank all my students, especially those in the seminar, who showed their interest in the topics we discussed and who give me hope that they will go on to do great things.

Abortion, Elections, and Logic

Many people, especially Catholics and other traditional Christians, often struggle with questions about voting, the common good, and social issues such as abortion during election season. In this piece, I want to highlight a common claim about abortion in such a way as to show what the claim entails, and what it does not.

Claim (p): It is immoral to vote for a candidate who favors abortion.

            Now, take this example to better understand what the claim entails. Candidate A favors allowing abortions, but is against the death penalty, torture, unjust wars, and assisted suicide. The candidate supports programs for the poor and disabled, and actively promotes the preservation of the environment. Candidate B is against abortion, but favors the death penalty, allowing torture, and war under any circumstances. This candidate does not believe that the poor or disabled ever need any government assistance, and is ambivalent about environmental concerns at best.

            If (p) is true, then it is an immoral act to vote for candidate A. 

           However, even if this were the case, the truth of (p) would NOT entail that voting for candidate B is a MORAL act. (P) can only be used when talking about candidate A, since A fits the criteria laid out in (p). Candidate B’s opposition to abortion does not directly pertain to (p), since (p) only deals with those candidates who favor abortion.

There are still a number of other questions that should be brought up, so the later posts will focus on some of the following issues: what if there is no candidate who opposes abortion in all cases? What if there is no candidate who opposes abortion at all? What if a candidate opposes abortion yet supports many other morally reprehensible policies? I will discuss these questions and more in the following posts. 

Book Review

My latest book review has been published over at the Marx and Philosophy Review of Books site. Check it out here.

Teaching and Philosophy

Reading Salomon Malka's biography of Emmanuel Levinas, I came across an exchange between Malka and the late Paul Ricoeur in which they discussed the question of why Levinas, Ricoeur, and Jacques Derrida are three of the most well-known French thinkers of the late 20th century. Ricoeur says that despite their, at times, very different views and methods, "what unites [them] is the fact that they were all teachers first." Ricoeur goes on to say that "Levinas liked to teach. Derrida adores teaching. And me too." Another reason why I think they are so well-known is that they were all great philosophers, but this too can be attributed to their love for teaching.

I argue that to be a true philosopher, you should also love learning and teaching, since you would not effectively convey, or even wish to convey your ideas to others. Teaching allows philosophers to engage others in discussion of great ideas and provides philosophers with an audience that can respond to their arguments and criticisms; by teaching philosophy as a lived experience, philosophers avoid the danger of becoming stagnant or closed off from other points of view. A philosopher may have a great idea, but if he or she cannot convey it to others, what impact will the philosopher have?

Some Advice from Kierkegaard

While preparing some material for the upcoming semester, I came upon this following bit of advice from Kierkegaard on the importance of being honest in one's words and emotions.

But you should not...hold back your words anymore than you should hide visible emotion if it is genuine, because this can be the unloving committing of a wrong, just like withholding from someone what you owe him. Your friend, your beloved, your child, or whoever is the object of your love has a claim upon an expression of it also in words if it actually moves you inwardly. The emotion is not your possession but belongs to the other; the expression is your debt to him, since in the emotion you indeed belong to him who moves you and you become aware that you belong to him. -"Works of Love"

How often it is that we find ourselves holding back from saying what we believe, or showing how we feel in particular situations so as not to disturb or disrupt others. If we are to be fully honest with ourselves and so realize that we are always in relation to others, we must not hesitate to act and speak up when we believe in something important; otherwise, we are being dishonest to ourselves and those around us.

Ideology and the -isms

Numerous philosophers have argued over the impact that ideology has had on the academy, power structures, politics, society, and philosophy itself. Typically any word ending in -ism (conservatism, Marxism, nationalism, modernism, patriotism, environmentalism, etc.) has been seen to highlight a particular ideology. It is not clear, however, that any of these -isms are automatically an ideology. While I would argue that many different ideologies are present, especially in American culture, it is not the case that every person who advocates for a position using an -ism term is arguing for an ideology. Ideology merely shows that its proponents are not sufficiently prepared to fully argue for their position; they merely spout slogans and sound bites to "justify" the ideology. 

It is clear, then, that many people are firmly embedded in ideology, only seeing the world through the lenses of the particular ideology. Hence, the confusion of nationalism for patriotism. Patriotism is an appreciation and love of the local and of a sense of place, whereas nationalism is the mistaken view that your particular nation is in the right, no matter what. There are also -ism words that can be used as an ideology, here I am thinking of the term "conservatism." Someone who today in America espouses ideas associated with "conservatism" would not likely find much in common with those who called themselves or their political views as being "conservative," especially since such "conservative" thinkers as Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk explained that their very views were specifically anti-ideology. 

How have we reached this point in regards to ideology? Answers will be explored later.

Schelling and Arguments for the Existence of God

The following passage from Schelling is one that deserves much thought and reflection. I am planning on writing a full post on it soon. He is on to something here that is very important and needs to be taken seriously by anyone who wants to argue for the existence of God. It is an insight that is phenomenological and deserves more explication and study.

"That there is an Absolute Ego can never be proved objectively; that is, it cannot be proved with regard to that ego which can exist merely as an object, because we are supposed to prove precisely that the Absolute Ego can never become an object. The ego, if it be unconditional, must be wholly outside the sphere of objective proof. To prove objectively that the ego is unconditional would mean to prove that it was conditional. Yet in the case of the unconditional, the principle of its being and the principle of its being thought must coincide. It is, only because it is; it is thought only because it is thought. The Absolute can be given only by the Absolute; indeed, if it is to be absolute, it must precede all thinking and imagining. Therefore, it must be realized through itself, not through any objective proofs, which always go beyond the mere concept of the entity to be proved." - F.J. Schelling, Of the Ego as the Principle of Philosophy, §3 1796

The Philosophy of Game of Thrones

As shown in an earlier post, George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series, on which the HBO show, Game of Thrones, is based is full of fascinating philosophical and political ideas and themes. Because of this, I highly recommend the recently published, Game of Thrones and Philosophy. It has many exciting and thought provoking essays on numerous philosophical ideas from the TV series and books.

On Truth (to be continued)

Yes, I did promise a follow up post to my piece on truth that highlighted the issues of absolutism and relativism. The piece is on its way; it just needs a bit more polishing, especially since I am writing it as a solution to the problems posed in the first piece.

Fun with the Trolley Problem

Here is a fun challenge to find out how you would handle the infamous "Trolley Problem." Should I kill the fat man? If you are not familiar with Philippa Foot's idea of the Trolley Problem, there is a good over view here.

Gadamer's Humble Stance

Hans Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) was one of the giants of 20th century philosophy. Considered the father of contemporary hermeneutics, the study of texts, Gadamer lived a long life; one where he was old enough to react to both the Titanic disaster as well as 9/11. I recently read this great reflection on Gadamer's life and work, Ten Years Without Gadamer, which included a number of wonderful memories from the author. Included in the article is the following quote from Gadamer.

"The soul of hermeneutics consists in the possibility that the other might be right."

This truly humble, philosophical stance is one that we all should aspire to reach, especially since so much of contemporary academic philosophy is characterized by an arrogance that is unwilling to take the views of the other into consideration.

Philosopher Collage

The new philosopher collage on the right side of the page is one I made to highlight some of the philosophers who have been influential in my own study of philosophy, and who continually provide me with new ways of approaching philosophical issues.

(From top to bottom, l to r, Aristotle, Aquinas, Alasdair MacIntyre, Kierkegaard, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Nicholas Rescher, Jean-Luc Marion, Edith Stein, Max Scheler, Elizabeth Anscombe, and Karol Wojtyla)

Now, I must say that I have also been influenced by John Duns Scotus, Hannah Arendt, Edmund Husserl, William James, Paul Ricoeur, Gabriel Marcel, and Jean Paul Sartre. I merely ran out of room when making the collage.

Facebook Page

This blog can now be accessed from its very own page on Facebook.

More on MacIntyre Comment

MacIntyre's comment shared in a previous post really gets to the heart of what I am trying to do with this blog, as well as another project I have been working on for some time. The purpose of this blog is to show how philosophy is not merely an academic discipline found in the classroom, but is rather a pursuit undertaken as a way of life, as something to studied as well as lived. Whether you are writing an academic paper, tilling a field, flipping burgers, painting a house, playing a game, or just having a discussion over a meal, you are engaged in a philosophical activity. Wherever you have questions about great ideas, are taking part in good conversation, or wonder about any basic concept, you are philosophizing.

The larger project I mentioned is one where I am taking a look at how philosophy has flourished in agricultural communities throughout history. I hope to provide some excerpts from the project sometime soon on the blog.

MacIntyre Outside the Classroom

 "We ought to require on the CVs of those who aspire to teaching or research appointments in moral philosophy accounts of their relevant experiences, on farms and construction sites, in laboratories and studios, in soccer teams and string quartets, in political struggles and military engagements. And we don't." Alasdair MacIntyre

Philosophy Cafe

Ever since Socrates, philosophical issues have been discussed, debated, and defended in the public square. Unfortunately, for many people, philosophy has come to be seen as merely an academic discipline with no place outside of the classroom. With overcoming this mistaken sentiment being the springboard for this blog, I find the following article on public philosophical forums to be a heartening reminder of what philosophy is, can be, and should be. We think, therefore we are

What is Truth? (Part One)

This piece is written primarily as an introduction to questions about truth for beginning students in philosophy and for those who may not have had much experience studying philosophy. Because of this, the piece is not highly detailed, so I apologize to any of you who are more experienced in your studies of philosophy. Since the purpose of this blog is to bring philosophy out of the classroom and into our everyday lives, I think that introductory posts such as this one will better help us get acquainted with philosophy as a discipline and a way of life. I hope that it will stimulate some interesting discussion.

More often than not, you run into two opposing schools of thought when discussing ideas about truth, or "Truth," as members of one of the camps would have it. The members of these camps spend most of their time demonizing and criticizing each other, all the while ignoring any substantive questions associated with the idea of truth. These diametrically opposed schools of thought have both missed the point of how we can talk about truth. So the rest of this post will be an overview of the two camps. I will be providing my own solution to the problem in a later post. 

First, I want to talk about the so-called, "correspondence theory" of truth. Philosophers who hold a correspondence theory of truth believe that if we are to consider something to be true, its truth must in fact correspond to reality. So, if you were to claim that all crows are black, some football players are from England, most Americans believe in God, or all dogs go to heaven, the truth of these claims would have to be verified by observing the facts of the particular state of affairs. Adherents of this view claim that it is the most reasonable way of approaching questions of truth since it provides you with an absolute standard by which you can measure if something is in fact true. This absolute standard, which many adherents refer to as an "objective" standard, stands in marked contrast to the second school of thought: relativism.

Relativism, in contrast to the absolutism of the adherents of a correspondence theory of truth, is the theory that there is no absolute conception of truth. Any attempts to demonstrate an objective standard of truth, according to the relativist, will end in frustration since there can be no absolute truth. There are many forms of relativism, so for the purposes of this piece I will focus on two: cultural relativism and individual relativism. Cultural relativists claim that the truth of a particular idea or statement depends on the culture or time in which it is expressed. For example, were an American to talk about freedom by criticizing another culture where women are subservient to men, the cultural relativist would claim that the American's view of freedom is true in the US, but not in that other culture. An individual relativist is someone who makes the says the ever popular, "what's true for you isn't true for me."

Now, why do I claim that both of these views miss the point? First, I want to highlight some of the positive ideas associated with each of the schools of thought. The absolutists rightly recognize that there is a standard way we can define truth, so that we can find a common way of identifying whether a statement is true or false. The relativists, specifically the cultural relativists, highlight an important insight on the nature of cultures. While embedded in a particular culture, you can find yourself accepting particular customs or practices which may not be accepted in another culture. This does not, however, mean that a particular custom is true in one culture and false in another; it merely takes differences in cultures into account in a way that many absolutists refuse to acknowledge.

 The negatives of the relativist position tend to be more obvious to people, especially cultural relativism, since it would be difficult to condemn atrocities committed by one group against another if we were to completely follow this view. The problem with the correspondence theory of truth is that it does not take the passage of time into account. (With this problem of time, I am considering writing a piece on time in the future.) If there is a sense of things that are past, present, or future (have been, are, and will be), then if I claim "there will be a battle at sea tomorrow," we can only know the truth or falsity of the statement the following day. How do we avoid the problems posed by these opposed theories? You'll just have to wait for my upcoming answer in a later post. 

Descartes Work

I have been given the opportunity to work on a short piece on Descartes for an introductory philosophy text, which hopefully will be published next year. Here's to hoping that I do a decent job on the piece, and that the work is published. Ironically, I have always had a love/hate relationship with Descartes' work ever since beginning my studies in philosophy, so while I have been working on this project it has been interesting to see how my views have progressed over the years. Writing about so many important philosophical problems that can be traced back to Descartes' work has given me more of an appreciation for his importance, but it has also added to many of my deep seated concerns about Descartes' philosophy as well. We'll just have to see how the piece turns out, and hopefully sees the light of day.

Advice on War and Peace from "A Dance With Dragons"

 George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series is full of intriguing characters and fascinating places, but it also has room for some very insightful philosophical and political ideas as well. While recently reading the latest book of the series, A Dance with Dragons, I came upon one of the best articulations of a philosophical caution about war yet in this series. Prince Doran Martell, while speaking to his vengeance-seeking nieces the Sand Snakes, makes the following observation:

"It is an easy thing for a prince to call the spears, but in the end the children pay the price. For their sake, the wise prince will wage no war without good cause, nor any war he cannot hope to win." ADWD 510

Something to think about when considering real-world situations, when there are those voices urging a rush to war at every perceived slight.

MacIntyre on Voting

 Although written in 2004, Alasdair MacIntyre's article The Only Vote Worth Casting in November, is just as prescient now, if not more so when examining the options Americans have this year for presidential candidates. Here is a fascinating and important account of how we ought to view the lack of options for good candidates this election cycle.

Hegel

This is a great piece on reading Hegel, the notoriously difficult German philosopher. How to fake your way through Hegel Enjoy!

Preparing Classes

For a blog with the title, Thinking Outside the Classroom, it may seem strange that I am talking about preparing for some upcoming classes, but since this is part of my life as a philosopher I reserve the right to blog about it.

I have been spending some time preparing the materials for the three classes I'm teaching in the Fall semester. Prepping for the two logic courses this time has been much easier than the first time I prepped for logic last winter. It also helps that I will be using Copi rather than (the-book-that-shall-not-be-named-because-it-sucked), which I unfortunately used last semester. Prepping for the first year seminar (God: Is there one and how would we know?) is turning out to be a lot of fun, especially since it ties into much of what I have been writing for the past few years. As an undergrad and then as a grad student, I never wanted to pursue work in philosophy of religion, but I have realized more and more that it is an area I have a decent amount of competence in, and one where I have (unintentionally) spent a considerable amount of time writing, speaking, and thinking about lately.

My logic students will be using Copi, while the seminar students get to read selections from the anthology.

Summer Reading

 Well, those of us who are participating in the summer reading group have found that the consensus is to read Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. This will be my first foray back into analytic philosophy since 2010, so it should be interesting to see how it all turns out. Thankfully, Wittgenstein is a bit more poetic (in a Heideggerian sense) than most analytic philosophers.

Philosophical Summer Reading

Well, it's that time of year again, when students and teachers begin wrapping up the Spring semester and look forward to the relaxation of the summer break. Which means it is also the time of year to plan philosophical reading groups. Currently deciding what book or books to read with some friends, I find that I may have too many possibilities to choose from, but hopefully a consensus will arise soon as to what we shall read. In the meantime, enjoy the classic Germans vs. Greeks football match, courtesy of Monty Python.

Southwest Seminar in Continental Philosophy

From June 7-9, I will be attending the third annual Southwest Seminar in Continental Philosophy entitled, "Continental Philosophy in the Great Basin." Being held at Brigham Young University, this will be my first visit to the state of Utah. While attending the conference, I will present my paper, "The Person as Objective Subject." The paper focuses on the dichotomy between Sartre's and Buber's views on relationships and the human person. I bring in some of Wojtyla's (John Paul II's) work to show how there is middle ground between the two men where we find a more robust view of human relationships than some may think.  

Kierkegaard on Teaching

Every day I teach my logic students, I find Kierkegaard's statement to be more true.

"To be a teacher does not mean simply to affirm that such a thing is so, or to deliver a lecture, etc. No, to be a teacher in the right sense is to be a learner. Instruction begins when you, the teacher, learn from the learner, put yourself in his place so that you may understand what he understands and the way he understands it." 

                                                                                                                   - Søren Kierkegaard

New Project

I have recently begun some preliminary work on a new project tracing the link between effective ethical theories and the philosophy of love. Drawing on sources as diverse as Scotus, Scheler, Levinas, Sartre, Wojtyla, Aristotle, Kierkegaard, and religious traditions, I hope to put together some type of initial presentation soon. Thinking of working some process philosophy into the discussion as well. This well could turn into an enormous project.

Santorum and the Catholic Vote

The latest piece from Mark Shea highlights Santorum's politically expedient persona.

Mr. Catholic

Shea's following quote sums up the problem.

"Santorum is in the groove on the things that *really* matter to the GOP leadership–pre-emptive war, preserving the precious legacy of Bush era torture, and the sacred pre-eminence of corporate profits over the needs of human beings. So his private fetish about being semi-prolife is fine, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the real agenda."

Critical Theory

I've begun to be very intrigued with some of the ideas in critical theory, specifically Adorno's and Horkheimer's later works. It could be really interesting to see how their works might help us as we continue to be mired in our volatile political climate right now.

Foundations of Logic

Yesterday I began my first day of teaching three sections of Foundations of Logical Reasoning at Bridgewater State University. Hopefully the students take what I am teaching them to heart so they will be better prepared for their upper level classes.

Batman and Heidegger

 I have always been greatly interested in the connection between pop culture and philosophy, a recent addition to the many sub-fields of philosophy in North America thanks to Bill Irwin, Aeon Skoble, and Mark Conard with their original series of "Pop Culture and Philosophy" beginning with Seinfeld and Philosophy and The Simpsons and Philosophy. With many movies containing references to philosophy (whether explicitly in movies such as I Heart Huckabees and Fight Club, or more implicitly in many sci fi and superhero films), it is interesting anytime the media pays attention to the philosophical ideas found in pop culture. In this latest piece from Slate, the focus turns to some potential philosophical elements in the upcoming Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises. According to the article, in the new movie Bruce Wayne reads aloud from some of Heiddeger's work. I guess we'll just have to wait for the July release of DKR, but in the meantime, enjoy the article. The Dark Knight Philosophizes?

Phenomenology Conference

Since taking part in the Early Phenomenology conference at Franciscan University last April, I have been interested in the work of the North American Society for Early Phenomenology. The CFP for their conference to be held in Toronto in late May of this year has just been posted. If anyone is interested in any of the work pertaining to the early phenomenologists (Husserl, Pfander, Scheler, Reinach, Stein, Von Hildebrand, etc.) I would highly recommend checking out the conference. CFP: NASEP

My Latest Book Review

My review of Human Rights and the Ethics of Globalization by Daniel and Elizabeth Lee is now posted over at the Marx and Philosophy Review of Books site. http://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2012/449

Philosophy Events

Just found this great site brought to you by the same people at Phil Papers: Phil Events For all your latest information on philosophy conferences, colloquia, and symposia CFP's.

Médaille on Money

John Médaille is one of the best voices out there when it comes to monetary policy and economic theory. Here's one of his latest must-read pieces. Friends and Strangers: A Meditation on Money

From Reuters...

Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list"

I'm not even shocked anymore.

Scotus and Marion

I'm beginning to think that there is much to be found in Scotus that Jean-Luc Marion could use to better assist his own project. I may have to reflect more on this in the near future.

The Southwest Seminar in Philosophy

Passing along this CFP for the conference this summer.

Southwest Seminar in Philosophy

First Post

Well, I have finally succumbed to the lure of blogging. We'll have to see how long this lasts, but hopefully it will only serve to help my writing in both quality and substance.