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.