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.