Why Study Philosophy

"You have long been aware of what you mean when you use the expression 'being.' we, however, who used to think we understood it, have now become perplexed."- Plato Sophist

When I posted that I was reading Martin Heidegger a friend commented "Why not slam your head into a wall, it will be quicker and less painful, but with the same result." In one sense it was a ridiculous statement as he specialized in engineering in college while I specialized in professional philosophy. It might be like me suggesting that since I, myself, never understood calculus that it must be without meaning and not worth another person studying.

But really it might be thoughtful to ask if philosophy (or metaphysics more specifically... or ontology much more specifically) has any value as a study. A common American, pragmatic, response is "What is the practical application of philosophy?" but this question has an unstated (and rarely explored) assumption concerning what it valuable. The pragmatic who says "What is the practical application of your study" actually means "Can your study produce technology* by which I might use for my own purposes?" This question might be valid, especially if I am asking for funding from the pragmatic, but as it is stated disguises itself as a moralistic question whereas the question as I believe it to be is not concerned with right or wrong but the application of power.

It saddens me to answer in the affirmative, philosophy has displayed powerful practical (that is technological) for the use of those who grasp it. It is without great reflection that we learn that between 1600 and 1800 monarchy was near completely eliminated in Western Europe and without reflection the role "ideology" has played in the mobilization for war since then. In no time in human history has what people believe been as influential, powerful or dangerous and this has occurred through the application of philosophy. Of course if you were to ask the people affected by the application of philosophy they would not recognize themselves as such. They would see themselves as motivated by the truth, be it "freedom" "racial purity" "revolution" or whatever. They would see themselves merely as "on the right side."

Certainly history has shown that those who have no interest in philosophy can be influenced, if not controlled, by it. But this is not why I value philosophy. Neither is it to resist the power others might have on me through the application of philosophy, though this would be one of the other practical advantages of philosophy. Certainly if my motivation was power (or even just for protection against the power of others) philosophy as a primary means would be one of the more round-about means to that end. It would be more expedient to study law, warfare and economics with just enough philosophy to ensure you are autonomous enough to not "drink the cool-aid" than to make philosophy the the focus of the advancement of my own purposes.

The reason I study philosophy and Heidegger is because (despite its possible round-about practical applications) that philosophy is a means for approaching meaningfulness. Granted, philosophy is not an absolute means to approaching meaningfulness. One need only meet a wise and learn'd philosopher quite capable of distinguishing between Kant and Descartes but who is little more than a dusty and little read collection of quotations. But still there is another kind of stereotype which is typified by the young idealist who is searching for truth. That idealist often finds himself drawn towards philosophy and though it might lead him in circles and to all kinds of intellectual fantasies we must admit there is something particular about philosophy, as a subject, which naturally attracts those who are interested in what is actually true.

It should come to as no surprise that philosophy, as a means to meaningfulness, is something which must be left behind or rejected as an ultimate path in favor of a relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ... but my Bible study starts soon so I'm out of time.

*by "technology" we could include non-physical techniques of persuasion such as advertising.

Notes on Avatar

Hey spoilers... but really they don't spoil the movie:

• My first reaction to the movie was a hatred for the 3D glasses. Yeah, yeah, so cool but really I think the huge screen was cool enough and don't care if things look like they are floating in front of me. I don't think anyone even unconsciously stops thinking they are in a movie theater because of special effects. A good story can do that but smell-o-vision can not.
• The movie plot is a clear cut and paste archetype: Dances With Wolves, The Last Samaria being the examples that come to mind: a warrior, usually wounded in order to represent their spiritual crisis, leaves his home country to a wilderness frontier place where he encounters a foreign, primitive seeming culture which adopts in order to learn about the new-coming invaders. The warrior learns to respect the "primitive" culture and to understand that it is a sophisticated society with great spiritual lessons. The old culture rears its ugly head and the warrior must reject his old culture in order to help his new family... usually this results in a defeat that is a moral victory since the sophisticated spiritual culture did not betray their values even when faced with destruction. The wounded warrior generally survives the destruction and acts as a social critic... I mean truth teller about the spiritual deadness of his home society.
  
• My general reaction to the wounded warrior adoption plot is that you don't have to go to Japan to find a society which is spiritually based... you just have to go to a decent church. I'm sure that if Japan made a movie like this the wounded warrior would be adopted by a Christian missionary because the unfamiliar nature of the society would mask the imperfections found in all human societies. Really if there is some kind of spiritual truth which that foreign society was tapping into... that spiritual truth can be found in the country, city and suburb. If there is a God He is God everywhere, not just special places.
• Though I very much in favor in living a life which is spiritually based and not controlled by consumerism and vice (I believe there is a natural relation between the two). I really liked Jake's assessment of tempting the tree people out of the tree "We have nothing they want, what are we going to give them... Bud Light? Yeah right."
• I really liked Sigourney Weaver's character... though it was strange (and I'm sure no accident) that she was the only one of the tree people with large boobs. Still I like that kind of tree hugging liberal (and they love it when I refer to them that way).
  

Alright I've already posted plenty. I need to write my TPA.