Ben Rolnik is our former USC Philosophy Club president 2009-2012. The club still misses him and his charismatic spirit that encouraged our passions to go that extra mile in intellectual pursuits. As a president, Ben believed in all of us, that we are all excellent in our respective pursuits. Ben also begun the legacy of mini-conference for-students-by-students in the club, because he wanted each and individual students to have their own stage to shine no matter where they are in the academia. Ben majored in Interdisciplinary Studies in Philosophy, Biology, and Psychology. Ben graduated from USC in Spring 2012. Ben is contactable at benrolnik@gmail.com. Check out Ben's blog at http://benrolnik.wordpress.com.
The Courage to Use Your Own Reason
by Ben Rolnik
It is strange that an institution
predicated upon bringing us into mature “intellectual” life can be so
antithetical to this dictum. For example, school often does not seem like an
environment designed to encourage our own ideas and flourishes—but rather, a
system designed to fit us into its ready made box as though our minds could be
run through its halls like raw material on a conveyor belt.
This can often be a scary reality—a
reality in which we are not disposed to our own reason, the truth of our own
minds—but rather at the mercy of the whims of others who purport access to a
“universal truth.” I don’t deny that there are certain algorithms which will
make a bridge stand—and other which will make it fall… but the analytic
prospect of rigor can often seen misguided on matters of the soul… for example,
do we have a soul? Or, better yet—do we have consciousness? Emotions? Should we
tell lies? Steal…
Let’s table this discussion to
discuss the myth: that rigor and heart are mutually exclusive… or in other
words, that there in fact exists a continental/analytic split. Nominally, of
course there does: there are schools who teach Heidegger and there are school’s
who whisper his name as though they were speaking of Voldemort. While I think
this is myopic and—thus—restrictive, I don’t really care. What bothers me,
however, is any program that wishes to universalize and systematize meaning in
such a way that subjective matters are elevated to the status of “a fact.” It’s
strange that our humanity—which is individual—can be “standardized.” Great… as
long as it’s my standard.
At this point, you may be a little
unsure of what I’m saying. But let me reassure you: the chances are very low
that our most commonly held convictions today will not be laughed at in a few
hundred years. Look guys, we laugh at Aristotle… Yet, I am all in favor of this
“historicism” because without it we would probably lapse into meretricious
nihilism, trying to unwind the straight line of our lives in vain. With that
said, I don’t discourage this program. For all I know they’re (we’re?) on the
right track. Who knows? Yet… the prospect still is very creepy.
To return to the divide for a
moment—the divide between the heart and the mind—continental versus
analytic—let me just say one thing: use your own reason. Anyone who thinks that Husserl’s
phenomenology is less rigorous than the work of Thomas Nagel is just an
asshole…. And we shouldn’t listen to assholes because they’re full of shit. It’s
unfortunate that you have to meet so many assholes in a school with an exclusively
analytic department—because there’s really no “necessity” in it.
The Philosophy Club is not the
limited tradition of a few inspired intellectuals at USC. The Philosophy club
is a vision that traces back throughout all
time. There have always been those dissatisfied with their conditions of
knowledge… thirsty for piercing the depths of understanding—erotic for wisdom: the philosophers. A
philosophy degree, reading Kant, reading Kripke, or reading anything whatsoever
doesn’t make someone a philosopher. This club, in my experience, is founded by
non-philosophy majors—which is a great and exquisite irony that we shouldn’t ignore.
Really, what we are talking
about—is that philosophy clubs have existed forever—in such loose settings as
friends meeting to discuss their lives—to such formal settings as the Salon. This
means that the spirit of the philosopher is not limited to the “tools” of
philosophy. When she visits Boethius, Philosophy is a consolation. I have seen two
sorority girls gossiping in ways equally philosophical to the most lauded
“professional” philosophers… which should not even be surprising—it’s more
clear what it means to be a sorority girl than what it means to be a
professional philosopher.
What links all these good people—places—and
times—is a curiosity untarnished by the reins of dogmatism, which will destroy
even the purest thoughts. Dallas Willard has always been, in my opinion, the
patron saint of USC. For a man “of the dogma,” he was far less dogmatic than
Dennett or Dawkins. I wish him a speedy recovery right now—and I hope that your
prayers are also with him. The final bastion seems to be Anthony Kammas. Seek
him out—benefit yourself.
Since I suppose I am writing this
for new members, I suppose I can offer some guidance so you may benefit from my
experience navigating the university workplace. Here are some ideas.
Learn from Socrates—become a
gadfly. Nobody respects people who just say “yes” without questioning—who live
unexamined lives. This is not the same as being liked… By questioning—thorough
questioning—you will probably alienate everyone except the people who you would
like to be your friends in the first place. You can justify this by asking
yourself: why waste time with people I don’t like? Being inquisitive is a good
filter.
However, if we scale this back a
bit we’ll almost always (in my
experience) find that the very same questions that interest you interest you BECAUSE they are INTERESTING
questions. Often times I find closet intellectuals… it really is an understated
thing in our culture—we talk about closet homosexuals, closet racists, closet
narcissists, etc.—but never about the closet intellectual. I feel for you… but
the joke is, these people are often less alone than they think. I would always
invite them to the philosophy club—a place to flaunt your intellectualism and
take pride in the mind—and it’s a shame that many were in too much denial to
show up.
Never be a closet intellectual. Let
your intelligence shine. Just don’t be an asshole. Hopefully you’re smart
enough to know the difference… and if you’re not, just look at peoples faces:
when they see you do they curl up like they’ve just stepped in a cow pie? Or do
they smile? Important.
Don’t wallow in abstractions…
especially not in conversation with other philosophers. This point is important
because without recognizing it, a closet intellectual will recede farther from
the door: well (he’ll say to himself) there isn’t anything to even talk about!
Shame on him…. Her… it…
Okay, so we all know the universe
is mute. Life is meaningless. Everything is deterministic. Relativism is
unavoidable… that Hegel won—I mean—the
pragmatists won: truth is a(n unavoidable) convention…. But bear in mind, sometimes
we must quit discussing Truth in order to talk about the truth. It’s easy to
hide behind abstractions to avoid the consequence of our real beliefs: teacher
asks a question, we rattle off a learned response. It’s all very robotic
really. Chinese Room? I don’t think most
people believe half the stuff they’re saying—at least, I doubt they have
inquired deep enough to know either way, much less understand it.
Intellectuals are good at building
walls around their truth… a necessary precaution after watching the darling
sprouts of other truths mulched by the social-academic machine. These
abstractions are safe—but they lead nowhere. Try it—start a conversation about
ethics at the philosophy club. You’ll see this guarded intellectual language
arise about what “good” and “right” and “should” mean and the meaning of
“ethics” and… it will quickly devolve into a pointless argument where
skepticism seems to finish us off with a final stranglehold we cannot resist. Why?
It’s easy to talk about “torturing babies is fine” by dissociating the fact
that you’re human from the equation… and the little (personal) fact: it’s not. Tap
out early. Go limp.
Moreover, these questions aren’t
even that interesting—why can’t you talk about solutions instead? For example:
THESE ARE THE THINGS I FIND WRONG: how can we amend them? You may be laughed
at… but understand we’re laughing with you. And if we’re not willing to come to
terms with you afterwards… then we’re not interested in intellectual growth
(which implies helping others grow), we’re probably just an asshole. Use your
nose. Assholes are beneath you, so don’t give them notice.
Seek out professors. Audit their
classes. Become friends. They are human, just like you… and if they are
sincere, they are seeking just like you. Seek together, not apart. You’ll find
what you’re looking for faster.
Lastly, as Nietzsche says:
philosophers speak to each other from the mountain tops. They say: this is how
I see it. Here’s my truth, now what is yours? Understand where your
proselytizing spirit comes from… what is your need to convert others to your
own ideology? Why does it matter that someone else disagrees with you?
And so we return to the point:
enlightenment is the courage to use your own reason. You already have your own
reason…. All you need now is courage.
Keep in touch and keep discussing
the dharma brothers and sisters. Shalom Shanti Shanti Shanti. Peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment