At a time when advances in science and technology have
changed our understanding of our mental and physical selves, it is easy for
some to dismiss the discipline of philosophy as obsolete. Stephen Hawking,
boldly, argues that philosophy is dead.
Not according to Rebecca Newberger Goldstein. Goldstein, a
philosopher and novelist, studied philosophy at Barnard and then earned her
Ph.D. in philosophy at Princeton University. She has written several books, won
a MacArthur “Genius Award” in 1996, and taught at several universities,
including Barnard, Columbia, Rutgers, and Brandeis.
Goldstein’s forthcoming book, Plato at the
Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won’t Go Away, offers insight into
the significant—and often invisible—progress that philosophy has made. I spoke
with Goldstein about her take on the science vs. philosophy debates, how we can
measure philosophy’s advances, and why an understanding of philosophy is critical
to our lives today.
You came across The Story of Philosophy by
Will Durant as a kid. What were your first thoughts?
I grew up in a very religious Orthodox Jewish household and
everybody seemed to have firm opinions about all sorts of big questions. I was
interested in how they knew what they seemed to know, or claimed to know.
That’s what I would now call an epistemological question. I was allowed to read
very widely, and I got the book The Story of Philosophy out. I
must’ve been 11 or 12. And the chapter on Plato… it was my first experience of
a kind of intellectual ecstasy. I was sent completely outside of myself. There
were a lot of things that I didn’t understand, but there was something abstract
and eternal that underlay all the changing phenomena of the world. He used the
word “phantasmagoria,” which is one of those words I had to look up, and
probably one of the few times I’ve encountered it. I couldn’t quite understand
what I was reading, but I was hooked.
When did your formal education in philosophy start?
I didn’t think I was going to study philosophy. I also loved
science, and took out lots of books about science as a kid, and, oh gosh, I
ruined my mother’s kitchen by trying to do do-it-yourself chemistry
experiments. There were all kinds of things that interested me. One of the
things about philosophy is that you don’t have to give up on any other field.
Whatever field there is, there’s a corresponding field of philosophy.
Philosophy of language, philosophy of politics, philosophy of math. All the
things I wanted to know about I could still study within a philosophical
framework.
What did your religious family think about your pursuit of
philosophy?
It made my mother intensely uncomfortable. She wanted me to
be a good student but not to take it too seriously. She worried that nobody
would want to marry such a bookish girl. But I ended up getting married at 19.
And I wasn’t an outwardly rebellious child; I followed all the rules. The
problem was, I was allowed to think about whatever I wanted to. Even though I
decided very early on that I didn’t believe in any of it, it was okay as long
as I had freedom of mind. It was fine with my family.
How early do you think children can, or should, start
learning about philosophy?
RELATED
STORY
I started really early with my daughters. They said the most
interesting things that if you’re trained in philosophy you realize are big
philosophical statements. The wonderful thing about kids is that the normal way
of thinking, the conceptual schemes we get locked up in, haven’t gelled yet
with them. When my daughter was a toddler, I’d say “Danielle!” she would very
assuredly, almost indignantly, say, “I’m not Danielle! I’m this!”
I’d think, What is she trying to express? This is going to sound
ridiculous, but she was trying to express what Immanuel Kant calls the
transcendental ego. You’re not a thing in the world the way
there are other things in the world, you’re the thing experiencing other
things—putting it all together. This is what this toddler was trying to tell
me. Or when my other daughter, six at the time, was talking with her hands and
knocked over a glass of juice. She said, “Look at what my body did!” I said,
“Oh, you didn’t do that?” And she said, “No! My body did
that!” I thought, Oh! Cartesian dualism! She meant that she
didn’t intend to do that, and she identified herself with her intentional self.
It was fascinating to me.
And kids love to argue.
They could argue with me about anything. If it were a good
argument I would take it seriously. See if you can change my mind.
It teaches them to be self-critical, to look at their own opinions and see what
the weak spots are. This is also important in getting them to defend their own
positions, to take other people’s positions seriously, to be able to
self-correct, to be tolerant, to be good citizens and not to be taken in by
demagoguery. The other thing is to get them to think about moral views. Kids
have a natural egotistical morality. Every kid by age three is saying, “That’s
not fair!” Well, use that to get them to think about fairness. Yes, they feel a
certain sense of entitlement, but what is special about them? What
gives them such a strong sense of fairness? They’re natural philosophers. And
they’re still so flexible.
There’s a peer pressure that sets in at a certain age. They
so much want to be like everybody else. But what I’ve found is that if you
instill this joy of thinking, the sheer intellectual fun, it will survive even
the adolescent years and come back in fighting form. It’s empowering.
What changes in philosophy curriculum have you seen over the
last 40 years?
One thing that’s changed tremendously is the presence of
women and the change in focus because of that. There’s a lot
of interest in literature and philosophy, and using literature as a
philosophical examination. It makes me so happy! Because I was seen as a
hard-core analytic philosopher, and when I first began to write novels people
thought, Oh, and we thought she was serious! But that’s changed
entirely. People take literature seriously, especially in moral philosophy, as
thought experiments. A lot of the most developed and effective thought
experiments come from novels. Also, novels contribute to making moral progress,
changing people’s emotions.
Right—a recent study shows
how reading literature leads to increased compassion.
Exactly. It changes our view of what’s imaginable. Commercial
fiction that didn’t challenge people’s stereotypes about characters didn’t have
the same effect of being able to read others better, but literary fiction that
challenges our views of stereotypes has a huge effect. A lot of women
philosophers have brought this into the conversation. Martha Nussbaum really
led the way in this. She claimed that literature was philosophically important
in many different ways. The other thing that’s changed is that there’s more
applied philosophy. Let’s apply philosophical theory to real-life problems,
like medical ethics, environmental ethics, gender issues. This is a real change
from when I was in school and it was only theory.
In your new book, you respond to the criticism that
philosophy isn’t progressing the way other fields are. For example: In
philosophy, unlike in other areas of study, an ancient historical figure like
Plato is just as relevant today.
RELATED
STORY
There’s the claim that the only progress made is in posing
problems that scientists can answer. That philosophy never has the means to
answer problems—it’s just biding its time till the scientists arrive on the
scene. You hear this quite often. There is, among some scientists, a real
anti-philosophical bias. The sense that philosophy will eventually disappear.
But there’s a lot of philosophical progress, it’s just a progress that’s very
hard to see. It’s very hard to see because we see with it. We
incorporate philosophical progress into our own way of viewing the world. Plato
would be constantly surprised by what we know. And not only what we know
scientifically, or by our technology, but what we know ethically. We take a lot
for granted. It’s obvious to us, for example, that individual’s ethical truths
are equally important. Things like class and gender and religion and ethnicity
don’t matter insofar as individual rights go. That would never have occurred to
him. He makes an argument in The Republic that you need to
treat all Greeks in the same way. It never occurs to him that you would treat
barbarians (non-Greeks) the same way.
It’s amazing how long it takes us, but we do make progress.
And it’s usually philosophical arguments that first introduce the very
outlandish idea that we need to extend rights. And it takes more, it takes a
movement, and activism, and emotions, to affect real social change. It starts
with an argument, but then it becomes obvious. The tracks of philosophy’s work
are erased because it becomes intuitively obvious. The arguments against
slavery, against cruel and unusual punishment, against unjust wars, against
treating children cruelly—these all took arguments.
Which philosophical arguments have you seen shifting our
national conversation, changing what we once thought was obvious?
About 30 years ago, the philosopher Peter Singer started to
argue about the way animals are treated in our factory farms. Everybody thought
he was nuts. But I’ve watched this movement grow; I’ve watched it become
emotional. It has to become emotional. You have to draw empathy into it. But
here it is, right in our time—a philosopher making the argument, everyone
dismissing it, but then people start discussing it. Even criticizing it, or
saying it’s not valid, is taking it seriously. This is what we have to teach
our children. Even things that go against their intuition they need to take
seriously. What was intuition two generations ago is no longer intuition; and
it’s arguments that change it. We are very inertial creatures. We do not like
to change our thinking, especially if it’s inconvenient for us. And certainly
the people in power never want to wonder whether they should hold power. So it
really takes hard, hard work to overcome that.
How do you think philosophy is best taught?
I get very upset when I’m giving a lecture and I’m not
interrupted every few sentences by questions. My style is such that that
happens very rarely. That’s my technique. I’m really trying to draw the
students out, make them think for themselves. The more they challenge me, the
more successful I feel as a teacher. It has to be very active. Plato used the
metaphor that in teaching philosophy, there needs to be a fire in the teacher,
and the sheer heat will help the fire grow in the student. It’s something
that’s kindled because of the proximity to the heat.
What is it like teaching philosophy to students from a
variety of backgrounds?
A good philosophy professor needs to be very aware of the
different personalities in her class. I’ve had students who’ve become so very
uncomfortable. They needed a lot of handholding. Some came from very religious
backgrounds, and just the questioning sent them into a free-fall. We made our
way through. Some of them ended up being my strongest students. Two of them are
very successful professional philosophers. But they required a lot of extra time
because they felt it so deeply. You’re being asked to rethink all sorts of
opinions. And when you see that the ground is not very firm, it can distance
you from your own family, your upbringing. I went through this. My own
philosophical journey distanced me from my family, the people I loved most.
That was very difficult, so I know what they’re going through. It can be a very
intense journey.
What’s happened to the popularity of philosophy as a subject
since you studied it?
It’s gone down. Our college students today are far more
practical. When I was in college, which was in the last hey-day of the radical
movement, it was a more philosophically reflective time. Now, they want to get
good jobs and get rich fast.
Despite this, and the fact that so many students are facing
massive debt and a bleak economy, how can you make the case that they should
study philosophy?
I wouldn’t say that they must go into
philosophy, and frankly, the field can’t absorb that many people, but I would
say that it’s always a good thing to know, no matter what you go on to study—to
be able to think critically. To challenge your own point of view. Also, you
need to be a citizen in this world. You need to know your responsibilities.
You’re going to have many moral choices every day of your life. And it enriches
your inner life. You have lots of frameworks to apply to problems, and so many
ways to interpret things. It makes life so much more interesting. It’s us at
our most human. And it helps us increase our humanity. No matter what you do,
that’s an asset.
What do you think are the biggest philosophical issues of
our time?
The growth in scientific knowledge presents new
philosophical issues. The idea of the multiverse. Where are we in the universe?
Physics is blowing our minds about this. The question of whether some of these
scientific theories are really even scientific. Can we get predictions out of
them? And with the growth in cognitive science and neuroscience. We’re going
into the brain and getting these images of the brain. Are we discovering what
we really are? Are we solving the problem of free will? Are we learning that
there isn’t any free will? How much do the advances in neuroscience tell us
about the deep philosophical issues? These are the questions that philosophers
are now facing. But I also think, to a certain extent, that our society is
becoming much more secular. So the question about how we find meaning in our
lives, given that many people no longer look to monotheism as much as they used
to in terms of defining the meaning of their life. There’s an undercurrent of a
preoccupation with this question. With the decline of religion is there a sense
of the meaninglessness of life and the easy consumerist answer that’s filling
the space religion used to occupy? This is something that philosophers ought to
be addressing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment