Today at the Rat, while waiting in the stir-fry line, I was discussing my classes with the guy that makes the soft-serve ice cream at the Rat (who, by the way, is an amazingly caring and genuine individual who everyone should take the time to get to know). The usual question arose of what I was majoring in, and I told him that I was a Philosophy major, to which another person (who shall remain nameless) responded, “Philosophy?! Pshh! You must be one of those independently wealthy individuals...Why, the only thing people can do with a degree in Philosophy is teach people philosophy!” Although his comment was put in a sarcastic and annoying way, it *demonstrates a viewpoint held by many individuals (especially in the United States); namely that philosophers and students of philosophy contribute very little to the wellbeing of a society. Furthermore, it seems to be a common belief that philosophers merely criticize and cast seeds of doubt about anything and everything in the minds of others.
This harsh response elicited by the individual at the Rat today is hardly new to me (this type of criticism seems to be a trend for those concentrating in philosophy). Nevertheless, this particular situation made me think of what Foucault writes about in “Psychiatric Power”. Foucault might not have had this in his mind at all when he wrote this essay, but the way in which he describes the role and power of medical and psychiatric doctors in the past seems awfully familiar to how Philosophers are viewed in our society (at least by some).
It seems as though the job of philosophers in this day and age is to create a problem (or at least increase the size of a tiny “dilemma” to an absurd degree) simply so that they can analyze or provide solutions for it. In this way, philosophers can be seen as obtaining power through their own means. As is assumedly the case with these philosophers, Foucault describes the realm of the 18th century doctor (the hospital) in a similar manner: “Thus, [the hospital] was a place of observation and demonstration, but also of purification and testing. It constituted a …setup designed both to bring out and actually to produce the illness” (40). Thus the actions of the philosopher (played here by the doctor) aim to purify humanity of its nagging existentialist questions (the illness). However, rather than curing their patients, the philosophers’ critical evaluations and doubts do more harm than good. In this case, the philosopher acts as both the “propagator and reproducer” (41). However, in the case of Charcot, it was thought that he “actually produced the hysterical fit he described” (45). Thus, there are also cases that Foucault seems to suggest such as this one, in which the philosopher is the propagator, reproducer, and also the creator of the “illness”.
After this point, the analogy becomes blurry and difficult to decipher. However, whether he meant to or not, Foucault gives a fine analogy of how the philosopher is viewed in our society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I believe that Philosophers may, in fact, be the great contributors to the well being of society. After all, the dilemma of why we are alive is the problem that we live to solve. Everyone, no matter their profession, is ultimately searching for happiness and a sense of belonging and purpose on earth. It is the philosopher's job to think about why we strive for this is in the first place. As Camus said, "Being aware of one's life, one's freedom, one's revolt, and to the maximum is living...and to the maximum." It is the philosopher who helps us in our awareness of these things and in turn, assists us in deciphering what is ultimately at the essence of our happiness and fulfillment: the fact that we are alive and we do not know why.
I agree with you Michael, that "philosophers may, in fact, be the great contributors to the well-being of society." I get into this debate with my girlfriend all the time. She's a Biochemistry and Molecular Biology major and I'm a double major in Political Science and Philosophy. I convinced her to take Philosophy of Religion this semester and all she does is whine and complain about how useless, stupid, and boring the subject of philosophy is. She is also what I would classify at somewhat apathetic when it comes to politics.
My argument is this: Basically, philosophy is the backbone of human existence. Every single subject has some sort of philosophical questions that serve as its foundation. She's going to medical school -- well, how do you know what types of procedures are ethical? This, of course, is an epistimological question rooted in philosophy. What about the topic of, say, business or economics? Adam Smith and Karl Marx are clearly two of the biggest thinkers in that realm -- both philosophers. I guess I'm a little biased perhaps. But although philosophy as a major may not be seen as very useful in terms of living a life of riches and fame, I'm with Socrates here in that a life of contemplation is ultimately the most fulfilling.
And existential questions, in particular, are essential to each and every human being. Whether a doctor, lawyer, or philosopher -- everyone has questions about his/her existence. What can help us to answer these types of complex questions other than philosophy?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: as wonderful and useful as we may believe the practice of philosophy to be, it will not reach everyone. But, that does not mean that we should not try. We will not win, but we have to play. As intelligent beings, or so we believe, it is our job to spread the love and the angst. Crush the ignorance of the people behind you in the Rat line. You have the freedom to change your world.
Post a Comment