Phaedrus' Philosophology

As I was reading Robert M. Pirsig's second novel, Lila, I came across the idea of "Philosophology". Philosophology, or the study of philosophy. This idea saved my life.

One of my goals since graduating high school was to study philosophy, to get a coherent understanding of major ideas from major philosophers. I wanted to know enough to group philosophers, to concisely sum up their ideas, and to read their works in the original languages that they were written in.

I, like the people Pirsig described, thought that knowing about philosophy was essential before pursuing my own philosophy. What if people already wrote down what I wanted to write down? What if strong counterarguments already existed?

But Pirsig said the same thing that a professor from the Yonsei Philosophy Department had said to me a year ago: given our short lifespans, it would be impossible.

"You can imagine the ridiculousness of an art historian taking his students to museums, having them write a thesis on some historical or technical aspect of what they see there, and after a few years of this giving them degrees that say they are accomplished artists. They've never held a brush or a mallet and chisel in their hands. All they know is art history." I had refused to believe my professor, but somehow Phaedrus' rhetoric succeeded in clearing all doubts. I should start painting again.

Comments

On Breaking Rules

Rules are great. They provide justice, order, and stability. But must they always be followed? If not (and one would think not), which rules can be broken, and when? The Sufficient Conditions for Rule Breaking But what about rules that do make sense—ones that serve a good, clear purpose? When can they be broken? It is not possible to consider every possible scenario regarding each rule, so here is a "Rule for Breaking Rules": When the purpose of the rule is understood, and when breaking that rule does not go against its purpose, the rule can be broken . Here are some examples worth considering. Jaywalking The main purpose of traffic lights and other traffic laws is safety. Jaywalking is morally acceptable when a pedestrian, on an empty street, for instance, correctly judges that it is safe enough to cross. In undeveloped Chinese cities, traffic lights are ignored, so attention must be paid more to oncoming vehicles than to the traffic lights. Waiting ...

Compulsory Organ Donations

More than a Nudge Robert Thaler, the soon to be winner of this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, wrote about how organ donation rates can change significantly when the question is asked differently to potential donors . In a nutshell, he differentiates the opt-in and the opt-out method, where the opt-out method gets more people to become donors, because the default choice is to be a donor. But he goes on to mention that the presumed-content law may be upsetting to some people, and that the Illinois system, which "makes one's wishes to be a donor legally binding . . . is a winning combination." Here, Thaler, in his strict adherence to libertarian paternalism, fails to consider a morally and economically superior policy: the policy of mandatory donations. It is not hard to see that mandatory donations are economically superior. To see why mandatory donations are morally superior, one need only consider the trolley problem. Here is the thought exp...

Taxi Incentives

Whether they show it or not, most passengers are suspicious of taxis. This is because there is a conflict of interest: needlessly roundabout routes drive up the taxi's profits, while they cost passengers time and money. Is there a way to line up the incentives of drivers and passengers? The solution is to pay taxis before the ride, not after. The cost would be based on the distance and the traffic situation. This pre-paid method would be better than the current after-pay method for three reasons. First, it would be in the best interest of drivers to take the passenger to his or her destination as soon as possible so that they can quickly find a new customer. Second, because the passenger knows this fact, there would be fewer arguments about the route the drivers take. A driver's mistake in taking a slower path could be mildly annoying for the passenger, but not irritating enough to incite major arguments. Passengers would also trust the drivers more when they claim t...

Things I Ask

Search This Blog