Philosophical Mumbo Jumbo

Philosophy -

noun, phi·los·o·phy \fə-ˈlä-s(ə-)fē\

2 pursuit of wisdom :  a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means :  an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs (Merriam-Webster Inc, 2017)

Recently, I just finished a course that centered on Ethics and Morality and used a textbook penned by Lawrence Hinman; Contemporary Moral Issues: Diversity and Consensus. Initially, upon entering the class I thought, what a waste of time, as if either of these things are teachable concepts.

I assumed it would be one of those classes you shrug off, an “easy A” that would not take up much study time. Just answer the questions posed to you in the “expected” way and collect your credits. However, with each passing week I became more involved in the course discussions and found the subject matter more interesting. Stem cell harvesting and research, abortion, neoliberalism, the death penalty- all controversial issues that I thought I had understood, and further thought that I had thoroughly grounded beliefs within. Beliefs that lay firmly rooted on one side of these issues or the other. I quickly found out that my beliefs were not only superficial, but in some cases ethereal, having been incidentally gleaned from less-than reputable sources (skewed movies and books, acquaintances with agendas, slanted news reports etc.)

I found myself debating classmates and “winning” (as much as one can “win” in an online forum anyway). It became quite exhilarating, not to pick a side and defend it, but to really dig in and research the pros and cons and present an overarching view of a topic.

          

This spark led me to finally finish up a book i had been given months before on one of my favorite topics, Alan Moore’s Watchmen. I went back to reading Watchmen and Philosophy: A Rorschach Test by Mark D. White. I suppose I thought I had just laid or reinforced the fundamentals of critical thinking with regard to personal worldviews, it might be time to explore that in a different context. That context, being one of my favorite films and graphic novels.

The book was great, particularly due to its analytical treatment of Watchmen’s characters and the issues they face from a philosophical lens. The author did a wonderful job of bringing to light issues in the story that I always noticed as being paramount, but could never properly articulate with any true direction. The essays throughout focus on the topics that are central (and some not-so central) to Watchmen’s mythos; good and evil, heroism, villainy, righteousness, politics, and neatly weaves these into philosophical concepts such as stoicism, free will and moral value, among others.  If you are a pop culture fan, or especially a Watchmen fan who is at all interested in philosophy, I highly urge you to track down a copy.  

   

After finishing both Watchmen and Philosophy as well as, Contemporary Moral Issues, I assumed I was ready for something with more gristle. I picked up a translated copy from one of the master’s of philosophy; Nietzsche. I was excited, one because I had heard his work quoted in several different formats and media over the years, and two; I was a bit full of myself at feeling I was ready to tackle such an esteemed body of literary work. The book I selected was The Birth of Tragedy, which was coupled with The Case of Wagner. The particular edition I purchased also contained a preface written by Nietzsche titled ‘Attempt at a Self-Criticism' related to The Birth of Tragedy- an analysis of his own work, some years after the fact. I thought this might prove useful, and insightful as Birth was his first published book.   

I was eager to begin soaking up the relevant knowledge, the life-altering wisdom that someone so revered would surely be able to pass on from across time.

It took me almost 3 hours just to read through the translator’s introduction!

But I wasn’t stymied yet. I kept thinking perhaps if I can get past the translator’s stuffy, academic language from the mid 1950’s, I could get to the insightful information that I really desired, so I pressed on.  Unfortunately, once that was completed I only arrived at Nietzsche’s words to discover that they themselves were made up of stuffy, academic language from the mid 1700’s. I was both astounded and disappointed that it was taking me so long to digest the book’s content.  

So Nietzsche and I, once strangers were quickly estranged. As such, his book rests on the bottom of my reading table, gathering dust as I hope I may gather the acumen to read his words without the help of a tutor, language coach, caffeine and a concordance.

My philosophical exploration remains on hold. Until, at least, I can find something more palatable. Perhaps in between “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Philosophy” and “The Complete Intellectual’s Guide to Philosophy”. I suppose the moral of the story is that my hypothetical philosophical remains on hold, in more than just the hypothetical sense.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you thought the above not representative of David’s typical writing (i.e. slow-paced, overly methodical, and painfully analytical, it is due to the fact that he was channeling Nietzsche himself.

Further, if you stumbled to this page expecting to see something representing light-hearted humor with more intermittent action scenes, stay tuned we will be back to our regularly scheduled programming next week (now that David has gotten this out of his system, we hope.)