For the most part, abstract dilemmas that we try to figure out or apply to our own lives are false. It is a meaningless path that will divert you from true progress. Professors enjoy introducing these dilemmas to students knowing that they will become frustrated for many years. Koans are important only insofar as they eventually teach someone something. But false dilemmas can ultimately be toxic.
Very big and dangerous false dilemma: moral absolutism vs. moral relativism. For example, if I find a wallet in the street and it is stuffed with one hundred dollar bills, and the owner’s ID, should I return it with all of the money? And, if I am poor, in dire financial need, does this allow me to keep the money?
These questions are intended to make regular people feel criminal; they are a form of philosophical entrapment. They are psychological games, not real dilemmas. Most hypothetical examples are entirely unnecessary. People who love the study of history intuitively understand this about the problem with philosophy. We philosophers live and breathe on hypothetical examples. Problem: we know how to use them.
One of the big problems with philosophy is its relevance to the average level of communication. This too, is a false dilemma. Philosophy cannot (and probably should not) be clear. It is not so much an acquired taste, but an acquired understanding. The most important understanding in the study of philosophy is the ability to validate your own interpretations. You cannot understand this subject if you wait for someone else to tell you what everything means.
Another false dilemma: if I am a writer, should I think about audience, or should I just write what I want? I did treat this as the Scylla and Charybdis of writing for many years.
0 comments:
Post a Comment