I heard a university lecture on the liar’s paradox: “Every statement I say is untrue.” But, if it loops back to itself, then the statement itself . . .
And anyway, the lecturer went through four possible solutions, none of which he felt was all that satisfactory. And then he began on his solution, a fifth solution, which he did feel largely solved the paradox. But, by this time, I was so intellectually worn out, I don’t remember the fifth solution! (and it wasn’t all that great, I’ll tell you that, it was nothing earth-shattering, and I doubt whether this paradox has an earth-shattering solution). In addition, I think the guy was just a real tedious lecturer, which is kind of a shame, since he also struck me as a sincere guy.
So, that’s kind of the problem with formal, academic philosophy. The established approach seems to be to so belabor the obvious, to look for certainty to a very high degree (and that’s a trap, esp. for those of us with aspie traits). It took me a long time to realize that the ‘thoroughist’ approach is not the only game in town. For example, Dr. Robert Marion in one of his books about being a medical intern, talked about a toddler who looked kind of like an elf. Robert thought this boy had a genetic condition which would also explain most of his other problems. And as he talked with the resident about the boy’s heart abnormality, the resident said, ‘No, no, no, it’s much more specific than that’(paraphrase). You see the resident understood it in a loosey-goosey way, which was a good thing because it led to him and Robert having a real conversation and working together in a collaborative approach. Robert was right, the boy did have the genetic condition, but that night at home talking with his wife he felt guilty, because it was a pretty serious genetic condition. His wife asked, what would have happened if he hadn’t helped to figure it out? Well, the boy would have gotten the million dollar workup, he would have been poked and prodded, had a lot of blood drawn, various radio-opaque dyes used for X-ray work, etc, etc. Plus, pending a less firm diagnosis, effective treatment would have been delayed.
And it occurred to me, it many pursuits in life, it’s fine to understand things in a loosey-goosey way, and when the time comes, you can pursue more in that direction. In fact, it might be more valuable to understand ten things in loosey-goosey fashion than two things in firm fashion. Or, like Richard Dawkins writing about evolution. Instead of so much discussion on general principles, he could have case study after case study of specifics, kind of like the way people enjoy watching sports. You have example after example of similar, but not identical, things. Richard Dawkins kind of does both, but I wish he included a little more juicy case studies.
And this kind of thing also helps me respect my intellectual engine, when is it time to move on to fresh pastures, when is it time to attempt to memorize in a new way. And I’m learning to more trust my easy feelings on this.
Anyway, on philosophy, specifically academic ethics: James Rachels, Amelie Rorty, J.J.C. Smart, Jonathan Glover, these are some of the writers I’ve gotten the most out of.
There’s also the very intriguing article “Could Kant Have Been A Utilitarian?” by RM Hare.
http://deontology.com/
Now, Father Sarducci. Yes, Father Guido Sarducci, he is a comedy character I remember long ago from The Tonight Show! One time he did this shtick on ‘the five minute university.' Since you’re going to forget most of the stuff anyway, why don’t you just learn the stuff you are going to remember anyway? For example, business class—“Buy something and sell it at a higher price.” And that's it for business class and then move on to the next class.
And in that spirit, “motive utilitarianism.” One of the best parts of academic ethics. And I will let you look it up if you’re interested.
Frankly, I think you might get more out of a class like Anthropology or World Literature. More connection with the real world. But, if you’re interested in philosophy, the above is some of the best.
And, oh yeah, the case study of the boy with the genetic condition spared the million-dollar workup is probably in either LEARNING TO PLAY GOD: THE COMING OF AGE OF A YOUNG DOCTOR or THE INTERN BLUES: THE TIMELESS CLASSIC ABOUT THE MAKING OF A DOCTOR, both by Robert Marion, M.D. And if you’re looking for a way to make a contribution, please consider either medical research or medical journalism, supplemented with occasional rounding with a direct practitioner (for starters, you can do more good as a researcher! in addition, any way in which you're quirky or creative plays to strength in research or communication, or, get an M.D. if you like and see some patients directly, just maybe some kind of rough approximation 50-50, or one-third, two-thirds, with one third direct patient contact and two-thirds on the very valuable research, although that value comes very sporadically, of course it does). I include this because I think every young person---and older person---should consider medical school or the equivalent big time. Entrepreneurship, politics, engineering, teaching, music, etc., etc. Yes, something like that. And different is good. Different can be good, all depending on the situation, all depending on how you play it. Engagement, not conformity.
23 Mar 2010, 5:50 pm
