Now Dialectic is amongst the cyberstars, it is worth pondering its grand and ambitious aim of ‘making philosophy relevant to our ordinary lives.’ After all, this specious and simple statement already makes two assumptions: firstly, that philosophy is distanced from ‘ordinary life’, and, secondly, that philosophy can then be made relevant to ‘ordinary life’.

Throughout my brief, but exciting journey through Philosophy, I often come across two very general characterisations from fellow travelers. First up, there is the cheery claim that we are all philosophers at heart. Philosophy is relevant to everything, nay, is everything: how is it possible not be a kind of philosopher? We all ask ourselves the questions ‘Am I doing the right thing?’, ‘How did life begin?’ or ‘What does it all mean?’ Philosophical activity is as natural to a human being, at least in a given context, as the circulation of blood or moving forward through time.

The other is less grand but equally egotistical: Philosophy (especially that of the analytical brand) is narrow, isolated, protective; ordinary life is so full of vapid prejudices, contradictions and excessive stupidity that Philosophy opposes itself to that tragicomic performance called ‘Life’! Pffft. If it has a relationship to anything, it is to untangle the inconsistencies and murkiness that underlie our lives! Perhaps the problem can be best tackled by trying to define philosophy, at which point I will pinpoint Keith Wilson’s eloquent ‘What is Philosophy?’ However, what I will focus on is this question of ‘relevance’.

As we enjoy democratising just about everything, relevance often becomes synonymous with accessibility (‘we are all philosophers at heart’), and, accessibility, in turn, becomes synonymous with significance (‘and this is why philosophy is important’). Indeed, one of the first things we have adjust to as philosophy students is the realization that there is a difference between academic philosophy and ‘pop philosophy’ and GCSE R.E. lessons. Wearing a beret is not compulsory (in fact, you may even be scorned for it), plain-speaking is worn as a badge of achievement and some of us are even sane. On the other side, Philosophy at university does not involve writing about why you personally think eating dead, tortured animal carcass is icky; nor is it about coming up with your own grandiose theory to rival Immanuel Kant.

Rather, academic philosophy involves a long and strenuous indoctrination into ways of thinking about thinking about things, recognising that you’re working within a discipline constituted by conflicting and complex traditions and comprehending sophisticated arguments by diverse thinkers while simultaneously rebutting them. Its subject matter varies from life, the universe and everything to the definite article ‘the’. Indeed, access, I find, only comes after familiarisation with these skills, and even then, it is only with the slenderest confidence; once we find ourselves in possession with even a little insight, it is often swiftly ripped down by another so as to leave us bewildered, lost and mysteriously triumphant. The process of philosophy is one of perpetual destruction and resurrection; it is the ultimate form of intense intellectual sadomasochism.

So where that does that leave us with the question of significance? All I can say is that accessibility is often a lazy way of defining relevance. Philosophy, after all, is accessible, materially-speaking (we don’t need telescopes, calculators, conditioning rooms – just a library). The problem is not that Philosophy is unavailable to the most of us, but that it requires arduous effort, familiarisation with a broad range of technical terms, immense hard work and (perhaps the most offensive of them all!) all to rather obscure ends. Indeed, added to this unpopular non-utilitarianism, in the reverent words of Sir Philip Sidney, philosophers also have a ‘sullen gravity’, are ‘rudely dressed’ and have ‘contempt for outward things’. Alas, so philosophers, it seems, are condemned to be delusional, depressive and badly dressed. So where does its allure lie?

We obsess, we debate, we argue, we read, we are compelled to discuss the same ideas for hours (at times eight hours in a single stretch!), apply for postgrad places, whine about the continental/analytical divide, make connections with others who are similarly driven, attend student-organised weekend-long and expensive conferences, erect websites, societies and online magazines dedicated to it. It becomes a practice more than a degree course. It draws us along like Pied Piper’s song, entrancing with us with an ‘ineffable’ magnetism. For my part, I do think philosophy is fundamentally important, even though it is not accessible on any immediate level. After all, it is a great fallacy to believe that something not overtly utilitarian is only worth doing if it is accessible to everyone or ‘not as hard as you think it is’. But it would also be wrong to circumscribe philosophy to the secretive seminar room: for many of those that study the subject, it has a vast, almost maddening, over-reaching presence that is real, that is an activity. But it is an appeal difficult to justify to those outside of this fixation.

So how should we treat philosophy? Is it an elitist, intellectual, abstract discipline hidden from the crevices of life, of action, of ‘reality’ even? Is everyone ‘really a philosopher at heart’? Does its importance exist in identifying the underlying structures of existence (universal or in a given context), helping us refine our existence, our understanding of our selves and others? Is it a skill? Well, you didn’t think I would actually have an answer, did you? So over to you, dear Reader, and your thoughts…

* An Apology for Poetry, Sir Philip Sidney

Sharmin Ahammad
Editor

_________________________________________________

What is Philosophy? by Keith Wilson

When I mention to people that I’m a student and they ask me what I study, I find that the answer (”philosophy”) tends to produce one of three reactions. The first is a blank stare, sometimes accompanied by a nodding of the head, and followed a rapid attempt to change the conversation…

_______________________________________________________________

Is Only Boring ‘Time Travel’ Possible? by Simon Horsley

I had a bit of a weird few days about a month ago; all of a sudden nearly everyone I talked to seemed to be bothered by what time was. Of course neither was this representative of the population as a whole, nor was it particularly long lived. As someone interested in both physics and philosophy though, I was quite excited. I also remembered that ‘time travel’ has always bothered me…
________________________________________________________________

Pluralism, Pragmatism and Metaphysics by Dave Allen

Metaphysics has made something of a comeback in contemporary analytic philosophy. The nature of time, space and identity are once again respected parts of mainstream philosophical inquiry. With this return to metaphysics comes a top-down methodology, a desire to get to the truth about fundamental concepts before pursuing more concrete philosophical questions. I will argue that this endeavour is fruitless…

________________________________________________________________________________

What makes a duck a duck? Metaphysical Realism and Nominalism by James Lythgoe

Look to any lake-adjacent patch of grass during the daytime and you will almost certainly see ducks. The question of Metaphysical Realism (I shall from here on use ‘Realism’ to refer to the metaphysical position) and Nominalism can be brought to this: why are the various quacking, feathered, beaked objects ducks?

_____________________________________________________________________

Art and the Aesthetic Experience in Arthur Schopenhauer By Daniel J. Ford

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) presented in his masterwork Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung an account of the world as consisting of two discrete aspects; will and idea, or will and representation. The essence of the self is similarly comprised of dual aspects, being simultaneously an object of perception and a manifestation of the will.

________________________________________________________________________________

Book Review: The Courtier and the Heretic, Leibniz, Spinoza and the Fate of God in the Modern World by Matthew Stewart by Lottie Tupholme

Why would I choose to read a book that wasn’t even on the preparatory reading list for Professor Lamarque’s “Leibniz and Spinoza” module? I wish I could say I was being exceptionally studious, but no, my mum bought it for me (for my birthday no less) as an “improving read”, knowing I was studying the two philosophers during Easter term. I opened it with a sense of trepidation…

____________________________________________________________________

The Day All Possible Worlds Collided by Sarah Wallbank

I woke up to the sound of raindrops on the roof tiles outside. ‘Another ordinary day,’ I thought as I forced myself to open my eyes. Why didn’t my alarm clock go off? I rolled over to look at the time and fell on the floor. Ouch. I could have sworn I went to sleep on the other side of the bed last night…

_____________________________________________________________________

Death by Sharmin Ahammad

They tell him to meet them at 1 o’clock; they go through the usual formalities – good afternoon, please sit down, make yourself comfortable – then they take out his file and say, ‘We are not going to renew your life lease, Mr. Gray. You will die without any further medical intervention.’

_____________________________________________________________________

Way too Fat by Chris Samiullah

‘Patrol Car 1, just received a call detailing suspected W.T.F., what is your current location?’

Dan linked his fingers and pushed his palms away from his face, eliciting a series of popping and crackling sounds. He calmly opened the door of his car and, leaning out, pressed one nostril with his index finger and snorted extravagantly. Slamming the door he turned to his new partner Sally and said with a grin…

_____________________________________________________________________

Why So Dog? by Milton T. Milton

‘How gappy’ thought dog recoiling from a smart meeting with another China King Charles spaniel. Through moist slits he verified the identity of the wretched, young Carradock standing soiled and smug and smelling of banana. Closing weary eyes and resigned to the ground, a blurry yet distinct after image was emblazoned continuously upon the central locus of temporary focus, ‘why so dog?’

________________________________________________________________

Articles

Keith Wilson. ‘What is Philosophy?’
Simon Horsley. Is Only Boring ‘Time Travel’ Possible?
Dave Allen. ‘Pluralism, Pragmatism and Metaphysics’
Daniel Ford. ‘Art and Aesthetic Experience in Arthur Schopenhauer’
James Lythgoe. ‘Metaphysical Realism and Nominalism’
Lottie Tupholme. Book review of “The Courtier and The Heretic, Leibniz, Spinoza and the Fate of God in the Modern World” by Matthew Stewart
Sharmin Ahammad. Editorial
______________________________________________________________

Fiction

Sarah Wallbank. ‘The Day all Possible Worlds Collided’
Sharmin Ahammad. ‘Death’
Chris Samiullah. ‘Way Too Fat’
Milton T. Milton. ‘Why so Dog?’
___________________________________________________

Meet Dr. Duck-Rabbit! Pose your questions to our resident philosophical aunt-uncle!

York Philosophy Society Forums

York Philosophy Society

Want to Write for Us?

_____________________________________________________________________

Well done to Dave Allen for winning the £20 book token for his article on ‘Pluralism, Pragmatism and Metaphysics’!

All works belong to their respective owners.