Tuesday, December 6, 2011

The Philosophy Tree

When we think of philosophy, we tend to think of an esoteric subject far removed from the actual practice of living.  We think of the obscure terminology, the perpetually ponderous "isms" and the various schools of thought which bear their names.  We tend to think of the great names of philosophy, Aristotle, Plato, Descartes, and so on, those giants of wisdom who's names we invoke in intellectual arguments as though they were the patron saints of their own peculiar ideas.  If we're in a particularly imaginative or hypnagogic state, we may even picture philosophy as the domain of the wise hermit living on the mountain top who pilgrims have to brave treacherous paths and passes to reach in order to hear his sage advice.

In short, we tend to focus on the vast body of work done on the subject of philosophy, accumulated in books and texts, rather than on the object of study itself.  While the stars serve to remind us what the astronomer is looking at, and the flowers are there to remind us what the botanist is up to, philosophy studies something that isn't quite so easily brought to mind.  It seems like something more intangible and remote.  So it's easy to fall into the misconception that philosophers are off hunting ghosts in another dimension with no relevance to the real world.  "That's all well and good.", we say, "But we've got work to do and bills to pay.", and we move on with our lives.  This is a dreadful mistake.  Philosophy isn't hard to fathom because it's so remote from our lives.  Quite the contrary.  We have a hard time seeing it because it looms so large in our lives, because it is so fundamental and all encompassing.  Philosophy is nothing less than the study of existence itself.  Deeper still, it's the study of our understanding of existence and our place in that existence, and our understanding of ourselves.  It makes all the difference in the world.

Imagine that you and I and everyone else has a tree growing somewhere deep in the core of our minds.  As trees tend to do, this tree branches out from a central trunk, and those branches branch out into more branches and those into even smaller branches, and so on.  This tree and these branches form a kind of network which connects all the ideas and opinions and beliefs that you have about everything, from the seemingly inconsequential things like the etiquette for parallel parking out along one of the small twigs, to more meatier issues like where you stand on the death penalty on one of the sturdier limbs.  Your position on fundamental matters along the main branches are going to affect all the smaller branches that lead off from it.  It's all connected.  The tree as a whole represents our concept of the world and our attitude and approach to life.

Philosophy is the study of that tree.  More than that, it's a way of caring and tending, trimming and maintaining that tree.  Many people don't bother.  They let the tree grow wild, the gnarled branches twisting haphazardly around each other at random, choking the life out of some branches and leaving others neglected in the shadows unexposed to the nourishment of the sun.  They suffer the consequences of this in their actions, their choices, and in their very feelings towards life itself.  There are others who do tend to the tree, but some of them end up doing even worse damage because they don't know what they're doing, because they're not careful, and because they don't take the task seriously to begin with.  They cut into some vital organ and leave the tree half-barren, lifeless, and rotted from the inside.

If I say that I am a philosopher, I don't mean that as a matter of vocation or title.  I am a philosopher in the sense that I am an eater, a dreamer, a bather, and a sleeper.  I am a philosopher because I tend to my tree.  I've devoted a large part of my life to tending to my tree.  I've nursed it to health through the long, grey winters; I've cultivated its blossoms in the spring.  I've tried more than one ill-advised method and risked permanent damage, but hopefully I've learned something from my mistakes.  It's nearly a full-time job, taking on the task myself.  It takes time and thought and study and research.  But so far I've resisted the temptation to farm the job out to any religious group or political affiliation.  I have consulted a few experts on occasion, though.  I let Nietzsche have a go at it one summer.  The tree grew tall and strong, and even a little terrifying to behold.  Kant proposed putting a box of mirrors around the tree, blocking out the sunlight completely.  I sent him packing.  And of course Sartre still drops by now and then in the evenings.  He smiles and nods and reminds me that the tree is mine to make what I will of it; the choices and the possibilities are up to me.

And it's up to you as well.  You can tend your own tree, or you can ignore it altogether, or you can hire someone else to do it and find all of your ideas in their debt.  But make no mistake about it.  You have that tree too.  We all have that tree.  Philosophy studies something which is relevant to all our lives.  We all have some way of looking at the world.  The question is: Are you going to let that view fall into place by a random accident of jumbled ideas, or are you going to cultivate that view deliberately and help it to grow into something wonderful?  The choice is yours.                    

15 comments:

  1. My infant son is very needy at bedtime, and often sleeps in our bed, so I haven't gotten my tree tended to in awhile.

    Of course, by "tree" you mean "penis," right?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like to think I tend my tree, but I don't read philosophy much. I did study it a bit in college though and enjoy thinking that way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Classy as always, Doug :D

    @Rachel: Reading philosophy can be helpful, but it's not the main thing. Keeping an open and active mind is what's really important; occasionally asking the "big questions" even if you don't have a clue what the answers are. I know you do that...and in verse too!

    ReplyDelete
  4. By the way, folks, someone dropped me a line in my inbox today complaining about the white on black color scheme. He said that my last post was "unreadable" and then he chastised me for my "crappy blog design." Following the links from his profile, I learned that he was one of those self-appointed blog design gurus and SEO marketing experts with helpful advice like how to generate hundreds of fake comments on your site. *ugggh*

    But still, I have to ask again if anyone has trouble with the color scheme. Me, I prefer it this way, and I think it fits the site somehow. I played around with a black on white scheme, and somehow it wasn't the same. I haven't had any trouble with it being "readable" either. And not just here. Doug's and Charlie Pulsipher's as well as several others that I read have white text on dark backgrounds and I've never given it a 2nd thought. Sometimes I even find it easier on the eyes. But that's me. The question is how you guys feel about it. An unreadable blog is no blog at all.

    Finally, this expert lays on me the same dumb argument I've heard dozens of times on the subject; the old "you don't see books with black pages and white lettering, do you?" Whether white on black is a good idea or not, this is just stupid reasoning. Books don't have black pages as a matter of practicality and necessity. You have possibilities with a blog that you don't have with books. Last I checked, I haven't seen books with hyperlinks or embedded videos either. Are those a bad idea too?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I do enjoy a good pruning now and again. It keeps my tree fresh and rooted to the ground without all the nurture that goes into such things. I've always wondered why such a vast think tank of ideals never meant anything in college. Most of those who take interest in the subject, tend to be smart people as well. You would think we would take more from those who "studied" it. My wife for example took it because she liked all the head games that comes with it. I said, you mean psychology? and she looked at me very seriously and replied, "Is that what YOU want me to think I thought?" and our marriage had never been the same since.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Is that what YOU want me to think I thought?"

    Geez, you need a map to get from one end of that sentence to the other, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think that is the cat from Triberr.com isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  8. AND I am curious to know what he thinkd about Atypical Read too. Can you imagine the harshness he would have for me? Woof!

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Doug: I think when he says it's not "readable", he means that he saw it was white on black and didn't even bother to try. That, or he's grossly exaggerating.

    And yeah, I'm not sure why it fits the site either, but somehow it does. I might still try to come up with something else one of these days, though.

    @Scott: Yes, this cat is from Triberr. He's a new member, I guess. Look for him to come your way any day now.

    ReplyDelete
  10. My first thought was the same as yours. Instead of being a "grammar nazi" (which he definitely is not - I looked at his blog) he is a "format nazi," and gets his jollies trashing those who think differently than he does on that topic.

    Also, I read his one post, and the site he linked to. The sourse material at least ran the pretense of providing you information on getting fake comments as an "informational tool -but don't do it." Your critic seemed to think it was a really cool idea to steal someone else's YouTube comments for yourself. That by itself would make anything he says suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yeah, there definitely seemed to be a "Don't try this at home kids! *wink* *wink*" quality about that.

    I also don't buy the premise that the first thing people look at when visiting a new blog is the number of comments below each post. Does anyone really do that?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't, not until after I read the post. And when I finally do get to the comments, seeing a whole bunch does nothing but make me think twice about leaving one of my own.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I guess I'm going to have to chime in late on this one. Been a rough couple of days here in the Rev Hole. My philosophical foliage is more of a shrubbery than a tree. A... shrubbery! Nee! Or perhaps even a creeping vine. It doesn't reach any lofty heights, but it does cover alot of ground. Really shallow root system, but it goes freaking everywhere.

    And that's my metaphorical limit for the morning, I think.

    Pay no attention to the "blogging guru" swine. They are all hucksters and communist sympathizers in the pay of the red Chinese.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Doug: Exactly.

    @Rev: I get what you're saying...you need to take a nap. Got it!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I used to edit philosophy titles for Routledge, and I came away with the impression that there are a lot of charlatans out there in academia. I once edited a collection in which each chapter was by a different author. I fired off a pile of queries to the 'editor' (the guy whose name appears on the cover), and I can still remember the codicil at the end of his replies:

    "Why can't they write English?" my wife often asks. Ah! But then we wouldn't impress each other.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...