Miss Buddha (97 page)

Derrida

Derrida is credited with
having originated a philosophical method called
deconstruction
, a system of analysis
that (rather hopelessly) assumes that any given text (and here’s
language again) has no single, fixed meaning, both due to
inadequacy of language to express the author’s original intention
and because a reader’s understanding of the text is culturally
conditioned—that is, influenced by the culture in which the reader
lives.

In other words, Derrida holds that texts may
therefore have many possible legitimate interpretations brought
about by the “play” of language, and that no one can say for
certain what any given author actually meant to say (a serious form
of apathy, in my view).

Derrida’s method of deconstruction involves
close and careful readings of central texts of Western philosophy
that bring to light some of the conflicting forces within the text
and that highlight the devices the text uses to claim legitimacy
and truth for itself, many of which may lie beyond the intention of
its author.

So, rather than observe the universe around
him, the people around him, and the universe within in order to
perceive and establish what may ultimately be real and true (which
was the goal of ancient philosophy, and should be the goal of
philosophy to this day), Derrida immersed himself in the paper and
ink universe of the opinions of others—to lamentable results.

Although, at a glance, some of Derrida’s
ideas about language seem to resemble the views held by the
analytics, such as Wittgenstein, many current analytics (rightly,
in my view) dismiss Derrida’s work as destructive of
philosophy.

Foucault

Foucault—another philosopher to immerse
himself in the universe of paper and ink—spent his productive life
creating a savage critique of the ideals of the Enlightenment, such
as reason and truth.

Like Derrida, Foucault used myopic readings
of historical texts (rather than opening his eyes to the world to
see for himself) to challenge existing assumptions by demonstrating
how, in his view, ideas about human nature and society, which we
have—based both on what we have read and on our personal
experience—come to see as permanent truths, have in fact changed
over time along with prevailing cultures.

From a small library of historical texts
Foucault created “philosophical anthropologies” to trace and reveal
the evolution of concepts such as reason, madness, responsibility,
punishment, and power. By examining the origins of these concepts,
he proclaimed, we cannot help but see that attitudes and
assumptions that today seem natural or even inevitable are nothing
but historical phenomena dependent upon time and place.

He further claimed that the historical
development of these ideas demonstrates that what seemed humane and
liberal at the time are in reality coercive and destructive, as
they hold up as beacons what has already grown outmoded, and what
never had any real meaning in the first place.

My word for this outlook is apathy.
Literally, throwing in the philosophical towel after too long a
swim in nothing but the words of others.

In fact, while this
movement was called Deconstructivism, I think a more apt name would
be
Destructivism
,
for it seems that the unexpressed goal of hopelessness this school
pursued was the tearing down of anything even vaguely resembling
truth and decency.

Lacan

Lacan agreed with both Derrida and Foucault,
that in order to get at what is, you first have to overturn all
cultural and philosophical assumptions, as they do nothing but
stand in your way.

Once overturned, however, he, like Derrida
and Foucault, put nothing in its place, but simply held that
nothing means anything and that words cannot be trusted.

Again, rather than looking for himself, he
immersed himself in the research and writings of others, primarily
by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure and the psychoanalytic
theories of Sigmund Freud. Based on his own readings of these
works, Lacan went on to claim that the unconscious portion of the
mind (which he could not observe, since he assumed it to be
unconscious) operates with structures and rules analogous to those
of a language. Based on this rather unjustified assumption, he
proceeded to criticize both psychoanalytic theory and
philosophy.

On the one hand, he believed that linguistic
concepts could clarify and correct Freud’s picture of the mind and
so provide psychoanalysis with greater philosophical depth; on the
other hand, he maintained that applying psychoanalytic methods and
theories to linguistics would radically revise traditional
philosophical views of language and reason.

However, he never clarified which
lacking—and in need of revision by the other— discipline was to be
corrected first by the other, also lacking—and in need of
revision—discipline. In fact, his assumption is soon reduced to an
irrational circle of impossibility.

Destructivism, indeed.

Feminist Philosophy

The rise of feminist philosophy also
challenges the basic principles of traditional Western philosophy,
in an attempt to investigate how such philosophical inquiry would
have been different had it been conducted by women instead of men;
if traditional Western philosophy had incorporated women’s
experiences as well as their viewpoints.

In interpreting the history of Western
philosophy, and in trying to shed its conclusions of perceived male
bias, the feminists study texts by male philosophers specifically
for their depiction of women, for masculine values, and male
bias.

Feminist philosophers—apparently convinced
that truth might be gender-based—also stress women’s experiences of
subjectivity, their relationship to their bodies, and feminist
concepts of language, knowledge, and nature.

They also explore connections between
feminism in philosophy and other emerging feminist disciplines,
such as feminist legal theory, feminist theology, and ecological
feminism.

Central to feminist philosophy is the actual
or perceived oppression of women who lived or live in patriarchal
(male-controlled) societies. In fact, much of the work of feminist
philosophers has gone into not understanding a transcendent (and
gender-neutral) truth but to survey and understand patriarchy and
to developing alternatives to it.

Whereas it is true that patriarchal
societies have (perhaps not as a rule, but nonetheless often)
suppressed the rights and views of women, I do not believe that
this phenomenon, if that’s the right word, is the purview of
philosophy (the love of truth) but belongs in the field of social
and cultural science.

Environmental Philosophy

Another branch of philosophy that perhaps
would be better served by a natural science approach, is what’s
been termed environmental philosophy. This school concerns itself
with issues that arise when human beings interact with the
environment—as if they were different from the environment.

Some of the questions asked by environmental
philosophy are whether or not a fundamental transformation of
society is necessary for the survival of living organisms and the
environment? And how is the exploitation of nature related to the
subjugation of women and other oppressed humans?

Also, how can the philosophical study of the
environment guide and inspire effective environmental activism?

Thus, the environmental philosopher seeks to
apply philosophical methods and ideas in collaboration with
academics and activists working in the environmental sciences,
theology, and feminism. Again, I ask myself if this branch of study
rightly belongs in the field of philosophy, and if it would not be
better served by the natural sciences.

That said, the most prominent advocates of
environmental philosophy are Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess and
American naturalist, conservationist, and philosopher Aldo
Leopold.

Naess founded the
deep-ecology
movement in
the 1970s. This movement distinguishes between shallow
ecology—which views nature in terms of its value to human
beings—and deep ecology, which values nature as a whole,
independently of its usefulness to humanity.

Leopold—rightly, in my view—called for the
extension of ethical concern to include all life on Earth, not just
human life.

My point, though, is that this school
assumes a contentious relationship between humans and the rest of
life. We are not different from, but part of nature. It is not a
matter of us and them. We are all in the same boat, so to
speak.

The goal of philosophy is the attainment of
ultimate truth—this has been its goal since the inception of the
discipline, a goal shared by science and religion. As the number of
humans proliferated through time, so, it seems, proliferated the
branches of philosophy into a network of almost untraceable
complexity.

Of course we need to consider all aspects
life, but the breaking down philosophy into micro-philosophies not
for the sake of ultimate truth but rather to solve some societal or
natural problem, this, to me, is taking the discipline in a wrong,
and ever more complex, direction.

All great truths are basically simple. We
need to head back for this simplicity.

Contemporary Political Philosophy

Another branch of philosophy that I would
probably deem micro, is its political branch. As a discipline this
does date back to Plato and Aristotle who often contemplated and
discussed the nature of the ideal government and the ideal
society.

Political philosophy (lost through the
middle ages) resurrected with its theories on individual liberty
and political institutions put forth by Hobbes, Mill, and
Rousseau.

Today, political philosophy features a
dialogue between defenders of the liberal position and defenders of
the communitarian position.

The liberal position places the highest
value on individual liberties; whereas the communitarians argue
that extreme individual freedom undermines shared community
values.

According to liberalism the chief benefits
of government and society are personal and political freedoms, such
as freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of
conscience (belief). Many liberal theorists view the freedom to
make moral choices as the most important freedom we have and argue
that political and social systems should be organized to allow
individuals the freedom to pursue their own ideas about
happiness.

Communitarians respond that granting
individuals too much freedom of choice ultimately limits human
experience by undermining shared communal values, claiming that by
ignoring the importance of community, liberalism disregards
humanity’s social nature.

Applied Ethics

Although most contemporary philosophy is (far
too) highly technical and therefore more or less inaccessible to
non-specialists, some contemporary philosophers do concern
themselves with practical questions and strive to give a helping
hand to current culture.

Whereas, as I’ve mentioned above, I believe
philosophy may not be the best discipline for these efforts, many
practitioners of feminist philosophy, environmental philosophy, and
areas of contemporary political philosophy seek to use the tools of
philosophy to resolve current issues directly related to peoples’
lives.

And nowhere, it seems, have philosophers
embraced practical relevance more than in the field we now call
contemporary applied ethics. First gaining traction in the 1960s,
this discipline addresses the general (and universal) theme of “How
should we live and die?”—a question quite familiar to the ancient
Greeks as well.

However, this general and universal school
soon—as seems to be a requirement these days—divided into separate
areas of specialization, such as biomedical ethics and business
ethics.

Biomedical ethics deals with questions
arising from the life sciences and human health care, and is in
turn divided into two subspecialties: bioethics and medical
ethics.

Bioethicists study the ethical implications
of advances in genetics and biotechnology, such as genetic testing,
genetic privacy, cloning, and new reproductive technologies.

Much of the work in medical ethics directly
affects the everyday practice of medicine, and most nursing
students and medical students now take courses in this field.

Business ethicists apply ethical theories
and techniques to moral issues arising in business. What
responsibilities, if any, do corporations have to their employees,
their customers, their shareholders, and the environment?

These days, most students in business also
take courses in business ethics, and many large corporations
regularly consult with specialists in the field.

Business ethics also addresses larger
topics, such as the ethics of globalization and the moral
justification of various economic systems, such as capitalism and
socialism.

Micro Philosophies

As we travel philosophy’s path up the
centuries perhaps the most striking observation is how diversified
this once single and august subject has now become.

Initially, philosophy embraced science as
well, but this discipline soon took off on its own adventure. At
the outset, philosophy, to a large extent, also involved religious
questions, but these, especially in the West and with the advent of
Christianity, were soon subordinated to the practice of religion
(which, jealously, defended this domain for hundreds of years to
follow—and, of course, in many cases still does).

Entering upon the
21
^st
century, what was once a single search for and pursuit of
truth has become a near jungle of offshoots and sub branches, all
too specialized for any normal main-in-the-street person to follow
and understand.