Philosophy and Writers - the need to read
When an author decides to impart some pearls of
wisdom to the reader that wisdom never
comes from a vacuum. The author has
developed his or her ideas from a varied collection of sources much of which is
personal life experience blended and colored with the reading of other writers
particularly the philosophers past and current.
It seems that more weight is placed
on philosophers of old for their wisdom, especially in the academia, where
professors desire their students to understand not only the construction of
these renown author's writings but also what and why they wrote what they
did. Therefore, to better understand
ourselves and develop the ability to make what we feel better understood we study
the philosophy of those persons that have demonstrated meaningful insight to the human character and the skill to impart
that idea. That study requires reading.
It seems that one of
the facilities people of renown have is
to be able to expostulate a variety of ways a decision could carry into
different paths. If the author's subject of attention were to turn left instead of right or
look up instead of down at a particular moment in time, what a different world
we would all live in today. Who
of us hasn't at speculated, where would we be had we chosen differently at some particular decision point in our lives? Somewhat half-jokingly I have voiced that
Aristotle was just one the philosophers to have been born early enough to pen
more about the human condition; physically and mentally than any of us. We already know that most what he says as to
the human condition as now a matter of course to us. What a marvel of intellect for example if a
high school graduate of today was inserted
into 365 BC Greece. We must read if we wish to be considered seriously when we write about similar
topics. Not so much as to rehash what
Aristotle wrote but rather to enrichen and refresh. What kind of a take would Aristotle have had on the overlay of the technical world
on today's society? Like St. John in
Revelations Aristotle would be hard pressed even
to find the words to describe the things he would observe in today's world.
Henry David Thoreau in his book "Civil Disobedience" wondered
as people strung telegraph wires from Maine to Texas as to what in the world
would someone in Maine and Texas have to
say to each other? He alluded to the
worthlessness of the endeavor. I doubt
as intellectual and insightful as many of
the famous people we have read or read about got the right of things all the
time. As writers and philosophers these
people we seem to expect more from and are particularly let down when we think
they error in their paradigm. I've read
accounts of how Thomas Edison wondered at the value of the phonograph player
and mistakenly put so much of his reputation on direct current. Bill Gates of Microsoft didn't warm up to the
internet right off. In my life; I see little use in Twitter; with Thoreau's
reasoning; who would follow me on Twitter; who would want to? By the same token, who is there that I would
care to follow. Should we care? Do we need to know what Miley Cyrus', Rush
Limbaugh's or Michelle Obama's moment to moment hundred and ten character
thoughts are? Somehow I think not. So, what am I missing? What is there to
the millions and millions of people that are on Twitter? I wonder in my breadth thinking how I can be so narrow. I can only guess at what Thoreau might have
written about Twitter.
I disagree with much
of what Thoreau has to say in his book "Civil Disobedience." But, I
love the way he says it. He is cynical
and short-sighted but makes a grand
argument of it. As with Adam and Eve partaking of the forbidden fruit so as to learn the
difference between right and wrong, good and evil, health and sickness so must
we consume of the works of writers of note, the classics if you will, to
ascertain for ourselves how we feel about what they wrote and how we will apply
that wisdom or lack thereof in our lives.
President John Adams
told John Q. Adams, his son and future
U.S. president when he was but a boy that
he should read Cicero in its original Greek which he did. I, however, will live with whatever might be lost in the translation. Thus I will content
myself with having read the English translation. I have read Confucius' Analects (English version). I didn't take away much from it. An aspect of
it I did find remarkable is the period in which he wrote and like Edison did
with his inventions Confucius turned his writings into an enterprise by opening
schools and teaching. There is more to
him than I can fathom as Chinese dynasties rose and fell from his writings as a
philosophy to follow. At risk of short-changing Confucius further I have not
read all his works, and therefore I
cannot speculate with any degree of certainty as to what I might get from the
rest of his writings were I to wade through them.
I wonder, did Confucius, Cicero and Thoreau have
an editor? Fill a room with monkeys
hammering away on typewriters for a hundred years,
and they will produce "War and Peace" so the story goes. A fanciful notion and not completely wrong
providing someone is there to edit the material. Which as a sidebar leaves me to mention how
most authors on the first page or two of
their books credit their editors for the success of their books. Many philosophers will tell you that with the
logic I just set up that writers are no more intelligent than the monkeys typing
out "War and Peace." A fallacy
of reason made through valid inference is one path for false logic. Surprisingly some will glom onto such logic
as valid and argue with conviction that writers are indeed no wiser than
monkeys hammering on typewriters. What
segment of the population makes a lucrative living at convoluting logic in such
a manner? The U.S. government
perhaps. Probably outside the college
podium a cadre of the best writers we have to
reside inside the beltway.
The
best writers are good mechanics of language following all the conventions of
good writing by such things as not changing tense midway or intruding with
personal interjections upon the reader's consciousness, putting their periods,
commas and semicolons in all the right places; (another job of editors) and then coupling all that with an astute
understanding of human nature so as to bring their characters to life with
conflicts and problems and joys and satisfactions that parallel our own. The
closer they come to mirroring what we think to be true the better we like
it. If you would like to read a book
that breaks nearly all the conventions of good writing pick up the "Last
of the Mohicans" by James Fenimore Cooper.
It is a classic for historical
value and a darn good story allowing the reader to forgive the poor
construction.
Another aspect of
philosophy is how prolific the classical writers were. They wrote volumes about what they reasoned
to be the ways things were. Of those volumes, we glean some of what we feel to be significant dew drops of wisdom and discard the
rest. Even the discarded has value in
validating what we feel is contrary to what they said. As it turned out the
people in Maine and Texas have a lot to say
to one another and it surprises me Thoreau would not have thought so. Even still, what you find enlightening may
be bunk to me. These writers of old had incredible
mental acuity.
Gerrids, the common water bugs that stride across the water as
sparrows guide through the air otherwise known to most as Jesus bugs, and water
spiders to others don't know by their
scholastic name but by a few. I asked a
dozen people if they were familiar with the Jesus bug and most were. None knew it was a Gerridae, in the singular.
It would be a safe wager to say
when a father walking his son or daughter by the pond upon seeing the small
creature darting to and fro over the water would more likely tell them, "Look a Jesus bug," rather
than a Gerridae. I marvel when a writer carries on about every
creature, plant and the supporting environ associated with them by their textbook name and with such detail and clarity
that one would think they had done their doctoral
thesis on the topic. At the risk of
seeming ignorant; I could not get through Moby Dick. I wonder at those who profess to have read
it. The story is riveting. Gregory Peck was im-peck-able in the
movie. As a child, I loved the story and missed all the symbolism. I tried to read the book years later as an
adult and could not wade through all the hundreds of pages of whale detail;
every kind of whale, every characteristic of
every kind of whale and the personalities of every kind of whale. Did Melville miss any whale? I wouldn't know had I finished the book. I can name maybe three different whales. That an author
of a classic wrote in that fashion is even more astonishing when you realize
that he or she wrote from memory and limited resources having only to draw from
their schooling and limited access to
books to draw upon for reference.
Thoreau was a Harvard graduate.
Is it a testament to that school that he wrote so well? Perhaps, I think so. Cotton Mather wouldn't have thought so because he thought Harvard was low class.
Maybe it was back in his period of
the late 1600's. Reverend Mather
convinced a wealthy Boston merchant by
the name of Yale to start another college to contrast Harvard.
Where does this take us? Writers read, thinkers read, leaders read,
philosophers read, and then they write
out what they think. It doesn't matter
if what they think is to entertain us, convince us, enlighten us or they simply
don't care and write as an expression of their need to vent. In that case, they might only bore us.
We need to read as much as we can and ponder the intelligence conveyed
so that we may foment the structure of our personalities to good effect.
