I came to an amazing realization tonight. For a philosophical person such as I am, I can't remember EVER taking a strictly philosophy course in ANY level of schooling. The ONLY philosophy instruction I took came in the specific form of political philosophy, the emphasis area for my M.S. in Social Sciences.
Thinking back to junior and senior high school, the electives I chose were predominantly in the topics of sociology, psychology and English. In undergraduate school, most of my electives were in sociology and anthropology. Nowhere in my schooling was philosophy a mandatory course needed for graduation.
I wonder if this is universal or something peculiar to the specific schools (or area of the country) I attended. My suspicion is that it's the former.
If so, then that's really too bad. It means there are a lot of former American students out there in the world who have never been exposed to the works and ideas of Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, etc. It means there are a lot of Americans whose ideas of the world of being and knowledge is very limited.
Fortunately, I escaped this limitation of thought in graduate school. While I didn't study any of the classical philosophers and those who delve into metaphysics, I had a strong helping of the political philosophies of Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, Machiavelli, JS Mill, Feurbach, Hegel and, of course, Karl Marx (my favorite!).
Now in my early 50s, I've decided to go back and learn some of the stuff I was not exposed to previously. To this end, I've started reading "Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity" by Rebecca Goldstein. I've already discovered -- to my great interest -- that some of Spinoza's philosophy dovetails nicely with Taoism.
As I move deeper into this book, don't be surprised when I start discussing some of Spinoza's theorems. Who knows? Maybe I'll become a self-proclaimed Spinozan Taoist! :)
Thinking back to junior and senior high school, the electives I chose were predominantly in the topics of sociology, psychology and English. In undergraduate school, most of my electives were in sociology and anthropology. Nowhere in my schooling was philosophy a mandatory course needed for graduation.
I wonder if this is universal or something peculiar to the specific schools (or area of the country) I attended. My suspicion is that it's the former.
If so, then that's really too bad. It means there are a lot of former American students out there in the world who have never been exposed to the works and ideas of Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, etc. It means there are a lot of Americans whose ideas of the world of being and knowledge is very limited.
Fortunately, I escaped this limitation of thought in graduate school. While I didn't study any of the classical philosophers and those who delve into metaphysics, I had a strong helping of the political philosophies of Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, Machiavelli, JS Mill, Feurbach, Hegel and, of course, Karl Marx (my favorite!).
Now in my early 50s, I've decided to go back and learn some of the stuff I was not exposed to previously. To this end, I've started reading "Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity" by Rebecca Goldstein. I've already discovered -- to my great interest -- that some of Spinoza's philosophy dovetails nicely with Taoism.
As I move deeper into this book, don't be surprised when I start discussing some of Spinoza's theorems. Who knows? Maybe I'll become a self-proclaimed Spinozan Taoist! :)
It's a blessing that your naturally free mind was not cluttered up with these so-called philosophies which are nothing more than opinions based on social conditioning. The western education system has done enough damage to young minds. This culture of violence and death is founded upon these false philosophies. Please my friend I beg you to throw away these philosophy books that only serve to disturb the naturally clean mind. The Tao needs no human ideas to compliment it. It stands unfettered naturally.
ReplyDeleteTB,
ReplyDeleteI don't decry the fact I wasn't exposed to such thinkers at an earlier age. I probably wouldn't have been interested in them then. I'm interested today because of the path that has brought me to now.
I will disagree with you re "throwing away these philosophy books". While your supposition is certainly true on one level, I see nothing wrong with attempts to stimulate the intellect. We are intellectual creatures!
Had I never decided to engage in this exploration, I never would have become a Taoist.
The school of life teaches that from the moment thought enters the mind, all you recall is that memory. In order to transcend it, one is empowered to experience a process that takes one further from a comfort zone than ever imagined. Every energy being learns from every other. As it turns out, everyone is everything. That is, as you build confidence, you realize you have more insight into Soul self than you consciously permitted self to realize until ready.
ReplyDeleteR.T.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure it was your conventional search for information that brought you to Taoism? Or was it really your intuitive spirit that truly requires no conventional data what so ever.
R.T. - Spinoza is one of the best Western philosophers, in my humble opinion. I was lucky enough to take a graduate seminar about him once. His book Ethics is an amazing tour de force, and I agree that much of what he says dovetails nicely with Taoism. What I took away from him was this: the seeming dualism of mind and body, the sensible and the intellectual, are but two facets of the same reality. You might also like his Theologico-Political Treatise, which makes a nifty radical argument about God and his "kingship" in ancient Isreal.
ReplyDeleteLiara,
ReplyDeleteI agree that learning or consciousness is more apt to take hold when we're ready to receive it.
TB,
Both!
Cecil,
I'm going to complete the biography first, but I've already got The Ethics bookmarked in my online library folder. :) As you suggest, I may also get a hold of a copy of his Treatise.