November 20, 2001
Dear Dr. Swartz,
I have just read your thoughtful article in a moment when I also
have been reconsidering my choice to study philosophy for many of
the very reasons you cited. I am a first-year doctoral student
in a department that is probably "kinder and gentler" than most.
Nevertheless, every day in philosophy feels like "Judgment Day"!
There is tremendous pressure always to be clear, precise –
to think through every statement before committing it to air,
lest someone point out the vagueness or, worse, an inaccuracy in
the assertion. This is not in itself a bad thing – we
should all strive for clarity and accuracy – but what makes
it bad is the antagonism that underlies it. As you point out, it
seems philosophers actually delight in discovering weaknesses in
others.
And what I want, more than anything, is to participate in a civil
conversation. Indeed, I want to feel free to expose the problems
and uncertainties in my thinking to colleagues who, rather than
judge me, will seek to edify me – to seek "truth" with me
– and, of course, I'd do the same for them. I aim to be
"right" not to prove someone else wrong but for our mutual
benefit.
I was grateful for the example of Carl Hempel – and for the
example you yourself set by writing the article. There are so
many reasons why I love philosophy, and what you have reminded me
is that the prevalence of colleagues lacking social graces is not
reason enough to abandon it – for kindred spirits can be
found in the discipline, all appearances to the contrary
notwithstanding. I will take heart and seek out those kindly
souls; but most important, I will remember just how important it
is to be one and to work toward building a more cooperative,
collegial spirit in the discipline.
Thanks for bringing me (and I'm sure many others) much needed
inspiration!
Warm regards,
Jane C. Doe
(at a US midwestern university)
[name withheld at writer's request]
|