PHILOSOPHY
In the fall of 1965, I was sitting in an
Introduction to Philosophy class at North Texas State University (Univ. of North Texas) in Denton Texas. The only thing unusual about that was there was only one philosophy course offered; the one I was in. And it was
not offered every term, or even every year. It was deemed "too
dangerous" by the administration.
Remember, this is 1965. Hair was getting longer,
clothing styles were radically changing, there were PEACEFUL demonstrations
against police brutality and the war in Viet Nam. To fill young minds with philosophy might incite them to further unrest.
The first day of class, the professor asked us to
think deeply about the one question we would like to see answered during
the course. We were to write that down and hand it in at the next class. The
professor promised to address all of those questions during the semester.
After giving it some thought, I came up with what
may have been my very first existential question: What is the extent of
individual human knowledge? Is it limited by the physical capacity of the
brain? Or is it limited by the desire to know more?
Sprinkled throughout the course, there were
references to this question. Unfortunately, I no longer remember what those were.
At the end of the semester, we were told the final
exam would be comprehensive; covering the entire semester. We were also told
that if we had paid attention during the semester, we would do well on the
final exam.
As we settled in to our desks on exam day, the
professor began handing out the tests. There were groans all over the class;
murmurs and gasps. One person simply stood up and walked out. When I was handed
my exam, there written in my own hand was my original question! After a moment
of panic, I was grateful I had not written what most of the class had: Prove
the existence of God!
I passed the class, although I do not remember the
grade or how I answered that question.
Now, some 50+ years later, I still don't have the
answer to that question. However, I have a greater understanding of it. I am
retired - mostly - and that means I have some time on my hands; I am the
"captain of my day." I can now pursue knowledge at my leisure. I
could delve into quantum physics. I could brush up on my algebra. I could read
Shakespeare. I could learn to fold origami.
Instead,
I took some courses on making sushi, home electrician, welding, pasta making,
basic dry wall. That's because those things interested me more; they were more
practical. OK, they were more fun. What I learned when I was younger was mostly
tied to the pursuit of a career or at least to pay the mortgage. Now that I
have grown older, and more forgetful, what I attempt to learn is either
practical or enjoyable. I no longer care that the Side Angle Side postulate states that if two sides and the included angle of one triangle are congruent to two sides and the included angle of another triangle, then these two triangles are congruent. I
care more about tying a new fly to trick trout or building a new fly rod.
All of which goes to say that I still
do not have the answer to my original question. More importantly, it is almost
time for my afternoon nap!
May God bless you with health and
prosperity.
Comments
Post a Comment