Philosophy education goes down the drain at Middlesex University

In the money-frenzied and celebrity-gossip-hungry world of modern media, it is not surprising that the decision by Middlesex University in the UK to close its philosophy department did not make the headlines.

 

It would have passed unnoticed had it not provoked a three-week sit-in by a small group of students terminated by a court injunction.  It has also stimulated opposition among international academics, although admittedly mainly in the area of philosophy, but it has not yet reached a level of general debate.  The politicians and policy-makers have not seized upon it as the issue of the day because the electorate does not yet feel it’s important enough in the midst of the economic turmoil.

 

As The Times reported it, the closure of the philosophy department is on account of student numbers being “unsustainably low”.  Apparently, the department has failed to “develop any strengths in continuing professional development or consultancy”.  In other words, The Times concludes, “it costs too much and doesn’t do anything practical”.

 

At a very basic level, Middlesex University’s decision highlights a flaw in the approach to the allocation of resources to tertiary education funding based on how much courses cost to run.  It is also symptomatic of the heavily utilitarian and vocational bent of tertiary education in recent years.  Above all, it exposes a trenchant lack of respect for culture and humanities at universities in the 21^st century.

 

Perhaps I shouldn’t generalize.  Middlesex University was, apparently, born a polytechnic.  It should be forgiven for taking an above average utilitarian approach.  Tariq Ali says that “a university that closes down subjects like philosophy should lose its status as a university and be returned to a polytechnic”.  The UK also has a fine tradition of excellence in the humanities, a la Oxford and Cambridge.

 

Nevertheless, it is easy to imagine that in an environment of fierce competition for dwindling job opportunities, students tend to neglect subjects which are not seen to be directly related to a ready career post graduation.  The more fundamental question is: is it true that graduates in humanities are less professionally competent?  They certainly can be more professionally disadvantaged, but only if we decide that they should be so.  We must change our way of thinking.

 

Let’s confine the discussion here to the study of philosophy rather than the humanities in general.  Having been, nay still being, a student of philosophy, I have direct experience.  To my mind, the study of philosophy has a number of characteristics:

 

-        it sharpens critical thinking

 

The study of philosophy emphasises discourse and the examination of premises.  As in the study of law, philosophy teaches the construction and defence of arguments; but unlike law, it uses values and humanity rather than practical considerations as rules of engagement.  Above all, students of philosophy are taught to take nothing for granted and to challenge assumptions.

 

-        it breeds curiosity and freedom

 

Philosophy is man’s quest for truth.  Its importance lies not in the observation of phenomena, as in science, but in pursuing the underlying reasons.  The need for curiosity to challenge the status quo, to stress test reasonable assumptions and to persist stubbornly in charting new territories leads to real freedom, of the intellectual kind.

 

-        it reinforces values

 

Philosophical discourse enables man to delineate good from bad, right from wrong, and reasonable from unreasonable.  It develops a framework of values for human interaction as well as social order.

 

-        it demands clarity and consistency

 

Human discourse relies on language, which is often a blunt tool for the purpose.  The study of philosophy helps promote precision in the use of language, and reduce inconsistency or muddiness.  If we accept certain assumptions to be correct – or if we define them to be so – philosophical investigations will compel us to accept certain other related assumptions to be correct as well.

 

-        it enhances humility and tolerance

 

One of the first things we discover in studying philosophy is that the more we know, the more we know we don’t know.  Getting an answer to one question often opens up many other questions, to which there may or may not be answers.  Further, it makes us appreciate the vastness of human intelligence, and the validity of opposing points of view.  Although philosophers are no less opinionated than others, they tend to be more respectful and accepting of dissent.

 

All of the above characteristics of studying philosophy point to its value in building character, in shaping a tolerant society, and in enabling better decision making.  We should persuade more people to engage in philosophical discourse, and not to dismiss it as an activity irrelevant to the practicalities of life.  In doing so, we may equip them better to reject pursuit of unbridled materialism as progress and achievement, temper extremist views that defy reason – and the use of violence to defend them – and develop innovative solutions to cope with rapid changes in technology that wreak havoc with the comfort of relative certainty.

 

The notion that studying philosophy is of no practical value in life is pure hogwash.  For the benefit of future generations, whether they decide to specialise in science, commerce or the arts, we have the responsibility to encourage the study of philosophy as a means to ensure more ethical, tolerant and reasonable behaviour.  In fact, it should be a required foundation course.

Posted via email from alanayu's posterous

Alexander Lazarev in a hurry at the Festival Hall

By all accounts, Maestro Alexander Lazarev is a hyperactive conductor in a hurry.  According to Tennant Artists, from 1987 to 1995 he was “Chief Conductor and Artistic Director of the Bolshoi Theatre, the first person for over thirty years to hold both positions concurrently”.

 

Not only is his repertoire said to be “particularly enterprising in its scope, ranging from the eighteenth century to the avant-garde”, he is also said to be “a prolific recording artist”, having made over 35 recordings for Melodiya, in addition to many others with the Bolshoi Symphony, the BBC Symphony, London Philharmonic and the Royal Scottish National Orchestras.

 

His unbounded energy was obvious the moment he stepped, nay leapt, on to the stage at the Festival Hall in London recently, nearly tripping in the process.  Hardly had he steadied himself on the podium did he start waving his hands to the Philharmonia Orchestra to begin Tchaikovsky’s Serenade for Strings, Op. 48.  His conducting style was passionate and animated.

 

Unfortunately, it was a false start.  Although Tchaikovsky apparently worked on the Serenade at the same time as the 1812 Overture, the fact that it is called a serenade suggests that it should be treated with tenderness, intimacy and leisureliness.  Lazarev’s interpretation, on the other hand, was anything but intimate, tender and leisurely.  The opening passages were certainly too loud, and the tempo was too fast at times and the emphasis too intense.  Lazarev gave the impression that he was trying to finish the piece to move on to the next one.  Curiously, the audience started clapping at the end of the third movement, making one wonder whether they are keen to see Lazarev finish.

 

The second in the in a programme of works by Russian composers was Rachmaninov’s famous Rhapsody on a Theme by Paganini, Op. 43, with Nikolai Lugansky at the piano.  In contrast to Tchaikovsky’s Serenade, Lazarev and Lugansky got it just right in the Rhapsody.  Although it would have been easy to over-romanticise the lyricism in this work, it wasn’t so.  Lugansky tackled those passages at breakneck speed with ease, clearly demonstrating his confident virtuosity.  The fine balance and rapport between the piano and the orchestra was maintained most of the time, except brief moments in which the brass almost totally drowned the piano.  The lilting variation 18 left the audience in a trance.

 

Last on the programme was the Sixth Symphony by Dmitri Shostakovish.  In this, Lazarev totally redeemed himself.  Completed in 1939, the work consists of three movements – an unconventional slow first movement marked “largo”, a second marked “allegro” and the finale marked “presto”.  Lazarev effectively brought out the gloomy sense of foreboding in the first movement, possibly a representation of the composer’s concern about persecution by the Stalinist machinery of repression.  The light-hearted sense of mischief in second movement and the compelling rhythmic gallop in the finale were finely captured, bringing the evening to a dramatic close.

 

All in all, it was an evening well spent among Russian giants.

Posted via email from alanayu's posterous

An epitaph for the €uro

Here lies the €uro

A fine dream born of

Lofty ideals

Brought down

By the brutal reality

Of the difference

Between rich and poor

It is sometimes amazing how simple things at a personal level can become such complicated matters when raised to the national level.  Paying for things we can afford is a good example.

What has happened in Greece, at the personal level, is akin to Warren Buffet asking me to join his exclusive club to throw a lavish party.  The bill will come to millions of dollars, and we have to put up our respective share.

Mr Buffet will dip into his billions and easily pay his $1 million dollars share of the bill.  I, on the other hand, have only savings of $100,000, and have to borrow $900,000 just to leave the party.

So what do I do?  I say to Mr Buffet: “Thanks for the invitation, but I really can’t afford to be at your party.  Have a good time.  It’s been nice knowing you.”  I will go home, have a soup and some salad, go to bed early with Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being and wake up the following morning ready to tackle the world.

Greece, on the other hand, said to Chancellor Gerhard Schröder: “Thanks for the invitation Herr Schröder. We’d love to join the party.  We can’t afford it, but we’ll borrow what we need to pay our share of the bill, and worry about it long after the fun is over.”

Should we be surprised that the party turned out to be a bad dream for Greece?

In the meantime, Mr Papandreou says to Frau Merkel: “It was a lot of fun at the party, but you know we had to borrow to even be there.  Now you have to help us fend off all these loan sharks wanting their money back.  By the way, the loan sharks knew there was no way we could pay them back.”

Should we be surprised that Frau Merkel tells Mr Papandreou to go jump in the lake?

In an article carried by Project Syndicate, Professor Stiglitz at Columbia University suggests that the Eurozone might have to disband if it is not prepared to implement necessary institutional reforms.  In another article Professor Feldstein of Harvard University explains why Greece will default.

The moral of the story: PIGS have no place to be in a rich man’s party.

Posted via email from alanayu's posterous