Networks of Ideas

        Recently I have been thinking about the nature of ideas. What generates an idea. I watched a talk about what starts an idea. The speaker spoke about the myths of the Eureka moment, how we have a rhetoric that is lurid and rich in metaphors to describe ideas that come in a sudden moment. Yet, he says that reality often defies this description. Ideas come from networks. He uses the historical example of English Coffee houses in the eighteenth century as evidence of this. That stimulation through new drinks and the juxtaposition of ideas made for a fertile environment in which ideas jostled and fused with each other. THe marriage of various divergant ideas was made possible by the environment that allowed people to discuss, debate, in an area that was not bound within one area. Everyone at this time was a polymath and this plurality of disciplines created a climate where ideas could interact in new and dynamic ways. I would argue that we have lost a lot of this interconnectivity. C.P Snow in his lectures on the two cultures showed how we had divided knowledge up, so that there are two worlds: the world of science and the world of the arts. This still exists and the two bodies are impoverished as a result of this. Because they have no area in which they can interact they do not. Yet, there is much that can be learnt from each other, in fact the differant ways of viewing the world enriches and refines ideas. The scientific background can expose flaws in the historians arguement and the historian can point out conceptual flaws in the others. The reality is that every discipiline draws upon each other for ideas and methodology. Yet, we seem to be making this more difficult. The fetishisation of science and technology, and utilitarian subjects that have a pragmatic benefit has meant that we focus on them to the detriment of other subjects. The arts are seen as self-indulgance, and capable of offering little to humanity. So it they divide and carve up knowledge into these two worlds rather then trying to harmonise them. C.P Snow called for the two cultures or worlds to be unified. I think a discipline that shows this is the history of science, in theory this is an arena that would encourage such meeting of science and art. Yet, scientists seem to have little interest in their own history, and if they do they only want a narrative of progress and development, whereas the historian wants a more nuanced and accurate picture of the past that exposes the flaws as well as the successes.
        I think that part of the problem is that the structure of our education system divides rather then unites. From the age of 16 we are already started to be focused, the blinkers are on, and the boundaries of what we are to spend our timr studying focused. We look at three areas only, at a time when we should be experiencing academic freedom, being exposed to a giant melting pot of ideas, that liberate us, that allow us to discover and refine our interests. I was fortunate enough to mix arts and science, but had I not I would have limited my view of the world and my options for the future. We may havea depth of study, but we also need a breadth in order for balance. Indeed this questions the very nature of study, why is it that we educate? What is the purpose of university? Is it to provide training for jobs, if so then why is the university needed, surely we could just have on-job training, apprenticships as they did back in the victorian age. An education should prepare us for the future. It should give us the skills that will help us throughout our life. The reality is that our system is failing us, people go to university to get a degree not to become educated. The subject is irrelevant as many go on to jobs far removed from their subject, we need a system that encourages exposure to many differant worlds. If we want to have fresh creative thinkers that generate new ideas, then we need an environment that brings together the best minds in such a way that they can make a mixing pot of ideas. This comes only when people from differant disciplines are mixed. When sitting in a seminar a economic students insight into the development of the English Civil War could provide a viewpoint historians have missed. Likewise when considering an economic policy the historian, or english student able to think in abstract ideas can see the way in which the policy would fail if applied as they imagine the reality of it. This is just a few ways, the reality is that it is more dynamic and harder to quanitify then abstract or theoretical interactions. It will cause each area to focus on the ability to communicate their knowledge, knowing that non-specialists may be there will cause them to express their ideas in forms that enable all to comprehend them. It is true wisdom to be able to express a complex idea in such a way that anyone can understand them, this will force us to become better teachers and better listeners.
        It is interesting that even if someone specialises and goes into academic research and teaching they never use but a tiny fraction of the knowledge that they gain at university. If people who make full use of their degree do not use it all, then why do we bother going to such a depth? I am not argueing that we should not have depth, but that depth should be linked to the big picture, and limited, students should if they desire look into depth the area they are majoring in, but they should be able to connect this to the big picture, the general body of knowledge, so that they can orientate what they learn to the great resevoir of knowledge that mankind is creating. This will help us to keep ourselves and our knowledge in perspective. We may be anchored to the bed of the existing knowledge as we search the remaining depths of discovery.
        I think a fundamental part of unifying the disparaged units of learning is to reestablish philosophy. Philosophy is the core of all knowledge it is what provides the conceptual framework from which we study. It is the philosophy of science that evaluates the methodology of science, what constitutes what science is, and also the implications of science. The philosophy of science would be impossible without an evaluation and knowledge of general epistemological issues, or an understanding the problems of knowledge, and the claims of knowledge. But it is not the philosophy of science that is relevant but the philosophy of any discipline. Philosophy encouragesa self awareness and reflection on the state of a discipline, the problems that it faces, and the flaws that are inherant in it. For the most part we ignore the contradictions and flaws of our discipline, yet an awareness of the issues we face allows us to avoid falling into them and to analyise how we can rectify and solve them.
        Further it is a liberal art. This means that it liberates the individual. It opens up ways of thinking, it allows one to discuss, to understand the nature of arguement, the ability to compare ideas, to think critically, and to research and evaluate the claims, it involves the abilty to cope with contradiction, unsurety. The world of the past is riddled with uncertainity, and philosophy never is able to objectvely prove anything, it helps to develop negative capabilty. The ability to live in a world that is plagued with chaos and uncertainty without having to invent satisfying falsehoods, and illusions of certainty to mask the contradictions and uncertainty. It is this state that helps to create genius. We all lie to ourselves in order to preserve the unity of the world, for our world is one in which we like certainty and consistency when confronted with something that contradicts our world-view we just dismiss or alter what we see, we lie to ourselves in order to preserve the world we live in, how much better would it be if we learned to live in contradiction to know that we are not consistent all the time, and that it doesn’t all fit perfectly together, but thats alright. The liberal arts enable us to do this, to have a multuplicity of view points at the same time, and be able to know that they can coexist without only one being the only one that can or is the true or correct view or opinion.
        Philosophy helps to develop the intellect. To borrow a tired metaphor to broaden ones horizons, and enlarge the ability of the mind to think in new and creative ways. I love this quote:

The study of philosophy serves to develop intellectual abilities important for life as a whole, beyond the knowledge and skills required for any particular profession. Properly pursued, it enhances analytical, critical and interpretive capacities that are applicable to any subject-matter, and in any human context. It cultivates the capacities and appetite for self-expression and reflection, for exchange and debate of ideas, for life-long learning, and for dealing with problems for which there are no easy answers. It also helps to prepare one for the tasks of citizenship. Participation in political and community affairs today is all too often insufficiently informed, manipulable and vulnerable to demagoguery. A good philosophical education enhances the capacity to participate responsibly and intelligently in public life.

(Philosophy Major (1992)) At some point I would love to dissect this quote to fully elucidate on the many principles that it contains. It has given me greater reason as to why philosophy is both relevant and important. It gives tools that allow one to learn faster then specialised practical skills from a degree in a superficially more practical subject. The fact is that it is intellectually demanding and academically difficult, means that it refines the mind and the ability to think and digest information. To engage with the world, philosophy leads to action and we need to awaken people from their slumber.

“The great virtue of philosophy is that it teaches not what to think, but how to think. It is the study of meaning, of the principles underlying conduct, thought and knowledge. The skills it hones are the ability to analyse, to question orthodoxies and to express things clearly. “ Agust 15 1998 The times
I think that ultimately we need a liberal education. One that does not restrict and confine us but opens up the options for us. Philosophy should be taught in every school. One of the problems that we face is that our university system has no clear concept of its purpose. Is it a professional training facility or an educational facility. I think the diabolical state of our graduate schools further highlights this. To go on to graduate study which I feel is when one should specialise is not possible.
An interesting article on this appeared in the New York Times called "To Beat the Market, Hire a Philosopher” It basically told the story of Bill Miller and how he applied philosophical thought experiments to the financial market in order to help develop a a billion pound company. He used his philosophical training to enable him to connect dots that woudl have escaped him had he not refined his ability to think comparatively and link ideas together in novel and interesting ways.
Further in a world saturated with information and messages the ability to judge between them is more important then ever. This involves the ability to understand a text, and then compare it and critically engage with it, something that philosophy encourages and helps to refine the skill. In a world of so many websites and claims to knowledge it is vital that we give our children a philosophical background to prevent them from being deceived or brainwashed by the media, by politicians, by anything that purports to be knowledge or a claim. This is a vital skill that in a world full of information our children need to be able to orientate themselves in the vast seas of knowledge and information.