Charles Mill begins his book explaining the overall difference between white and black philosophy. As a whole, I really like both his ideas and his writing style. Perhaps my favorite party of the first chapter was his mentioning of Ralph Ellison. I have never read Invisible Man. I think it got taken off my senior year reading list the year before I was a senior. Bummer. However, Mill has really inspired me to read the book…if I find time, of course.
Anyways, the part in this chapter that stuck out to me was the part where Mill asserts that those who are those who are “most solidly attached to the world have the luxury of doubting its reality, whereas those whose attachment is more precarious, are those compelled to recognize that it exists.” I think this is an absolutely fantastic statement. Philosophers, students, teachers, etc., forget how lucky they (we) are to be able to remove themselves from the world and philosophize about whatever they desire. I never really thought of questioning one’s existence as being a luxury…in fact, I kind of saw it as a burden. Personally, I think the point of white philosophy, if I can use that phrase so boldly, is to hypothetically question the ways in which reality works and how humans interact within it.That’s an incredibly vague and generic answer, but oh well. Anyways, I think it’s only possible for a select group of humanity to be able to question the world in this way. If the world does not oppress you, if it does not come down upon you so hard that it might as well be physically harming you, then you sure as hell can question whether or not it even exists. This is because you do not feel the weight of the world every day. If you can provide food for yourself then you do not feel the pain of hunger. If you have a happy family then you do not feel the pain of abuse and neglect. If you are financially secure then you do not feel the pain of not knowing how you’ll make it. Of course, whites technically created the modern world, so they're much freer to work within it and define it the way in which they please.
I don’t really know where this is going, but I guess there’s somewhat of pretentiousness in white philosophy. Mill mentions that black philosophy is purely political because their philosophy is their relation to a world that is against them. So what’s the point of white philosophy? To show off the ability to talk about abstract concepts? I’m sure a lot of people can agree, but I often get frustrated with philosophy. I don’t yet fully understand the point of just talking about abstract ideas that seem to have little relevancy in our lives. However, I see a point to black philosophy; it’s more tangible, there’s perhaps more of a means to an end.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBlack philosophy is said to develop in response to white philosophy. All white philosophy from the beginning was about the significance of white supremacy, and black philosophy developed in turn of this so they African Americans find something of their own to top whites. Black philosophy has meaning because it is striving to find the significance of their people so they can eventually equalize and take hold of their own power which whites stole from them in the beginning. I think white philosophy is about keeping hold of white supremacy.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Mae, black philosophy developed out of response to white philosophy. I have actually read Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison and I think that his idea of the sum in his book is relevant in the case of the narrator. It is interesting to me that black philosophers are studied as much, even in our class, we have a few "well-known" black philosophers, but not many.
ReplyDeleteIt is an interesting statement that those who are oppressed do not possess the option of veiwing the world as unreal while those who are privileged have the ability to sit back and view the world and its abstract qualities. It is an interesting way to think of philosophy, but it is true that a different social situation would allow you to view the world in a different way. I feel that philosophy is vluable in that it ties into psychology, anthropology and other disciplines that also tend to explore the interactions and relationships between people and the social ramifications of actions etc.
ReplyDeleteTo address the question, or suggestion, that while philosophy is pointless, I've got to bring up that white philosophy, I believe, is as important as black philosophy. What is important is to recognize white from black philosophy. Both introduce philosophy from their particular worldly contexts. One without the other would paint an incomplete view of our world. It would be, going back to the 'women's philosophy' that we talked about in class, saying that male philosophy was not important, only female philosophy because they are the exceptions and the oppressed. Female philosophy brings us care ethics, but its important to consider utilitarianism just as much, and one without the other would be inadequate.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBlack, as well as feminist, womanist, queer, and other modern/postmodern critiques of knowledge have all provided us with valuable insight and change within philosophy. These critiques rupture the mode of thinking in more than just traditional philosophy, as "white thought" historically has dominated every discipline as the only mode of thinking. With new perspectives we become aware of both different ways of thinking, or of the fact that maybe there are even more alternates to our thought process not yet brought forth. I see the introduction of new forms of thinking via multiple perspectives as a way to extend our knowledge to new levels. That being said, every piece matters, including the pervious white thought.
ReplyDeleteI see the introduction of black and other critiques of knowledge as an opportunity for us to view the world more comprehensively; however, this model may still require white thought to be the thesis if knowledge is viewed as shaped via Hegel's Dialectic. The problematic aspect of this for me is that even if I recognize and practice awareness of antithetical, alternate ways of thinking, my whiteness still holds a majority stronghold within my synthesis of knowledge. How far can these critiques take me? I am not saying they are bad by any means, but I am exposing the potential for a romantic, over-zealous view of our progression with knowledge given the influence of these fairly recent critiques.
That being said, as our pursuit for knowledge persists, I am reminded that knowledge never ends, and I also question whether knowledge is the greatest point of focus. "Knowledge as power" is itself a white, cartesian value. Might we shift our desires and strive to "understand" rather than to "know?" This requires us to dispatch the idea of "truth," and although we discuss in class how at least some form of truth is necessary to function, a departure from the model of knowledge as the "supreme dream" would at least as us to shy away from Truth (with a capital "T"), thus recognizing that there is always the possibility of an alternate way of being/thinking. If this is the case, neither truth is wrong, instead truth is subjective and applicable to a specific case.
Ha....my bad if I made it seem like white philosophy is "pointless." I just don't think there's an obvious answer as to what the "goal" of white philosophy is.
ReplyDelete