When I was being interviewed, Teacher Sun asked me how, after reading so much philosophy of science, I still hadn’t fixed a direction. I hemmed and hawed, dodged and bobbed, and in the end only said that I was interested in the whole field of meta-science, and that I would settle on a specific direction slowly.
Was I really completely without a goal? No. Of the main direction I have in mind so far, or rather, of my academic ideal, of course I have one! I just didn’t dare say it during the interview. I only mentioned, “I’ve already made those grand claims in my personal statement,” and Wu-laoshi said some teachers hadn’t read it and asked me to say it again. But in that setting, I still didn’t dare make grand claims, so I started from the second section of my personal statement, the one about ideals, and talked about environmental ethics. And the first section I skipped over had in fact already laid bare my ambitions or ideals long ago.
“My research ideal, broadly speaking, is to try to restate scientific pluralism starting from the classical tradition. I hope to find a way out between the two extremes of scientism or absolutism on one side and relativism or postmodernism on the other. This stance is not merely a compromise or a balance, but a way of moving forward. And in the history of philosophy, whenever one seeks to transcend something, one must first step back, reestablish the tradition, and then search for the thread of history; history will reveal to us our own position and the direction of the road. As for me personally, I am trying to begin with Kant. …”
From the standpoint of academic positioning, this passage is the key of keys; many of the things that follow are just various side interests. Of course I also hope to deepen my studies in those areas and produce some worthwhile work. Even in terms of timing, I may first probe fields such as environmental ethics, philosophy of science and society, and history of science, as foreshadowing before the main act, just as Kant did all those miscellaneous pieces of work before the Critique of Pure Reason. As for the truly crucial work, it is by no means something I could break through during graduate school. Kant spent a full twelve years honing himself for the Critique of Pure Reason, but the time available for focused research in graduate school is, at most, only three to five years. So I have never expected to begin realizing my academic ideal during graduate school; the main act will have to wait until I become a professor and have a firm footing in academia before it can be staged. Therefore, I do not want to reveal my ambitions too much to the teachers, because if I say I have such-and-such ideals, they may tailor their teaching to the individual and let me work on these topics during graduate school. But in graduate school I may not necessarily work on my true topic; at most, I will do some tangential work.
During graduate school, I may do some research in any field that interests me; on the one hand, to lay the groundwork for my future main act, and on the other hand, to prove my capabilities and enter academia. As for my true ambition or ideal, that is still far off.
What does “restate scientific pluralism starting from the classical tradition” mean? Simply put, as I also briefly mentioned in the interview, it means opening up a new path for philosophy of science. This is similar to Wu-laoshi’s ambition of a “phenomenology-hermeneutics philosophy of science.” I do not know how Wu-laoshi’s work in this area is progressing, nor am I certain whether I will follow in his footsteps. What is obvious, however, is that I hope to find my own path.
As for my relationship with the scientific intelligentsia? Of course I long to join their discussions. Yet academically, I will certainly maintain my independence; rather than saying that I am influenced by them, it is more accurate to say that I am trying to influence them. Think of Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle… Don’t misunderstand—I do not mean to emulate Wittgenstein, and the scientific intelligentsia are nowhere near the Vienna Circle. I am only using a comparison, just a comparison…
September 29, 2007
Latest Comments
- Suíyuán
2007-09-30 10:43:25 Anonymous 124.17.16.94
It feels as though the little junior brother’s habitual way of thinking, overall, is too diffuse and not yet sufficiently focused; perhaps this is the key area that should be strengthened. The more densely the light of wisdom gathers, the more wisdom there is without being used, the thicker it becomes when hidden away. Once the right moment arrives, if it can be directed onto a certain breakthrough point, perhaps it will then achieve the effects of penetrating clarity, overwhelming force, and a mind-awakening infusion of nectar.
Starting from Kant feels like a pretty good focusing strategy, so I’d suggest that when you have time, little junior brother, you should really dig into Kant’s three Critiques. But be sure to read the English edition, and also consult some important research literature; otherwise you’ll only end up memorizing a heap of terms as catchphrases, which is no different from failing to focus at all.
This brick may not necessarily have hit the mark, so take it only as a reference. Happy holiday! Enjoy the National Day break! - Gǔhū
2007-09-30 10:56:41
Thanks~
Happy National Day~
I’ll try to work through the three Critiques in German, but that can wait a bit~
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply