An Ancient Slander

It is, of course an ancient slander----as old, at least, as Thales---to say that philosophers are impractical.  In my sister's case, she would like to use this slander to censor me.

However, her attempt at slander is unsurprising and unoriginal.  (Moreover, given the ancient history of this canard, it would come easy to any Greek; so it's hardly clever.)

The truth, however, is more complicated.

Some philosophers (Philosophy Ph.D.s, Philosophy Professors) are practical; some are not.  Some enjoy fixing things.  Some have studied physics and engineering.  Others are more oriented toward the arts.

I am unaware of any evidence that Philosophy Professors or Philosophy Ph.D.s are, on average, less able to cope with the practicalities of daily living than any other profession.

Nonetheless, I freely confess that I wish to have no part of the stereotypical middle class USA suburban lifestyle.  I object to it on cultural, aesthetic, and environmental grounds.  Cars involve a multitude of evils---most prominently they contribute to global warming.  Less prominently, they contribute to a particularly noxious form of individualism, and they operate as a sort of tax on the middle class and poor.  (As I have written before, I regard driving as unpaid work.  How clever of employers to shift the cost of the daily commute onto workers!)

Indeed, never having lived in a place where air conditioning was standard, the thing is largely a mystery to me.  But, I am capable of learning something new.

At any rate, to the extent it is true to say (true but not very accurate or precise) that I am impractical
because I haven't lived a certain life-style---viz., the lifestyle of a citizen of the USA with excessive reliance on technology, and a kind of mindless fascination and dedication to the newest or latest whatever-----I am not especially skilled in negotiating in that social space.

The funny thing is that my unfamiliarity with the USA-style technology-infested style of living should, in fact, count against my candidacy as the sole care-giver for my parents.

Otherwise put, my sisters erred when they decided (without consulting me) to appoint me the care-giver for my elderly parents.

And, so, now, when I hear the complaint that I am not "practical", there is great irony in that.  Once again, it is another route to the conclusion that their decision about my life was
a bad one.  The complaint actually is a sort of confession of error----or, would be if the complainer were a bit more honest.

Of course, I don't think I am impractical. I can perfectly well deal with the practicalities of life in Europe.  And, I would prefer to deal with those practicalities than the impositions of the USA-lifestyle. But my sisters certainly don't want to hear me say that, and probably wouldn't understand it in any case.  (As limited as my conversations with them have been, I have learned that they find it difficult to imagine that any way of life other than their own is legitimate.  They are quick to make a sort of tacit inference:  different, ergo inferior.)  The notion that I dare to choose a life different from their own (not to mention my negative evaluation of the USA) is repugnant to them.

After-Thoughts/Note  (corrected 8 August 2012)

Where did I get the idea that people from the USA have a peculiar and dysfunctional attitude toward technology?  I think I first noticed this when working in a USA-based International School in Bratislava.  I was very surprised by the opinions of the teachers from the USA.  They were strongly of the opinion that it was necessary to have the very latest technology. They never quite explained to me the basis of their opinion.  But, my experience as a teacher has led me to think that learning to read and write and think has very little to do with technology.  It certainly does not require the latest technology.  And, I've seen no evidence that schools with better  (or newer) technology have, on account of it, more literate or thoughtful students.

More recently, I have heard similar sentiments expressed in the contexts of discussions about the local schools.  I haven't heard it said very often that when Company X gives a school "free" computers, Company X is thereby only looking out for its own interests.

It is also worth pointing out that on account of the existing wealth inequality and the fact of its increasing, people (especially in the USA)  are more-and-more status conscious.  Parents concerned about the well-being of their children can naturally worry about whether a school has the "latest".
If so, they are misguided insofar as the don't ask about more basic educational issues.

I want to add that the sociologist Michael Dawson has remarked at his blog ("The Consumer Trap") that people in the USA are especially sensitive to status and attempt to achieve some kind of satisfaction through the display of status-markers.  As I recall, he seemed to think that this is due to the loneliness of USA society, the prominence of social isolation.  (Contrast the inevitable mixing of people in public transport, where (as Sartre once said) we can think of ourselves as "we", traveling together with a common goal.)  The claim that people in the USA are socially isolated is, of course, controversial, but sociologists have been making it since the time when I was an undergraduate.   And I am certainly convinced of its truth.  (Incidentally, if Dawson's view sounds interesting, don't rely on my summary, check out his blog:  http://www.consumertrap.com/

Of course, this subject could get complicated. However, I believe that I've managed to give the reader some indication of the source of my views and my evidence.