Birthright

existence doesn't make it true—or false, for that matter. Why is no one asking these vital questions,

examining these vital arguments, any longer? “Gentlemen, you are not turning out philosophers. Far from it. What you are doing is creating the most brilliant crop of pragmatists in our history. But pragmatism is not the only branch of philosophy, and political and social doctrines are not the only—or even the legitimate—purposes of philosophy. “Your young men and women—and you yourselves—want to know how something works, or why it works, or if it works, or what the effect of its working will be. All other considerations—such as is it right or wrong, good or evil, consistent or inconsistent with the nature of Man—are either ignored or restructured to fit into the basic pragmatic concept under consideration. “And that, gentlemen, is why I will not add my name or influence to your petition to get one more non-philosopher added to this staff of non-philosophers. I weep for the Critique of Pure Reason in this day of Pure Practicality.”

“My dear Professor Theriole,” said Brannot, “do you really feel that we on the staff, or our students for that matter, have no understanding of what you would doubtless term the pure philosophers? Perhaps my knowledge of them is not as great as yours, but I am not totally unversed in these aspects of philosophy. But the difference between understanding them and appreciating them, in a positive manner, is considerable, and it is here that you part company not only with us, but with the bulk of our students. After all, we don't hold a gun to their heads and tell them that their doctoral theses must have some applicability to the real world.”

“One would never know it to read them,” said Belore dryly. “Professor,” continued Brannot, “we stand at a crossroads in the field of philosophy. We can continue to rehash the old unanswered and unanswerable questions, and philosophy will then remain what it has always been: a parlor game of mental gymnastics, played by ivory-tower intellectuals. Or, on the other hand, we can try to apply both old and new philosophical concepts to our daily lives and make them work for us.”

“I was laboring under the obviously erroneous impression that we've already put philosophical concepts to work for us in the past,” said Belore. “The Ten Commandments come to mind, but I'll wager that there must have been one or two others during the past ten thousand years.” “I grant you that,” said Brannot, “but it only supports my argument: that philosophy can and should deal with reality. Take, for example, Bishop Berkeley's proof of God, which is the one human argument for deity not as yet disproven. I ask you, not as one professor to another, but as one human being to another: Who really gives a damn if there is some mystical Unseen Observer or not? Or take the hallowed Descartes, who thought and therefore was. I have no doubts as to my own existence: I've got ulcers, aches, pains, and worries to prove to my satisfaction that I'm here. But Descartes carried it one step further, inferring the existence of the entire universe from the singular fact thathe existed. More power to him. But I can infer the existence of a large block of granite sitting in front of this building from my own existence, or I can not infer it; and in either case, it has no effect whatsoever on the truth of the inference. “On the other hand,” he continued, “if I were to say, ‘I hunger, therefore I am,’ it would have a little more relevance, because my next step would be how to assuage my various hungers, and this would lead me not only into practical proposals but ethical considerations as well. What I am trying to say, Professor, is that philosophy mustdo something. It can't just lie there as a logical toy for academic dilettantes.'’