One of my catch phrases in college is “You would not have a discipline without us”. I got the phrase from a previous exchange in my Philosophy of Language class, when a linguist graduate student was arguing with another philosophy graduate student on an abstract theory about the theory of reference. When the linguist objected to one of the philosopher’s arguments as being too abstract to the point that “only a philosopher would say [it]“, the philosopher kindly pointed out that the ground work of philosophy is prior to linguistics. As an undergraduate student in the class, I found the friendly exchange entertaining.

I was quite excited to see the New York Times publishing the article regarding the surge of philosophy students across colleges and universities. I am minoring in Philosophy, and I was happy to see a newspaper shining a new light into one of the oldest disciplines in academia. Unfortunately, many of my friends view philosophy as a meaningless and abstract subject. It is not a surprise that I get into a lot of arguments among my friends regarding the importance of philosophy.

The on-going developments of natural sciences have blinded many people that technological and scientific developments are the key in exploring human knowledge. I will grant this point, because it seems physics have made huge strides in its development on explaining various phenomena in the world. With physicists pouring their intellectual power over the “String Theory”, we might have an ultimate formula in explaining everything in the world. The elegance of physics attracts me to believe that we can truly map the universe with a mathematical dimension, but there is a little bit of skepticism within me that holds me to believe such proposition as absolute truths.

For one thing, if the universe can truly be mathematically mapped with formulas and formal theorems, then why can’t physicists categorically derive even the most basic formulations of one of the natural forces? Behind each formula, there is a set of assumptions tagged with it. For example, the formula regarding the force of gravity by Newton assumes that time travels in a linear fashion. In most of other formulas, we are also assuming that there is a spacial-temporal plane in the universe. How do we even know the existence of space and time? If the universe is somehow mathematically mappable, then it would seem natural that we can derive its entire component categorically without assumptions.

Unfortunately, our perception of time, space, motion, and most about everything is derived not from mathematics but by observation, or sensory experience. Many philosophers, and even the movie Matrix, have poked on the fallibility of our senses. How do we know that our sensations are ultimately true source of knowledge? Some philosophers contend that we can never know what the real world truly is, while other Philosophers believe that there exists an ultimate reality that we can derive true knowledge. While Philosophy 101 students can get caught up with the vortex of the Brain in the Vat problem, I believe we should view such philosophical problems as somewhat an appreciation of the complexities surrounding various derivative disciplines of philosophy. Physics believe that parts of the universe can be mathematically mapped out, while linguists hold a belief that there is underlying process in conversations and usage of words. It is correct to say that every other discipline is a focused philosophical subject in itself.

I truly love Philosophy. From a utility standpoint, my reading and writing skills have improved from various philosophy courses, and I am able to think critically in other subjects. If you have never taken philosophy before, then I recommend diving into the subject. It will be a thrill ride!