Deputy Editor
- Could you tell us more about your journey to Pharos and your interest in philosophy more generally? What prompted you to join the magazine?
I found out about Pharos somewhat organically in first year, through online newsletters and through word of mouth via the department and a friend. I applied to become interview coordinator in my second year, then after I did that I got promoted to Deputy Editor, where I am now. My interest in philosophy grew quite organically as well. Again, I’m a PPE student so I came into my degree thinking I’d be interested in politics, I hadn’t really done philosophy before. As the years have gone on, I’ve discovered I’m actually a philosophy student trapped in a PPE program. So again, really just organically discovering things.
- What do you think it is about philosophy that appeals to you?
The disregard for the empirical! (laughs). In all seriousness, I don’t gel with empirical reasoning, real-world applied stuff. I like high theory. So that sort of pushes me away from certain aspects of politics and especially economics.
- Stepping out of academics for a second, what are your interests and hobbies, what do you do in your spare time?
I enjoy reading, generally. Mainly philosophy to be fair. I enjoy some novels.
- What are you reading currently?
Right now I’m reading a novel called Concrete by Thomas Bernhard. Which is this relatively short novel about this Austrian writer who, via stream of consciousness, complains for 200 pages. There’s relatively little plot; he just complains and talks about how sad his life is.
Outside of philosophy and reading, I’m a massive coffee snob. Yes, I grind my own beans. My friend purchased me a coffee syphon for my birthday, which is like a boiling flask with an alcohol burner underneath, and then it goes up into a chamber and it creates a vacuum pressure and the coffee drips down. It looks like something out of Breaking Bad.
- What aspects of philosophy do you find most interesting and could you give certain examples why?
Epistemology is a field I find most interesting. In terms of questions in epistemology, probably questions to do with answering skeptical challenges, and also questions which talk about, in a sort of Kantian sense, the limits of our knowledge, the bounds of our knowledge. A good example, I guess, would be if you think about Wittgenstein’s treatment of external world skepticism in his collected notes called On Certainty. G.E Moore tried to deliver a common sense refutation of external world skepticism, and his proof went like this: “Here is one hand; here is another. QED”. Wittgenstein has interesting things to say about why exactly that proof doesn’t work in regards to how certain propositions, whilst they look like empirical propositions, can’t be falsified. In fact you can’t even generate empirical evidence against certain propositions like this.
- So it’s sort of going down a sort of Bertrand Russell, what are the limits of knowledge, school of thought?
Yeah, I mean it’s sort of a general – before Russell right, it goes to Hume before Kant, and it goes to Locke. It’s one of those fundamental questions, which I think sort of echoes throughout the rest of philosophy. I don’t think you can do meaningful metaphysics until you sort of have some sort of clue on what claims you can actually have to know about things. Getting some of the epistemological foundations right is key to doing meaningful philosophy in my opinion.
- What do you appreciate about Warwick’s approach to teaching philosophy? What do you think the department does well in particular?
I think that the department is very good in terms of the variety of modules that are on offer at the undergraduate level, and the choice that you have: you’ve got political theory modules; modules in aesthetics; continental philosophy; metaphysics. But also just in terms of how passionate the lecturers are. The modules are tailored to and focused on the lecturer’s interests. So you can see the interest the lecturers have in the content, in the readings. The variety and the passion within how the department teaches is definitely a big selling point.
- If you could share one message to the readers of Pharos what would it be?
I’d say that the essence of Pharos is probably to get involved. If you’re reading it, that’s great. Now write something. It’s a good way to sort of develop your thinking outside of the context of your modules, without the pressure of getting a grade or mark. You’ll have the pressure of a submissions editor, but it’s definitely less pressure than in a purely academic context. Getting involved is the main ethos that we’d go for.
- Can you tell readers more about how you hope to make Pharos more accessible to wider audiences?
What we’re trying to do, especially, is increase outreach on social media for one in terms of sort of events too. I know we have an event lined up for the end of term – which I’m not going to spoil here – but when you hear about that, come to that. And just sort of push publications to come online as well. Get stuff out there. Get people to engage with it.
- Is there any sort of one philosopher, or rather a few – let’s say 3 – that you resonate with in terms of their thought? Feel free to be as obscure as you want.
I’ll put in first for David Hume. Not necessarily because I agree with all of his conclusions, but I think No.1 he’s a great writer. He’s very clear, especially for the period in which he was writing. And also, as I said, he’s concerned with the limits of our knowledge and not just thinking about how we know this or that. Also, without Hume there’d be no Kant.
Let’s then go for an obscure contemporary philosopher. I’ll go for Stephen Hetherington, an Australian philosopher. He has a very interesting theory on what knowledge is. He calls it knowledge practicalism which is roughly the idea that knowledge is not an augmented belief or what Timothy Williamson would call the most general prime factive mental state. What he thinks is that knowledge actually is some form of cognitive ability. So knowledge of a proposition P is essentially just knowledge of how to do various P related things. My knowledge that I’m in this room right now is reducible to my knowledge of how to describe that I’m in this room and my knowledge of how to process visual data, which tells me that I’m in this room; my knowledge of how to act in an appropriate manner along the lines of I am in this room etc. And with that comes several of the conclusions that if knowledge is an ability you can know things better or you can know things worse, which has interesting implications for an anti-skeptical argument.
And then we’ll go to a third. Let’s say Kant. Mainly because I appreciate the way that Kant argues. I’m very interested in transcendental arguments as a form of philosophical argumentation so we’ll go with Kant purely for the structure of his thought which is very interesting. But I’d say that his writing, unlike Hume, has a lot to be desired. He could have done with a few essay support sessions to clarify his thoughts a bit (laughs).
- What do you hope to accomplish this year in your role as Deputy Editor?
Again, just to sort of help grow the magazine, get more submissions in, publish more submissions, increase outreach and stuff like this. I think we’re on a good track in terms of what we’re doing, so just sort of ploughing ahead and getting more people involved I’d say is the main goal.
- How do you apply philosophy to your daily life?
By overthinking everything. I’ll try and give you a better answer.
Critical thinking is key. You’re always encountering arguments, you’re encountering claims in the news, everywhere all the time, so just that general mindset is very helpful.
I’m not a big fan of a particular philosophy as a way of life. I’m not particularly a proponent of that. I think it’s more of an intellectual tool which enables you to think better and sort of cut through noise.
- So you don’t think philosophy should be used as a guide to life as it were?
There are certain aspects of philosophy which are action guiding or should be action guiding such as ethics. Ethics sort of is there to give the rough framework. You can get pretty far with common intuition but it doesn’t take you all the way.
What I am more against is the self-help-ification of philosophy. You go into Waterstones and there’s a billion and one books about how to apply Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations to your company. It just seems very inauthentic to me. I think philosophy should be primarily a pursuit which enables you to assess claims and arguments rather than assuming that you wake up, read your Seneca and everything’s really clear for you.
- What do you think is the most important lesson anyone studying philosophy should take away from it?
I’d say probably intellectual charity. I think it’s very easy, especially when you’re reading stuff, to think you have a pre-formed conception of what someone’s going to say, and you sort of dismiss it out of hand or as you’re reading or listening you’re thinking of ways to debunk or disprove it.
That’s not helpful in terms of having clear thoughts. So I’d say intellectual charity. Most people that you’re going to encounter, especially if you’re doing a philosophy degree at Warwick, aren’t stupid. They may have an argument which you think goes wrong somewhere, but they’re not stupid.
Being charitable and really trying to understand what they’re trying to say is a skill that’s useful for academics and also good for life in general if you want to be someone who’s at least relatively well-liked.
(This interview has been lightly edited for clarity)
Pharos. 