One of the first topics Taylor touches on in Race: A Philosophical Introduction is language. He establishes how we utilize the words in our arsenal in an attempt to familiarize the unfamiliar, give description to what is initially indescribable.
Sometimes the struggle to give explanation to certain terms is met with much more difficulty though.
Happiness? Truth?
I could give you a dictionary definition. I could tell you what it means to me. But I in no way feel qualified enough to weave the words together that would properly and wholly tell you what either of the aforementioned terms actually mean. I'm familiar with the words themselves, but unfamiliar with having to grapple with their conceptual nature.
Race?
It came up in the first Philosophy of Race class discussion. "What's our definition of race?" I didn't raise my hand because I didn't know what to say. The complexities of such a broad term force me to consider personal experience, media, history, and an array of other factors. Race is not conceptually simple, rather a term that calls for great consideration of human history and experience.
From my minimal exposure to the study of philosophy, I feel as though this is what philosophy is for. To drive past what is apparent and question an idea from all angles in a quest for "truth". Right? Wrong? Good? Bad? I've been aware of these words for a majority of my life but rarely have been forced to question them in an effort to truly understand what they can and do mean.
I hope that as the semester progresses and I consider and question the philosophy of race, I may be able to reach a new level of awareness. Will I be able to give a direct definition of race by the end of this course? Not sure. But perhaps that isn't the point to understanding something so universally unique.
Taylor has a pretty complicated discussion of what philosophy does with concepts and words. Notice that he gives different definitions to "race" and "Race." Why? How is that justified?
ReplyDelete