Philosophy: Thesis madness

Yes, I know, I know… I had just decided to relax for the summer, but I had a pre-scheduled meeting with a would-be advisor and today we discussed a thesis idea and the red tape to be overcome. Now it looks like I’ll be attempting a thesis / completed MA after all. Below is the proposal I made up between 10 and 10:45 (ready for our meeting at 11am). The stricken parts are those he suggested I basically leave out, red indicates notes from our conversation; ‘focus’ was the word he uttered most.

Intro: Following in the work of Deep Ecology and the “Organic View” of man and nature we find that the story of “who we are” is central to environmental ethics. This view, which aligns itself most readily to Virtue and Deontological ethics is opposed to so-called shallow ecology, which works primarily in the framework of Utilitarian ethics. Just argue that metaphysics is important to environmental ethics, how and why; work out the details as we go. Don’t throw out too much at once, it will confuse the readers and/or give them lots to pick at.

Part One: A history of the development of our current situation, through the Greeks, Descartes, Leibniz et al. Creation of the principles of scientific materialism (monism, reductionism, universalism, objectivism, physicalism, closure principle). Focus on Descartes and the resulting objectivism/objectification of nature. The rest can be mentioned, but again, can be confusing and opens you up to objections.

Part Two: Challenges to the principles of scientific materialism: Humean Skepticism, Kant, Sartre, Quine, quantum mechanics and contemporary cognitive science. Also deep ecology and the ‘organic view’ of nature, to be described further in part five.sf Maybe just use Sartre’s critique of Cartesian dualism, show where it falls short. Kant may be difficult because his “Copernican Revolution” works more in terms of Epistemology and I don’t want to go down that path (again confusing readers – stay focused on metaphysics).

Part Three: Buddhist principles of interconnectedness vs. selfishness. The notion of self-development as essential to realizing interconnectedness (which is a tenant shared with Deep Ecology) directly rather than merely intellectually; i.e. practical metaphysics. This looks like it could be the bulk of the paper, given I can find someone on campus who knows Buddhism well enough to oversee it.

Part Four: Dualism refined and reaffirmed, essays of Holmes Rolston III et al. Probably unnecessary, as Rolston at least doesn’t address metaphysical issues directly.

Part Five: “Who we are” as a metaphysical game versus as a way of being in the world. The realizations and limitations of deep ecology. Preston’s prescription of eco-cognitive travel. Buddhism’s prescription of meditation, self development. Affinities with Rolston, et al.

Conclusion: A final theory of Environmental Ethics and prescription for bringing it into practice (cf. Anna Peterson). Note: This part would be brief, exploratory, speculative. Combine Part Five and the Conclusion, focus on the move from metaphysics to real world application – the application is what is going to interest people.

There are three applications to be discussed. First is the experiences of ‘deep ecologists’, people who advocate the innate interconnectedness and equal value of all life. These people advocate for this mostly based on months or years spent in wilderness. These experiences have humbled them from the dualistic ‘man-over-nature’ view that predominates today. The second experience comes from Buddhist meditation and personal development. Buddhism begins with the individual (individuated by ignorance of interconnectedness) and ends, after much practice, in directly experienced interconnectedness – a valuing of and care for all beings. The third experience is outlined by Christopher Preston (now my advisor) in his book, “Grounding Knowledge: Environmental Philosophy, Epistemology, and Place.” He calls it ‘dislocating experience‘ and describes it as a move to another environment that puts a person “both literally and metaphorically out of place” (p.89). Such experiences both shock us into the forceful realization of our interconnectedness with our surroundings and open us to new perspectives by which to understand ourselves, our values, our habits.