I hope that anyone in Center Valley, PA, or in New Hampshire and northern Massachusetts will try to come to one of the events at which I am speaking this week.
Tomorrow evening (Wednesday) at 7pm I am giving a talk and answering questions on the Catholic Shakespeare as part of the Pennsylvania Shakespeare Festival at DeSales University. The Festival’s production of Measure for Measure will immediately follow my talk.
On Thursday evening at 7:30 I am giving a talk on “The Evangelizing Power of Beauty” as part of the summer art program at Thomas More College in New Hampshire.
On Friday afternoon at 4pm I’m speaking on “Chesterton and The Hobbit” at the annual Chesterton conference at Assumption College in Worcester, MA.
Throughout The Philosophical Act Pieper explains what phizisophilong means and how it is accomplished but he does not answer the nagging question that I have in the back of my mind: Why should I even bother with philosophy? In attempting to answer my own question, I respond that perhaps practicing philosophy will make my life a more happy or enjoyable one. But if that is the case, then does that not also mean that I would be practicing philosophy for a separate end instead of philosophy itself. It would seem that Pieper would take issue with this. But if this is the case, then I have difficulty in fathoming how an act can be done for its own sake. I dabble in philosophy because I feel that it puts me into a more preferable state of being. I enjoy the awe that I feel when I ponder the simple. Philosophy for me is much like a mental massage. I love reading and discussing philosophy because it does seem to take me places to which the average world is frequently unable to carry me. Does that make me, as Pieper would say, a pseudo-philosopher?Extend this idea to others and I have an even more difficult task. Should I be encouraging others around me to delve into the wonder of philosophy? Just because I thoroughly enjoy it, does that necessarily mean that it is a trait common to all mankind? I do not feel confident enough to make this assertion. Perhaps there are individuals who, regardless of the amount of training, would never enjoy reading philosophy as much as playing Xbox. In this situation, as terrible as it may sound, I cannot justify the claim that philosophy is a better activity than playing video games. I merely see them as different preferences for different individuals. Perhaps I have difficulty saying that one activity is better than another because I do not believe in a God, and as a result I have difficulty in granting the idea of an objective Good.And bringing this back to our original question, “What is the purpose of a university?” I do not know if I can say that there is a sole purpose. There may be some for which the purpose of the university is vocational training, others for which the purpose is pure learning, and others still for which the purpose is purely social.Perhaps I am simply missing a significant point that Pieper was trying to make, but thus far these have been my thoughts.