So, let me start today's topic with this narrative... I was talking about a gentleman I met at a job hunting event yesterday to my mom. I said, "...And he said that he graduated from UC Berkeley, and was majoring in Philosophy!" What my mom said as a response was, "Oh, that doesn't sound useful for getting a job!" ...Really? So, you mean studying philosophy is useless??? No, philosophy is awesome! I got excited when I heard he studied philosophy. I'm interested in philosophy too, even though I'm not majoring in it, and what I do is just read books, and study by myself in my free time.
And you see, this is why I hate having to think about our future career way early. If your major determines you future career, you actually have to think about what you want to do after you graduate from collage when you're in high school, and apply for collage accordingly. In Japan, when you apply for collage, you don't just apply for the school you want to go to, but you also need to choose what you want to study (=major). There are rare cases where you get to choose your major after you start your school life, but again, that's very rare in Japan. In most cases, you need to know what you want to study in collage when you're still in high school.
But that's not the only thing I want to say in this post. I'm here today to say that it is very petty that some people do not value things that are "useless" in their views. To them, perhaps economics is useful, medicine is useful, mechanics is useful, psychology is useful, computer science is useful, etc. Those things clearly better our lives and societies, help economy and technology develop. And some people think those things are the only things that matter. So, there's no reason to study philosophy, literature, history, etc? Because they don't invent new technologies, and better our lives??? Because you won't need knowledge earned by studying philosophy once you graduate from collage, and start working??? Can we just study what we want because for this simple reason: because we're interested, and because we're curious?
Well, it's awesome if you think you want to contribute to society, and work for people. And you can study what you study for that reason. I want to help people suffering from diseases, and therefore, I will study medicine, and be a doctor. That is purely amazing. But I don't like it when people rank different majors according to whether the major contributes to societies or not. All majors and studies are equally important. And ultimately, you should study because you're interested, not because what you study enriches people's lives physically. And you should not study expecting it leads to something. You should follow your curiously, not a goal.
Now, let's took at a wonderful example. Professor Yoshinori Ohsumi was awarded the 2016 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine. What he said about his research (fundamental research) really talks what I feel. I just looked for an online article that talks about what he said, and I found one by The Japan Times. I remember what he said, so I didn't necessarily need to look for something I can cite from, but I thought it would be better to get help from professional writers so that you can understand what I am trying to say more easily and clearly.
"'I want to emphasize one thing here. When I started this study, I wasn't convinced that this would lead to (answers for) any questions such as those concerning cancer and human longevity.'"
"During the news conference, Ohsumi lamented that in Japan today, scientists often face pressure to achieve quick results that 'that are useful for something,' such as those that can be used for practical medical treatments within mere years."
"He said he hopes science will be regarded as important in its own right, 'not something that is developed for practical purpose only.'"
Ah! "Practical purpose"! That's the word! See? The professional writer did better than me! lol Every research should be done upon a practical purpose. "Ok, so why are you doing your research? Does it help us? What does it do to us?" And the correct answer is, "I'm not sure. It may be. ...We'll see." I am not familiar with science, but nowadays, I heard that fundamental research is not popular, and applied research (=the practical application of science) is more popular. And people want practical. If not many people want it, you'll get less fund, and that's what happening in the field of fundamental research. But not being practical doesn't mean it is worthless, as we all have learned from Professor Ohsumi.
Now, let's go back to philosophy, literature, history, etc., things that some people think to be worthless because they don't have practical purposes. Some scientific areas are valued less than the others, but I feel like these days, in this technologically advanced world, people look down on un-scientific areas of studies and liberal arts. I am not dissing science. Science has provided us so many things. But what we really need to keep in mind is that science isn't perfect. There are so many important questions science do not have answers to. And I think that thinking about those questions are getting more and more important when people are leaning towards science. Because now, for example, ethics is not catching up with what science and technology can do. Think about the reproductive technology. It's not just a scientific challenge, but also a ethical challenge. We don't know how we should think about it, we're not ready for it mentally, and we don't have a decent law for what current technology can achieve. (This example is taken from a class I took in the last semester, by the way. I am trying to put this into my own words, but the original idea is from the professor.)
How about euthanasia? Well, science can do it. But is it ethical? Is it ok for a doctor to kill a patient if he/she wanted to? Maybe the patient didn't or couldn't leave a will for various reasons. In that case, is it ethical that the patient's family decide what to do? Or is it ethical in the first place to try to keep the patient alive when they are in a vegetated condition? Is the patient really happy? When a person does not have any consciousness, and you don't have much hope that he/she will recover, how should you treat them?
And technology is supposed to make everything more convenient, and make people happier. Yes, it has truly made things more convenient. But are we all happy? It doesn't seem so. Then, why is that? Actually, what is happiness in the first place? Why can't we liberate ourselves from the hell inside our heads when we can liberate ourselves from labor? We are good at trying to make ourselves physically rich, but it doesn't seem to fill our hearts at the end of the day. Fill our hearts? Ok, so why do we think we have hearts? Where do emotions come from? From our brains? Or from hearts? Souls? Are we all made up of physical objects? Are emotions just a result of chemical reactions or neurological activities in our brains? Or are our minds and bodies are completely different things?
Chasing practical purposes and uses is quick and effective. But I think it's like trying to build a fancy mansion on an unsolid (I meant not solid... Is "unsolid" even a word? lol) ground. You can make the mansion bigger and larger until it collapses because the ground couldn't hold anymore. You may think that some areas of studies are worthless because it's hard to see practical uses of them. But no, it doesn't mean that things you do not or cannot see do not exist. In addition, how practical the thing is isn't the only aspect you need to see when determining whether it's valuable or not. I am interested in philosophy and literature because they ask questions concerning the very root/basis of human beings. Although they don't make you physically rich, and they don't build robots and rockets either, they should be valued more not only by people who are majoring in/studying those areas. You don't have to be a philosopher to think about philosophical questions; you don't have to be a scholar of literature to read books, and imagine what those authors had gone through; and you don't have to be a historian to look at the past, learn from it, and discuss about our future. Like you don't fully know about yourself, we human do not fully know who we are. Do you think investigating these areas is worthless? No, I don't think so.
Reference:
- Yoshida, R. (2016, October 3). Japan's newest Nobel laureate, Yoshinori Ohsumi, touts importance of fundamental research. - The Japan Times. Retrieved March 6, 2017, from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/10/03/national/science-health/japans-newest-nobel-laureate-yoshinori-ohsumi-touts-importance-fundamental-research/#.WL0nRDzXeEc
No comments:
Post a Comment