This is an excerpt of an interview with Kathleen Higgins, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, in which she talks about growing up in Kansas City in a big, Catholic household, developing an interest in music (specifically piano), the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, debate team, Chopin, Zappa, Franny and Zooey, contemplating a career in chemistry, Aquinas, Krishnamurti, studying music theory at University of Missouri-Kansas City, the link between music and chemistry and the universe, getting into Nietzsche, studying Neo-Confucian philosophy at Yale, deconstruction, Julia Ching, working with Karsten Harries on Thus Spoke Zarathustra, landing a job at University of Texas at Austin, a place she has been for over 30 years, starting off as the only woman on the regular faculty, The Golden Ass, the idiosyncratic and universal features of music, her late husband Robert Solomon, thinking about Nietzsche at 4:00 AM, philosophical advice, perspectivism, her supremely beautiful new project, the nature of philosophy, the analytic/continental distinction, climate change, Chuang Tzu, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Love Supreme, “Shango”, Six Feet Under, election night 2016 and her last meal…
Most useful bits of philosophical advice you’ve come across?
On a very everyday level, I remember Karsten Harries saying, “I try never to write a sentence that I don’t understand.”
Nietzsche’s “The great epochs of our life come when we gain the courage to rechristen our evil as what is best in us” (Beyond Good and Evil) strikes me as really profound – it’s advice indirectly, in that it encourages reconsidering your traits that you think of as weaknesses and seeing ways that they can be strengths. His “One thing is more important than another” is good to remember, too – though of course the problem is to figure out which thing is more important.
Love the Nietzsche advice. So, how have you evolved as a philosopher?
Probably the topics I’ve worked on have become more interconnected than they were earlier on. Even though my interests vary a lot, I think the various projects I’ve undertaken have had more influence on each other than would be obvious from just a list of the topics. My work on Nietzsche’s perspectivism, for example, probably influenced me in thinking about the ways that a person’s musical background is shaped by the specific musical experiences the person has had, even though people around the globe can now access the same music through YouTube, for example.
Probably I can more quickly anticipate what others will accept as a philosophical problem (or a possible solution to a problem) when considering some general topic area. I’m better acquainted with the trends and biases of the profession. I’ve become more comfortable with seeing philosophical projects as perpetually on-going, not tasks that can be definitely finished. Over time, I think I’ve made my writing style more my own than when I started. These are probably pretty common tendencies in lots of philosophers’ careers. One gets acquainted with other people’s work and point of view and simultaneously develops one’s own distinctive outlook.
What would Nietzsche be most surprised by in the contemporary world?
I keep trying to think of something, but I’m confident he’d have some wry way of describing just about any development as more of the same. Some technological developments might surprise him (for example, the cellphone, the rocket, the atom bomb), but probably not the motives or uses people make of them.
What would he be least surprised by?
Social media and other contemporary echo chambers.
What are your writing habits?
I wish I had more steady habits. I’m not sure that the way I write takes a definite form, though I have certain habits. I like to write, fortunately, but how I write depends on how much time I have for each project. I dislike deadlines, and so I don’t usually like to get contracts for books prior to writing them, preferring to let the writing of each develop as it will. Although I can write bits of projects at a time, I dislike that. I always want to have an open-ended time frame for a project and hours on end ahead of me while writing. Rarely do things work out this way, but to wrap up a long project, I really need long spans of uninterrupted time to put the pieces together. This makes it difficult to get large projects done during the semester when I’m teaching, although during the term I can write shorter pieces.
What are you working on nowadays? Exciting new projects in the works?
My main project (often interrupted by shorter articles that I agree to write) has to do with what I’m calling “the aesthetics of loss and mourning.” It has to do with the many ways in which people gravitate toward aesthetic practices in attempting to recover from loss, particularly in the context of bereavement. I’ve also written, in many drafts, a book about grief and recovery in the form of letters to Bob. The current draft is still being written.
That sounds supremely beautiful.
Thanks.
So, in your mind, what is philosophy?
I think of it as a quest for wisdom. On a personal level, this involves an effort to bring one’s reflective life and one’s practical life into attunement with each other. On a more collective scale, it involves efforts to think systematically about problems that we face and to indicate where the trade-offs are as we consider alternative policies that might address them.
Thoughts on the analytic continental distinction?
It’s an unfortunate distinction, although I think there is a methodological difference between focus on analyzing concepts and more synthetic aims. Too often this is treated as something like a two-party system in philosophy, with partisans on each side. I’m glad to see that there is growing appreciation in the field for the writing of those ‘on the other side of the aisle’. I had never heard of the distinction before I went to grad school, and I don’t think I was missing much beyond insight into the sociology of the field.
How do you see the future of philosophy?
I hope and expect it to involve more attention to concrete problems that people face in the contemporary world, such as climate changeand global justice. Philosophy offers many resources for sustained efforts to think clearly about these problems. I also think that attention will increasingly be given to the diverse traditions that have developed across the globe. Recognizing the possibility of more diverse starting points for addressing the big issues in human life will, I think, benefit philosophical thought about virtually any topic.
Exciting/disconcerting trends?
The increasing inclusion of Confucian role ethics and/or Chinese conceptions of virtue in Western philosophical discussions strikes me as exciting. So do contemporary philosophical discussions that acknowledge the role of aesthetics and emotions in political and ethical life.
The full interview is available at What Is It Like to Be A Philosopher? You can get early access to interviews and support the project here.
Clifford Sosis
Cliff Sosis is a philosopher at Coastal Carolina University. He created, and in his spare time he runs What Is It Like to Be a Philosopher? in-depth autobiographical interviews with philosophers. In Sosis's words, "Interviews you can’t find anywhere else. In the interviews, you get a sense of what makes living, breathing philosophers tick. How one becomes a philosopher. The interviews show how our theories shape our lives and how our experiences influence our theories. They reveal what philosophers have in common, if anything, and what our goals are. Overall, the interviews give you a fuller picture of how the people who do philosophy work, and a better idea of how philosophy works. This stuff isn't discussed as often as it should be, I think, and these stories are extremely interesting and moving!" He has a Patreon page here and tweets @CliffordSosis.
Higgins writes, “One thing is more important than another” is good to remember, too – though of course the problem is to figure out which thing is more important.”
Indeed, great point. As example, which is more important, philosophy or reason? They are not automatically the same thing. As example, if I were to write a highly sophisticated articulate analysis of Aristotle while a fire in my kitchen is spreading to the rest of the house, that would be philosophic enterprise as philosophy is usually defined, but it wouldn’t be a product of reason.
Higgins writes, “I’m better acquainted with the trends and biases of the profession. ”
Yes, and the primary bias of the profession appears to be prioritizing philosophy over reason. This is why academic philosophy is losing public respect, and thus has to continually worry about public funding.
Higgins writes, “Over time, I think I’ve made my writing style more my own than when I started.,”
To quibble a bit, I’m not sure one can really “make” one’s writing more authentic. It seems to happen naturally once one gives up on trying to fit in to a group consensus.
The most valid role of philosophy is to explore the boundaries of the group consensus, a job which can not be effectively done while worrying about fitting in.
Higgins writes, “Some technological developments might surprise him (for example, the cellphone, the rocket, the atom bomb), but probably not the motives or uses people make of them.”
Yes, that’s it. The threat presented by the products of the knowledge explosion isn’t really a technical problem at heart but rather an amplification of ancient human problems. Remarkably, the Adam and Eve story pretty accurately predicts the state of the modern world. We’ve eaten the apple of knowledge, and now we risk expulsion from the Garden of Eden as a result.
Higgins describes philosophy as, “I think of it as a quest for wisdom. On a personal level, this involves an effort to bring one’s reflective life and one’s practical life into attunement with each other. On a more collective scale, it involves efforts to think systematically about problems that we face and to indicate where the trade-offs are as we consider alternative policies that might address them.”
Well said. Yes, thinking systematically about problems that we face would be a product of reason. But not of academic philosophy. We have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats, a rather significant existential threat to everything that we hold dear. Barely any mention of this anywhere in academic philosophy. See this website for evidence.
Yes, you have every right to delete this comment now. But that won’t hide the inconvenient evidence that is readily available to any person of reason.
Higgins writes, “I hope and expect it (philosophy) to involve more attention to concrete problems that people face in the contemporary world, such as climate change and global justice.”
See? No mention of the well known threat which could bring an end to everything we hold dear in the next 30 minutes. A gun in our collective mouths, which academic philosophy can’t see because it has prioritized philosophy over reason.
What is most important? Philosophy as it is typically defined by academics will never save our culture from self destruction. But reason might. Thus, reason is more important, as everything we care about depends on the continuation of civilization.