What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos


Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers


Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge


Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more

Is The Chair Really There? And Should I Really Care?

July 19, 2013, 12:00 AM

For decades, some variation of this conversation has occurred around the dinner tables of families of college freshmen on their first visit home:

Parent: So what have you been learning in college?
Freshman: Well, in Philosophy 101, the professor tried to convince us that it was not certain that the chair in the front of the room was actually there.
Parent (usually, but not always, to him-or-herself): For this we’re paying $50,000?

What the student was probably recounting, albeit rather imprecisely, was the argument of eighteenth-century Irish Bishop George Berkeley which runs something like this:

1. The only source of information we have about the so-called external world is our five senses.

2. Our senses give us a lot of data about the so-called “objects of perception”—color, shape, smell, sound, etc.

3. Traditionally, philosophers thought that these qualities somehow “inhered” in what they called “substance,” a substratum of reality that could not itself language about substrata and inhering, and that is pretty much the common sense view, then and now.)

4. But, if we can’t see or hear or smell this “substance,” why should we believe in its existence?  [See 1 above.]  Wouldn’t it be truer to our experience to say that what we call “the external world” is just sense data in our minds—and nothing more?  Esse est percipi, said Berkeley.  To be is to be perceived. Period.

Generations of students have been asked to wrestle with Berkeley’s argument.  To what purpose?  Will a prospective employer ever ask them to defend the notion of substance?  In their chosen profession, will there ever come a time when a client needs to know whether to be is, in fact, to be perceived?  

In short, why philosophize?  Particularly at this moment in history, when jobs are scarce and tuitions are high, why study philosophy or, for that matter, any of the humanities?

Enter metaphilosophy, the philosophy of philosophy, not to be confused with Metta World Peace, the Knicks’ newly acquired power forward.  When Danny Klein, my co-author of “Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar,” and I were introduced at Google Authors, our host said, “Philosophy is a great subject to major in, because it’s the only subject you can major in that will teach you how to argue that philosophy is a good subject to major in.”  

So perhaps we should look to philosophers themselves to tell us why we should care about questions like Zeno’s racetrack paradox or Berkeley’s dismissal of substance or Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson’s so-called trolley problem.  

I think the beginnings of an answer may be found in Aristotle’s notion of “formation.”  To wrestle with basic questions about the nature of ourselves or the world we inhabit or the interface between the two or how creatures such as we should behave in such a world forms us in some way.  

Philosophy—and the humanities in general—prod us to ask why.

In light of Zeno’s argument, why should I believe that motion is real?  In response to Berkeley, why should I believe that there is more to the world than sense-data?  

The asking—and answering—of these questions changes us, forms us, makes us more human. Hence, “the humanities.”

Can I get by without ever asking or answering these questions?  Well, yes.  

Can I get by without reading poetry or listening to music?  Again, yes. Contra Socrates, is the unexamined life really worth living after all?  

Well, sure. But is a life lived without asking why a more impoverished life? There’s the question.

Next time: the trolley problem and formation.

Image courtesy of Shutterstock.com


Is The Chair Really There? ...

Newsletter: Share: