2025-05-16

I watched a local podcast earlier where Lourd de Veyra was the guest and had this realization that I might be carrying a type of intellectual elitism when it comes to the area of philosophy. I am still trying to understand where this feeling is coming from and I've been trying to give it a name. I don't think it is disgust, nor is it disapproval. It is closely tied with the feeling of cringe because I feel like that the host frequently proclaims that they like philosophy but as what I have observed from his demeanor throughout this entire 1-hour episode, he may have only trifled with the idea of doing philosophy.

Now, to take a few steps back, I also feel great that doing philosophy, or at least attempts to study it is gaining traction in local online channels. I haven't really been in touch with local online media for a long while because I easily find it still tied to my country's tradition of taking things seriously in a more light perspective. For one, this makes serious subjects more palatable to the mass audience and two, it removes the ultra-serious undertone that may garner some avoidance from the masses due to the rising anti-intellectualism. In short, entertainment is still the factor that lure people into one's online content for the masses to take you seriously.

I did not expect that I would find the topic of philosophy discussed in this light or even find it in this manner of a podcast with Lourd de Veyra himself. I still consider him as one of the progressive thinkers of this generation as I've been drawn to him since I was in high school. Now, I find him too neoliberal in a sense that he does not delve too much into divisive issues. He is too safe with his pronouncements, which is still evident in this podcast. But at the same time, I knew that this one hour episode would at least be worth my while and decided to take some time and play it on the background while I was working.

The host was unknown to me. The conversation felt more of a back and forth interview than a conversation. Those areas were okay but I would focus more on how the topic of philosophy is handled. I guess for what it's worth, it's okay for the general audience. Talks about freedom, the importance of art, the difficulties of writing, journalism, and briefly touching on Camus. I'd say it was fine. There was nothing new to me and I really like that most people would get a lot from this podcast, especially if they know nothin about philosophy.

I say that it is fine only in the sense that, it is enough to make people curious about the subject. But anything regarding practical application of it in one's life is never truly the topic but I hoped they did. It was a good starting point at least to have it documented online since we do not have a lot of accessible philosophers in this country. I myself is still figuring out how to make my first attack on the subject.

The cringe that I said I felt earlier was probably one of the positions that I've been imagining while I was listening to the whole episode. I felt that philosophy was being discussed as a subject where you can get the "wow" answers for life. That it provides a sense of clear direction on how to live. I really don't see it that way and I felt that during those moments, philosophy was being reduced into another one of the self-help topics in finding specific and clear answers on freedom, on considering what is a smart person, and the like.

I felt that if there is a chance for new people to come in to philosophy, I think it would be better that it must be initially approached without the expectation of finding a clear answer. Clear answers are in the realm of science and mathematics, which were once part of the Natural Philosophy before they became a science. Philosophy deals with endless and tireless questioning of everything. Doubt and skepticism will be your main tools. It shouldn't be used as an area of thought to define the kind of oracle that people would have wanted as answers to their life questions. This is the very thing that the self-help industry is trying to exploit.

Then again, it's not a wholly incorrect approach to turn to philosophy to look for answers. Philosophy is actually good for that but I feel that since the interest is there to look for answers, I hope people don't stop when they found the answer that satisfies them. I know this is already borderline prescriptive but there are layers of understanding that philosophy tries to communicate that can be helpful in understanding ourselves. I can sense the curiosity from the host earlier but he is full of glee and recoils after Lourd asks him a real question, which is not even that profound as it seem. To him, he is being asked a profound question when it is only the beginning of the philosophy that he claims to love. I hope this perspective evolves more into inquiries and investigations because I would love to see more of this framing of thought in local media.