Or is it a Philosophy?

Continued thoughts on a "philosophy" of travel

What actually would be involved in a real philosophy of travel? Philosophies tend to address problems of ontology or metaphysics (what’s really there?), epistemology (how do we know?), ethics (what should we do? what is virtue?), political thought (what should we do or what is our desired goal, collectively speaking?), and aesthetics (art, beauty, sensation).¹

As a discipline that has been practiced for a couple millennia, with a history and an account of itself and where it has been, Western Philosophy has defined a set of questions that define its scope: 1) What do we know and how can we know it, or epistemology. 2) What is reality and what is it comprised of, ontology or metaphysics. 3) How should we organize ourselves, politics. 4) How should we act, ethics. And 5) what is beauty, aesthetics. These are the five windows onto the world of Philosophy. Did we leave anything out?

From “What is Philosophy?” by

Mona Mona

at Philosophy Publics.

Instead of using these venerable categories, I talked about a philosophy of travel in terms of four things “to keep track of”: where, when, logistics, and learning before, during, and after. Re: the fourth thing, learning, I wanted to tie a philosophy of travel to a philosophy(?) of lifelong learning to a sought-after philosophy(?) for “how to be a good human in the Anthropocene.”

I’m not sure if the traditional categories of philosophy might need to be re-thought, given our new circumstances (Anthropocene → lifelong learning → travel), or whether I’m not seeing clearly how to use those traditional questions to answer present quandaries or accommodate new intuitions.

Ah, method.

---

Then today, I caught

Justin S. Bailey

’s post on whether or not it’s possible (or ethical?) to try to persuade other people to travel.

The Prospective Traveler: Encouraging Others to Wander

Though he calls it a digression, he too believes travel is “one of the best forms of education” —

Travel is not for everyone and that is fine—I’ve come to accept that we don’t all have to value travel and adventure (as much as I think we should because it is one of the best forms of education). But I digress.

Justin doubles down on what is maybe the ultimate travel turn-off for many people, a kind of fear that has to be overcome. Elsewhere, he has already addressed problems of world travel in our present age (climate, overtourism, how to be a better traveler) — i.e. the properly ethical question.

Perhaps with this kind of thinking we are moving towards an actual legit philosophy of travel.

The intuition is confirmed when Justin links, in the “Prospective Traveler” post, to a yet earlier response he wrote to Agnes Callard’s “The Case Against Travel,” which was published in the New Yorker last year. Now Prof. Callard is one of my favorite philosophers at the University of Chicago, which also happens to be my alma mater. I attended there, and even majored in philosophy, at a sufficiently earlier date that I did not overlap with Prof. Callard at all. (How fun it would have been to take her classes!) In any case, I too had read her “Case Against Travel” and even wrote up some comments for myself about it. I’ve dug those out now and will ponder further before writing more.

I’ll leave you here, to go read these insightful people and consider your own reaction. Do you relate to Justin, who advocates wandering? To an ethical anti-traveler? To the North Carolina farmer? To Prof. Callard, whose philosophy centers on human aspiration, and who (thus?) laments lack of change amongst travelers?

---

There is also — if you want to stretch your brain — the metaphysical/ontological problem of space/place, which

Mona Mona

has been tackling on her brilliant philosophy blog.

---

Or, if you’re of a more literary bent, perhaps magical realism holds a clue. See my little notes here and here, to start.

Immersing oneself in a different culture and life experience can definitely border on the “magical.” Travel easily touches on the surreal. You’re in another world but still the same “real” world.

Then go read

Matthew Long

on Murakami and the literary genre of magical realism, both excellent.

---

Travel for learning is all about the impact of (changing) place on (changing) you — in the context of a changing world, that needs to be changed yet further, but differently.

Given the geological-ecological-historical shift of the Anthropocene, for those humans that desire (aspirationally) to change for the better — while being subjected constantly to drastic (and anthropogenic) changes taking place beneath their very feet² — what might they learn by setting their feet, or their imaginations, intentionally to wander elsewhere, to distant realms, whether real or fictional?

And what genuine fears might accompany them?

Image from Agnes Callard’s New Yorker article, “The Case Against Travel”

1. From the Greek aisthesis, “aesthetics” is literally about the sense, sensation, or sensibility.

2. To “take place” is a remarkable philosophical concept in its own right. See Jonathan Z. Smith, To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Smith is also the author of The Map is not the Territory.