Philosophical Vocabulary and Identity

In my time in Philosophy classes, and now in research into Philosophy graduate programs, I have encountered many terms peculiar to the philosophical world: epistemology, metaphysics, teleology, metaethics, philosophy of mind, etc.  These terms are brandished in Philosophy classes in ways that suggest that any educated person should know them as a fundamental part of their vocabulary and understanding of the world, especially Philosophy students.  Moreover, when speaking to Philosophy professors, they have often asked me what I want to study, and the answers they seem to expect are these peculiar philosophical terms, then what aspects of these terms I find truly interesting and worthy of in-depth study.  This is, of course, problematic as I’m not always sure what these terms mean, let alone the sub-aspects of the term,  and the professors don’t seem to understand a word I say unless it’s one of these terms.  So if I say, “I’ve always found ethics to be interesting, especially how ingrained they are in society and in people’s paradigms,” I understand what I mean, but to them I have made a statement so alien in its generality that I have said nothing sensical at all.  However, if I say, “I find it interesting how people seem to follow normative ethics by a kind of deontology when it comes to certain notions in applied ethics,” I have said something juicy to their ears that, unfortunately, I don’t understand, despite having said it.  

In a way, it’s almost like the professors I speak to are hoping to establish in their mind who I am, or hope to be, based on my usage of terms.  Which makes me think, “Who am I, in philosophical terms?”  So, I did some research; actually, I “googled” things like, “what is metaphyics?” or “what is epistemology?,” but I’m only looking for basic understanding at this point, so that counts, right?  Unfortunately, I kept getting the atheism entry from About.com on my search results, rather than something more academic.  Besides, I think of myself as a theist of sorts, and I know I am interested in Philosophy of Religion, so a site about atheism doesn’t seem right as a resource for my inquiry into who I am (though it is a valuable resource).  But, I did find some good stuff for epistemology at Yale, a discussion of metaphysics from Stanford by noted philosopher Peter van Inwagen, and a great overview of ethics.  These articles are far too extensive to summarize, but are interesting reads.  Unfortunately, I couldn’t find much of the same for any of the other terms I “googled”: philosophy of mind, Islamic philosophy, and philosophy of religion. So for now, I’ll stick to the three I did find, and try to define myself as an epistemologist, metaphysician, and ethicist.

What I found was a bunch more terms—terms, and sub-terms, each defining a position in the field, and an argument from dichotomous positions.  This was good for my knowledge base.  However dichotomy is bad when it comes to identity, as I find that I embrace both of what appear to be defined as opposites.  How can I embrace both dark and light, good and bad, form and formlessness, coke and pepsi?  Maybe this is what actually defines me philosophically.    I’d like to think so, as I tend to think that any dichotomy is, ultimately, false, but always approach dichotomies in such a way as to try and fully understand both sides, in order to see enlightened middle ground and an escape from dichotomous thinking.  What does all this actually mean?  I have no idea, but am I wrong in thinking that is what I should be finding out in grad school?  At the very least, that is what I will try to figure out in the next few posts.