Thomas Wolfe
Thomas Wolfe hails from Abingdon, Virginia. He plays a mean fiddle, enjoys writing fiction, and describes himself as the proud owner of a German Shepherd, by which we assume he means the popular breed of working dog. Thomas is currently in his fourth year at the Quillen College of Medicine and planning a career in pathology. Prior to commencing studies in medicine, Thomas was a philosophy major, right here at ETSU. Thomas was kind enough to answer a few questions for us.
Let’s start where we always start, at the beginning of your philosophical journey. What first got you interested in philosophy?
Well, during my freshman year, I took a class on ancient and medieval philosophy to fulfill a graduation requirement. At this point, I didn’t really know what philosophy was (I’d only ever heard the term applied to sappy, often clichéd quotes and platitudes and thought that was all it entailed). But, taking this course, I was greatly intrigued by the questions asked by philosophers about very deep and often important topics, even things we ordinarily wouldn’t think to question. Instead of shrugging off questions most would think either too basic or too unanswerable to be worth asking, philosophers have, for thousands of years, applied critical thinking to come to the best conclusions they could find. Among people who enjoyed philosophy, I appreciated the ability to ask difficult and sometimes controversial questions and debate them reasonably. I like thinking and asking questions, so this kind of discourse really appealed to me.
It’s a common story: people stumbling into philosophy without knowing what it was, but then discovering that it’s what they’d always liked! Using reason, to evaluate responses, to perennial questions. Did you have any favourite philosophy courses at ETSU, or any particular memories you’d like to share about your experience studying philosophy with us?
I really enjoyed symbolic logic. While it wasn’t so focused on the kinds of questions that draw me to philosophy, it was very helpful in understanding approaches to critical thinking and argumentation. Understanding how logical arguments are constructed and what actually makes an argument sound is a very practical skill, whatever kind of questions you may be asking (whether highly philosophical questions or more mundane ones).
It’s also really good preparation for the LSAT, for any readers considering Law School. But your calling was medicine, rather than law. Do you think the skills you developed through studying philosophy have helped you with this?
Studying philosophy taught me how to approach questions logically and thoughtfully, and how to analyze information. This is a very helpful skill in any field, even if the questions that need answering are very different from those asked by philosophers (i.e., the most likely diagnosis for a patient with a given set of symptoms). It also helps me think about the ethical issues that tend to arise in medicine—of which there is no shortage.
Excellent. What about your life outside your career? Has philosophy been valuable or beneficial in any particular ways?
Philosophy provides a handy set of tools for approaching all sorts of questions. Politics, ethics, and religion come to mind as practical examples, but those certainly aren’t the only topics where the critical thinking skills associated with philosophy can be of use. Beyond that, though, being familiar with the theories of some of history’s greatest philosophers, like Plato and Aristotle (my personal favorites), as well as having plenty of tools to ask questions and think logically about them, helps in building a worldview that is both logical and useful in living a purposeful and hopefully ethical life.
Thanks, Thomas. One last question: you wrote your Senior thesis on the Euthyphro dilemma and argued that the best response to the dilemma can be found elsewhere in Plato’s writing. Could you give us a quick summary of the dilemma, its importance, and the response that you favour?
The Euthyphro dilemma, penned by Plato, asks whether the gods determine what is morally right, or are themselves subject to a morality that supersedes even them. In other words, did God write the moral law, or does it come from somewhere else?
This is an important question because it determines how we approach morality and what we consider to be valid sources of morality. For those who, like me, believe in God, it also has implications for the way we view God, because the answer to this question tells us something about the nature of God.
If God wrote the law, whatever He says goes, however atrocious it may seem. This would seem to make morality arbitrary, because God could command anything He wanted and it would be right. He could have commanded very different things than it seems He has. The only thing that makes stealing wrong is that God says it is, so what if we wake up tomorrow morning to find that God has changed His mind and is now positively commanding us all to become thieves?
On the other hand, if God didn’t write morality, then where does it come from? What grounds it? And don’t we just wind up having to ask the same question of this other source as we initially asked about God—that is, wouldn’t morality be very different if this source was very different? Is it really any less arbitrary? Furthermore, if there is a moral law and God didn’t write it, then there must exist a higher power than God Himself.
My favorite response is based on Plato’s Theory of Forms. Plato theorizes that all concepts have a Form, a perfect version of the concept by which it can be defined. That is, a thing is X insofar as it participates in the Form of X. Thus, a square is a square insofar as it resembles that Form of Squareness. A chair is a chair insofar as it resembles the Form of Chairness. And so on. Nothing on Earth is a perfect representation of its form; we experience only imperfect versions of anything that exists—for instance, a square will inevitably have at least one side is slightly longer or shorter than the others, or a corner that’s 89.99999 degrees instead of a perfect 90. Goodness also has a form, and an action is good insofar as it images the Form of the Good. Thus, one response to the Euthyphro Dilemma is that God is the Form of the Good. In other words, He is Goodness Itself. This places morality not in arbitrary commandments made by God but rather in His fundamental nature. If we take the Form of the Good as a constant principle (rather than a commandment that could be issued yesterday and reversed tomorrow), then it actually serves as a fairly stable source of morality.
Thanks again, Thomas, for taking the time to provide such thoughtful answers. We wish you every success, trust philosophy will continue to enrich your life in many ways, and hope you stay in touch.