어제 학교 등록을 끝내었다. 나는 이제 공식적으로 학생이 되었다. 다시 학생이 되기까지의 과정은 여러 모로 힘들었다. 겨우 겨우 가까스로.
아래에 학교 지원할 때 쓴 자기 소개서를 붙여 놓는다. 올 초 한국에 있을 때 쓴 것이고, 영국에서 반년 간 생활하면서 했던 사고들이 많이 반영되어 있다. 이 블로그가 저 조잡하고 순진한 글을 쓰는데 많은 도움을 주었다. 사실, 나의 자기 소개서는 이 블로그 글들의 연장이다. 그런 이유로 나의 자기 소개서를 여기 올리는 것이기도 하다.
(나의 자기 소개서에서 어떤 논리적, 상황적 모순을 찾지는 말자. 나의 글은 각각의 사고들을 후일담식으로 엮어놓은 "이야기"에 불과하니까. 만약 거기에 어떤 진실이 담겨 있다면 그것은 그 사고들 각각이 그렇다는 의미에서만 그러할 것이다.)
이 자기 소개서를 통해 얻을 수 있는 교훈이란 아마 이런 것일 것이다. 첫째, 좋은 멘토를 얻으라는 것. 둘째, 겸손하라는 것, 다시 말하면 철학이나 삶, 가족, 어떤 비젼 일반에서부터 사고를 시작하지 말라는 것, 다시 말하면 자신의 행복에서부터 사고를 시작하라는 것, 다시 말하면 자신이 그것을 잘할 수 있고, 그것을 통해 만족감을 느낄 수 있다고 생각한다면 그것을 하라는 것, 다른 여러 여건들은 부차적인 것으로 간주하라는 것, 그것만이 자신을 불행으로부터 구원할 수 있으리라는 것. 아마 내가 공부할 기회를 얻지 못했다면 나는 가슴 한켠에 회한을 안고 사는 사람이 되었을 것이다. 감사.
-----------------------------------------
I used to return to a moral presented by Richard Feynman again and again throughout my college time. In one of his famous anecdotes, he reported his discussion with philosophers as to what Whitehead meant by essential object in Process and Reality. He asked them whether a brick is an essential object as a preliminary question to find out whether theoretical constructs like the inside of the brick could be thought as essential objects. After observing that they could not answer his simple question, and got stuck in complete chaos, Feynman came to think it as one of typical instances that philosophers failed to get down to earth. I was impressed by his ability to look at the abstract conception from the concrete point of view, and regarded it as an example of the wisdoms, which I sometimes had failed to find in philosophy books.
At that time I was influenced by Marxism, and more interested in social improvement than in studying philosophy in academy. I was teaching Korean in a Worker's Night School in Seoul as a volunteer teacher. I admired my students for their earning livings through manual labour. I recognised my disposition, which may be best described by George Orwell's four great motives for writing in Why I Write; sheer egoism, aesthetic enthusiasm, historical impulse and political purpose. But I wanted to have what did not belong to me, and to fill my lack. All these made me decide to live as a factory worker after graduation.
One of fascinating things about factory workers is that they deal with instruments, which makes it possible to solve almost every problem happening in the factory on the spot. They have embodied manuals reinforced with their experiences. But I have to admit that they cannot be Einstein or Cezanne, which requires the habit of thinking critically and viewing the world as it is without any prejudice even though it has proved to be very successful. I am not saying that I am a gifted man like them, but saying that I felt bored because my job did not leave enough room for intellectual challenges. I unpacked my old dusty paper boxes stacked in the corner of a small warehouse, and began to read philosophy books that I had studied back in college.
Reading Computability and Logic I could understand the importance of the philosophical question. When Hilbert asked whether mathematics is decidable, believing that "there is no ignorabimus", he raised a philosophical question rather than mathematical one. Turing, Church and others' works explained in this book are the results of their interpretations of Hilbert's question. We could doubt whether their interpretations are correct, but we cannot doubt that their achievements are on their own rights, independently of Hilbert; we could ignore the original, or the proved-to-be-productive question. That has been the fate of philosophy.
I reviewed Feynman's anecdote. He thought that electrons, the inside of the brick and etc. are theoretical constructs. It may be an insightful starting point. Then, what is theoretical construct? Which is more real among electrons or an apple? Feynman never answered these questions simply because he was not a philosopher. If he had tried to answer them he might have found himself in complete chaos, and could have understood that we could not be satisfied with innocent ignorance or quick wit, and that even when philosophy could not give definite answers, it would not stop forcing us to look at the world as it is, which is called philosophy, and which is essential, especially in sciences. I thought that it is the unique value of philosophy.
I decided to study philosophy, and came over to the U.K. in summer in 2011. I started reading philosophy books systematically including Plato, Descartes, Russell and etc. When I read chapter 4 of Russell's The Philosophy of Logical Atomism I felt very confused, which led me to investigate the nature of Wittgenstein's criticism of Russell's multiple relation theory of judgment. To know what Wittgenstein's position was I needed to understand his judgment theory in Tractatus, and again to understand it I had to understand Tractatus. It seemed to be almost impossible project to me, but I succeeded in writing an essay on it. I know that it is just a sketch. I hope to develop it in the vibrant intellectual environment.
Philosophy seems problematic itself. This explains the reason that Feynman would wander around it, often laughing at philosophers. This explains the reason that I took a long path to it, often making myself believe that philosophy is barren. But philosophy is nothing but one of human activities like sciences, arts and etc; it creates something, and in the course of it we get pleasure. Philosophy may aim at the same level of target as sciences, but in many cases only to get as the same degree of satisfaction as artists do in front of their own works. I believe that I learned to accept these two aspects without conflict.