Exotic Journeys: A Tourist's Guide to Philosophy

 brought to you by Ron Yezzi

                              Emeritus Professor of Philosophy

          Minnesota State University, Mankato

            © Copyright 2015, 2020 by Ron Yezzi

Return to Start Page

Return to Ron Yezzi's World Page

My World in a Personal View

Topics

    My Retirement Remarks

     My Philosophical Interests

    Family Matters

    Travels by Body

        Around the World

        Running

    A. My Retirement Remarks
          (presented at a College of Arts & Humanities Meeting, Minnesota State University, Mankato, May 8, 2002) 

            When I first read the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, I remember being put off by his going on for page after page thanking and praising everyone who had some influence on him.

         I’m older and wiser now―and therefore more willing to see his point.

         I won’t go into any litany of thanks now; but I will mention one irony. A good part of our professional careers is guided by the hope of impressing people whom we will never know and who will never have any impact on us. Meanwhile we tend to under appreciate the people we deal with from day to day, who make real positive contributions to our lives.

         For the rest of my remarks, I just want to recount some little known facts about my philosophical origins.

         First, there is the twofold philosophical nature of my birth:

         Fold 1: My birthday falls on April 26th. That happens also to be the birthday of Marcus Aurelius (already mentioned), the Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid, the much better known Scottish philosopher David Hume, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Richard McKeon (Robert Pirsig’s nemesis in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance). Immanuel Kant was born on April 21st. So I assume that he was born five days prematurely. It seems to me, in terms of its importance, April 26th should be the official holiday for philosophers.

         Fold 2: My birth relates directly to a well-articulated philosophical position. In Roman Catholicism, there is the doctrine of natural law. According to the doctrine, we can determine through reason alone the natural functions, or purposes, that God has implanted in the world. According to natural law then, the natural function of the sexual organs is reproduction; and any attempt to thwart this natural function artificially is a grievous sin.

         Well my mother once went to attend a mission (the Catholic equivalent of a Protestant evangelical meeting). And when she went to confession, the priest refused to grant her absolution―unless she promised to stop using artificial methods of birth control (thereby bringing her into conformity with natural law). My mother promised; and I was the result.

         So, if it were not for the Catholic philosophical doctrine of natural law, I would not exist.

         Two asides related to this: My birth was then enough to drive my mother out of  the Catholic Church. And since I am myself an agnostic, not a Catholic, (or even an atheist, depending on definitions), I suppose that I qualify as an enormous ingrate.

         Finally, there is a revelatory event that occurred when I was about fourteen years old.

         I was sitting in Jimmy’s Diner in Erie, PA with my childhood best friend and his Dad. His Dad was going on about how much he hated being married. He told us that he had been in his late twenties and single; and that he really enjoyed hanging out and carousing with his buddies. But then his parents issued an ultimatum: Either he would get married and settle down or else they would throw him out of the house anyways. My friend's future mother, a very nice person, was available and willing; so that was how he got stuck being married. (I have no idea what my friend thought about all this!)

         At some point, with all the wisdom of my fourteen years, I said, “But if you’re married, then you must love your wife.”

            His Dad looked me directly in the eyes and said very firmly, “RONNY, YOU DON’T BELONG IN THIS WORLD.”

         I never realized it at the time. But this was a prophecy that I was destined to be a philosopher.

         In a real sense, philosophers don’t belong in this world, because they’re either confused or dissatisfied with what is. And it’s their privilege to create their own world. Philosophers hope to take the world, as it is, into proper account. But they also are looking for what ought to be.

         All of us create our own worlds in living. It’s just that philosophers search for foundations more than most people; so their creations are special.

         I take satisfaction in having had a career with virtually complete freedom to create my own world. So far that world resides in some seven texts and other writings I’ve worked out over the years. The creation isn’t finished yet. And I don’t suppose that others will see or agree with the world exactly as I create it. But I like to think that my world is a good approximation both to what is and what ought to be. At any rate, the whole process is one great and exciting ride! 

B. Outline of a Retirement Lecture delivered December 4, 2001

  reflections3.pdf   

C. My Philosophical Interests:

             I have always been drawn more towards systems of philosophy rather than highly specialized scholarly work. By specialized work, I mean the writing of papers on very specific aspects of a noted philosopher’s work or on a very specific issue. I do not want to deny the value of those specific interests; they can be a starter for much broader works; and and there are specific philosophical issues. But I must admit that, as a matter of my personal temperament, I think philosophers are extremely bright people who can be very adept at getting into long, competing discussions of tangential issues. This sort of work often finds a place in scholarly publications and stands as a measure of one’s professional credentials. But that specialized work is often too detailed to be of interest, say, 100 years later. So the overwhelming majority (95% or more?) of philosophy journal publications will probably be forgotten.

         Systems of philosophy though can have more staying power because they are more comprehensive in dealing with the continuing, fundamental problems always central to philosophy. They’re more likely to reflect (or capture) the grand thinking of an age. They fit more snugly into comparisons with systems of other periods. And the focus on fundamental problems can be more interesting and useful to the great majority of students who take philosophy courses. Of course, having a system of philosophy is no guarantee in itself that it will hold others’ interest in the present or in the distant future.

From the 1970s on, I was strongly influenced by E.F. Schumacher’s Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. Schumacher’s basic theme was that (1) the advanced technology of the most industrialized nations was inappropriate for much less developed third world nations; and (2) they need instead an intermediate technology, less sophisticated and better suited to needs of third world peoples. Accordingly, there’s a difference in standards of excellence. Advanced technology is not the best for everyone.

I transferred this distinction to philosophy. So, there is an advanced philosophy covered in the professional philosophical literature and at professional meetings, and there is an intermediate philosophy more accessible to non-professionals.

There are not absolutely sharp dividing lines here. There is material covered in the professional literature and professional meetings that qualifies also as intermediate philosophy. The same philosophers can work in both advanced and intermediate philosophy. Indeed, a case might be made that the best intermediate philosophy results when someone who excels in advanced philosophy is also able to state and apply that knowledge as intermediate philosophy for general audiences.

My recognition of this interest in intermediate philosophy, along with my not teaching at a major research university, led to a decision to write at a level that did not demand the interest or ability of a professional philosopher. I would like to think that anything I write can be understood by a layperson. But it is not just easy reading. At times, I may not realize how difficult it might be for persons without any background in philosophy.

Ron Yezzi’s World presents my system of philosophy.  

    C. Family Matters

Back row (from left): My son Tom, his wife Sue, my grandson David, Lisa's husband Dave, Liz' friend Cole

Middle row: My daughter Lisa, my granddaughter Alyssa

Front row: David's significant other Lauren, me, my granddaughter Liz, my granddaughter Kate

At 4 or 5 years old

Childhood nicknames: Smiley, Mastrangelo, Little Round Barrel, Ronny, Yez

A young family, Knoxville, Tennessee, 1969

With my wife, Daria, who died in 2005

 D. Travels by Body

        1. Around the World

For my trips to Antarctica, Argentina, Athens and Greece, Australia, Belize, Botswanna, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Easter Island, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Falkland Islands, Galapagos Islands, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Island of South Georgia, India, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Peru, Portugal, Sicily, Capetown (South Africa), Spain, Tanzania, Tibet. Turkey, Zambia, Zimbabwe--I've posted photos on flickr.

Go to: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ronyezzi/albums

At Easter Island, 2010

2. Running

At a Twin Cities Marathon

  a. Remarks Introducing Me at a Retirement Meeting of MSU's College of Arts and Humanities, on May 8, 2002, by my Colleague, Friend, and fellow Runner, Dick Liebendorfer:

Introductory Remarks

May 8, 2002               by Dick Liebendorfer

         Contrary to widespread belief Ron Yezzi is not retiring. He is devoting himself full time to a school of peripatetic philosophy which he founded. The original peripatetics were followers of Aristotle. Aristotle liked to walk and the peripatetics followed him around the Lyceum. Every Saturday morning Yezzi's peripatetics follow him around Mankato. Yezzi, like Aristotle, thought science and scientific method had much to contribute to philosophy. But the comparison ends there. Yezzi's pace is more brisk than was Aristotle's. Aristotle walked. Yezzi runs. Indeed, as philosophic argument develops the pace quickens. This startling discovery by one of Yezzi's peripatetic followers is expressed in what is now known as the Robbins equation: the pace of the race is directly proportional to the heat of the argument. Despite, or perhaps because of the grueling competition which they must endure, in their travels around Mankato, the Yezzi peripatetics learn much not only about the life of the mind but also about the life of the feet. However many promising pupils, notably Steve Stoynoff, have been unable to keep up and have left Mankato. Others, I think of Evan Bohnen, are still struggling with their potential. But for those who survive the rigorous demands of this exclusive school there are many benefits. For example, not only is no one made to drink hemlock, but each week everyone is given a coke (pepsi?). So, If you are interested in the mysterious connection of mind and body, or the question how the mind gets the body to move, the very question asked by Kafka's beetle, then gather at Yezzi's garage, err... Yezzi's Lyceum, on Saturday morning. Send your students, your neighbors, your children for lessons in the mysteries of mind and body. Yezzi's tenacity in argument and physical endurance inspire us all as well as wear us out. After each and every lesson each and every peripatetic is breathless.

Thanks, Dick

Our team, The Lost Soles, at the finish of the 205-mile Ragnar Relay, 2008

Kneeling (left to right): Mark Greenwood, Seijen Takamura, Dan Greenwood, Justin Gruenwald, Ron Yezzi

Standing: Kuma Takamura, Craig Matarrese, Dick Liebendorfer, Hans Storvick, Laurie Wiebesek, Rick Robbins, Scott Madigan

Team Leaders: Kuma and Seijen Takamura

(Note: My running days ended with a knee replacement in 2010; but I still bike and walk.)