As a nominee of the ESJP you obviously study or studied Philosophy, but could you tell us something more about yourself and how your interest in Philosophy came to be?
What is most notable about my path towards philosophy is that I was always already interested in it, but was never able to follow up on it academically. During my time as a high school student I was very unmotivated and, after having dropped a level, I was not able to choose philosophy as a course nor study it after I received my diploma. Consequently, I forgot about philosophy completely. Only after having failed two higher vocational programs did I realise that I should focus on what I really wanted to do: study philosophy. With that as my goal I obtained a “propedeuse” in pedagogy and was able to start a bachelor’s in philosophy at Utrecht University. As I became more and more interested in Heidegger’s take on phenomenology, I decided to follow the “Continental Philosophy and its History” offered here.
What works or thinkers inspired you most in your development as a student in Philosophy?
The short answer is, as my paper will attest, that Heidegger and his approach to phenomenology has been the kind of thinking that fascinates me. It was only after a peak of interest in Rorty’s questioning of the foundations of analytical philosophy that I saw the value of trying to understand Heidegger. So, from there on I started reading Sein und Zeit in my spare time. After having read most of division one, I stopped because I could not really make sense of it on my own. At this point I found out that Hubert Dreyfus gave more than a hundred hours’ worth of lectures on Heidegger that were recorded and easily available on the internet. I first worked through the lectures on Sein und Zeit. Since Dreyfus’s lectures on Heidegger are more like close reading sessions, combined with intense discussion of the text, I was able to read Sein und Zeit again and make more sense of it than I was previously able to. At every turn I became more fascinated with Heidegger’s philosophy and Dreyfus’s way of working towards understanding his works.
Could you shortly introduce the topic of your paper and tell us why you wanted to write about this topic?
In this paper I aim to work out the possibility of a position in between relativism and realism within metaethics. I use a puzzling passage in Charles Taylor’s Responsibly for Self as the guiding question. In this passage Taylor writes that we have a continuous responsibility to radically re-evaluate our moral evaluations, without the use of a universally correct yardstick. On the basis of an explanation of this passage I move towards a position that is sensitive to the fact that different modes of relating to the world cannot be reduced to each other. The challenge is to make this plausible without turning every moral evaluation into a subjective experience. I wrote this essay in preparation for my master’s thesis, in which I work out the position in more detail and without solely focusing on its metaethical dimension. I mostly wanted to see how well this position can be phenomenologically defended with help of the relation between being-in-the-world and (primordial) attunement.
The ESJP works with a double-blind peer-reviewed process that most academic journals also use, followed by an intensive editorial process in which you get feedback on your work. What did you take out of this experience?
The whole editorial process confirmed to me that writing a paper requires a substantial amount of dedication, even after I thought it was finished. This is due to the very careful and extensive consideration by other readers. Dealing with the comments has helped me to see unclarities in my argumentation, made me rethink aspects of this paper and develop the arguments in more detail. The conversation between the comments, the text and what I want to bring across is different from the way I usually write and edit a paper to finish a course. I have always found it a shame that whenever I wrote a paper it usually ended with receiving a mark without room for further discussion and improvement. I think that, especially after having gone through the editorial process, this should become a more important aspect of philosophical education.
Since your paper was first nominated by a teacher for our journal and then passed the double-blind peer-reviewed process, you have shown to be able to write a noteworthy and qualitative philosophical paper. What is your secret?
There is not really a secret, but this paper is an instance of working and writing on something so fascinating that it moves me to continuously try to deepen my understanding of the subject matter. Working towards a position or within a realm of questions helps to develop ways for dealing with new questions and problems that arise. In doing so, one is constantly on the move. This requires hard work. Yet, listening to hundreds of hours of lectures by Dreyfus and doing a lot of extra reading can be enjoyable. Especially when it is tied into a project that draws you to work on it.
You are still a student (or you just graduated) and already have a first publication, what’s next? What are your plans for the future?
I graduated last school year and was going to follow an educational master starting February, with a promotion as long-term goal. But, after having thought it over, I have decided to work out a research proposal in order to try to become a PhD candidate. Having my paper nominated and going through the editing process has been one of the reasons for not backing down from the challenges that come with trying to become PhD candidate.
