Philosopher Abroad: Philosophies of Life

In Luang Prabang, Laos, I first learned that the word philosophy does not have a universal meaning. I was in Luang Prabang for an internship for about five weeks in 2019. During this time I regularly visited a center where travelers, expats and English-speakers went to speak with young locals. The purpose of the center was for these young people to practice their English free of charge and at the same time for everyone to engage in a cultural exchange through conversations. Every time I went to this center I discovered new things – both about the people I was speaking with, the culture I was immersing myself in and about myself.

During the first few visits I learned about the different possible interpretations of the word philosophy. When asked what I studied, I always answered Philosophy and Cultural Anthropology (I was doing a double bachelor’s at Radboud University at the time). Most people that I spoke with immediately passed me the question ‘What is your philosophy of life?’ Every time I would stare at them blankly. I sort of grasped what they were asking, but I did not understand it completely. I asked them several times, but it was only through hearing other people’s philosophy of life that I came to understand – over time – what it entailed. These people referred to philosophy as a way of living, as a practice or process that is constantly in development.

Since I studied Philosophy and Cultural Anthropology, this was exactly what I was interested in learning: how philosophies of life differed or were similar from person to person, and from culture to culture. Throughout my studies I tried to follow as many intercultural and non-western philosophy related courses as possible – at Radboud that included Intercultural Philosophy; outside of university I joined a Zen Buddhism meditation center. When I was choosing the university for my minor I wanted to follow subjects on Ubuntu and other ‘African philosophies’. I looked at the courses taught in several universities in Southern Africa and spoke with the study advisors. As I expected, what I was looking for did not really exist: philosophy is not a self-evident field of study outside of western academia. Perhaps university, which teaches in a mind-based way, was not even the place to learn about philosophies as a practice. For me to learn about philosophies of life across people and cultures I had to learn through conversation and experience.

I ended up doing my minor on Oʿau, Hawaiʿi (yes!!) and did follow subjects on Philosophies of Hawaiʿi and the Pacific, and Hawaiian Language and Histories. However, where I learned most about Hawaiian philosophies was on a weekly spiritual event called Soulday. Soulday brought together people from various religious backgrounds and spiritualities. During the activities we made sure we took care of the aīna – which is usually translated as ‘land’ but implies a reciprocal relationship with the land. In other words, we take care of the land and the land takes care of us. Through conversation, practice, experience, and example I learned about such untranslatable Hawaiian concepts that for me formed puzzle pieces of Hawaiian philosophies.

I learned that language is an important tool through which we learn to understand our worlds, but it is also limiting. I think that everyone who speaks more than one language knows that some words are simply not translatable – in Dutch the most known example is ‘gezellig’. In Hawaiian language I encountered words, such as aīna and aloha, that were not only untranslatable but also influenced my understanding of the world. What if a word like land was not a thing, but a relationship? How does that change our worldview and how does that change our ‘philosophy of life’?

Several months ago I encountered the same questions when doing anthropological fieldwork in Udaipur, India to finish my Cultural Anthropology bachelor. Whereas my research topic was initially on ‘human-nature’ relationships, I soon found out that there is no translation to Hindi for the English ‘nature’. I had somewhat anticipated on this by asking Paul van der Velde how many translations or variations exist in Hindi for the English ‘nature’. There was only concept one that came close, which was prakriti. However, prakriti also meant ‘manifestation of the whole cosmos’. In Udaipur, I explored the understanding and interpretation of this concept further. Through various methods, including conversations, interviews, participant observation, participant sensing, and arts-methods, I learned that the philosophies of my Hindu research participants did not include strict categorizations of nature, people, and spirit as separate entities. Instead, the ‘categories’ that my research participants would make or experience seemed to be fluid and interdependent. This meant that my Hindu research participants had an entirely different relationship to their environment and each other: their philosophy of life was shaped by language, and their language shaped their philosophy of life.

These various experiences abroad and encounters with different cultures, languages, and spiritualities have sparked an infinite curiosity for learning about philosophies of life. While western academia offers a structured approach to doing so, it is also limiting. Western academia has confined the dynamic and embodied character of philosophy as a practice of life to a structured discipline that focuses on the mind and is separated from other disciplines. This means that until the discipline of philosophy changes I will keep learning about philosophies of life mostly outside of academia. A question that lingers within me, however, is whether western academia is fluid enough to open up for learning through practice, experience and embodiment. To answer that question, perhaps it is necessary to first pose another one. What is the philosophy of western academia?