Why we still need philosophy

I recently attended a town hall meeting to discuss the future of McGill’s libraries. A presentation was given by the oldest architectural firm in North America. “What would a library of the 21st century look like at McGill” was the focus of the presentation. The presentation consisted of images of libraries (like Harvard, Johns Hopkins, etc.) that have recently undergone construction, paving the way for a new future.

The libraries of the 20th century were “static.” The libraries of the future will be “dynamic,” creating spaces for inter-disciplinary research, access to high definition touch screens, video games, smart-boards, and so on.

A student remarked that there were very few books in the presentation. The student said this is a trend: books are off in some big warehouse and are available upon request. Thus, she said, the spontaneity of browsing, which often facilitates research, is done away with.

An emeritus professor of architecture lamented the fact that the entire presentation was very plastic, open concept, lots of glass and light. Walls with detail, paintings, or sculptures were nowhere to be found. Apparently, the future has no room for that sort of thing in libraries.

But what struck me the most was the fact that there was no mention as to “why” the libraries were moving towards a plastic, technological accessible, non-traditional future. Are they doing it because students are researching better? Is their mental health better taken care of? What kind of research are these dynamic libraries privileging, as in, what kind of research is fostered, what kind of research is hindered?

The question, “what is a library” or even “what is a library for” was not answered. True, there was a lot of talk about “the identity of McGill” and how the library should reflect its current identity. An attempt to define McGill’s identity was also missing, I suppose it was up to us at the town hall to tell the architects about our identity. I suppose that means that there was no way that they could have been informed by faculty or students prior to the presentation. In any case, the question of identity seemed like a gimmick. The focus was on the Ivy league schools that are also updating their libraries. The message? McGill’s identity is defined by its competition.

All of this is to say that we need thinking more than ever. We must erect buildings that foster healthy practices. Practices which are only deemed as such as we examine our practices, and more importantly, as we learn how to examine our practices. If the future hails an ethic that no longer cares for an examined life, a thinking life, then we can confidently say that our future is one where we no longer care, and no longer think.

Advertisements

About JoeL

I completed a Master of Music degree from McGill University. I am currently working towards an Artist Diploma also at McGill. I like to do philosophy as a hobby.

9 thoughts on “Why we still need philosophy

  1. “Accommodating to 21st century trends, libraries of the future will wisely be run like a business; lending books will now lend the university profit. To run this we will be outsourcing all staffing needs and hiring people to oversee this outsourcing, and thereby incurring greater costs (oops).” I want the architecture of my libraries to reflect this! It’s the way of the future, and I don’t want to read books in an outdated space.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. One of the weird things is that the attitude of “it doesn’t matter why we do things so long as we keep up, because everything is progressing and newer must be better” was precisely the attitude undergirding a lot of the 20th century architecture they critique. Except we don’t even believe in progressive metaphysics anymore (right?). So I suppose we’ve made the jump from total ideology to total nihilism. At least with total nihilism there’s lots of natural light.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. These are great comments. Where is your quote from? Also, I love this quote: “So I suppose we’ve made the jump from total ideology to total nihilism. At least with total nihilism there’s lots of natural light.”

    Basically, the architects wanted to know what we wanted, our input, and our thoughts as to what kind of library we should have. But the only thing they gave us were examples of other new dynamic libraries. How am I supposed to make a decision on architecture, something I know little about, when I am only presented with one kind of example?! I think you’re absolutely right to point out the business aspects.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s