Columnist Scott Dickensheets: Out of the brainpan and into the fire

IT MUST HAVE seemed like the place to go for some Answers. I mean capital-A Answers to those Big Questions about life and existence that plague, vex or at least annoy mankind. After all, some of the biggest brains in the country would be on hand for the recent World Philosophy Congress in Boston, the final one of this ebbing century, and there was sure to be a lot of heavy thinking going on.

The six cranial all-stars assembled before the excited, flashbulb-popping crowd included such household names as Willard Van Orman Quine, Peter Strawson and Donald Davidson, each a philosophical Mark McGwire. Before getting to the really yeasty metaphysics, it was decided they'd begin with some warm-up thinking, a little philosophical batting practice on the question, "What have we learned from philosophy in the 20th century?"

Brace yourself for the meaty thwack of that one being slapped outta the park! Or, um, not. "I should have thought up an answer to that one," Quine, 90, said. "I'm going to have to pass." A swing and a miss! This from a man described as "the premier 20th-century proponent of naturalism."

Next, Strawson, a 79-year-old philosopher from Oxford, trained his magnifying glass on the word "we" in what have we learned ... Does "we" mean all of us collectively or each of us individually? "If it's the former, the possibility of any reply seems remote. And if it's the latter, there is no shortage of replies." In other words, I should have thought up an answer to that one.

Not content to trifle with the many shades of "we," action philosopher Karl-Otto Apel of Frankfurt instead deplored the hardening of philosophy away from introspection and into mathematical logic. "The only philosophical thing left is 'et cetera,"' he said.

The others followed suit. By the time the talk ended, the big brains were 0-6 ... make that 0-7. Given a second chance, Quine said, "I really have nothing to add."

And so the Philosophy Congress proved no more wise, effective or useful than the U.S. Congress. It must have been quite a sight, all that intellectual horsepower stuck in idle. Sad, too, when even the brainiacs can't think of anything interesting to say.

While I grant the difficulty of ad-libbing answers to sweeping questions, I still think these beings of pure mental energy could have fashioned a better response. Perhaps they just didn't feel like it. Maybe brain cells are like money -- you don't remain wealthy by spending frivolously.

It would be easy -- and fun! -- to go on an anti-intellectual bender here, but I won't. I admire deep-thinkers. Yet the pointlessness of the proceedings underlines the gulf between intellectuals and the rest of us. Away from their books, faced with a crowd of people who by their actions -- standing on tiptoes, craning their necks, actually attending something called "The World Philosophy Congress" -- were eager to embrace new ideas, the panelists couldn't do better than hair-splitting and et cetera. Reading about it, I couldn't help but be disappointed.

The 21st century is coming at us like a "Deep Impact" tidal wave, loaded with interesting, exciting questions. And people are looking for answers -- why else would there be an audience for angel books? People trained to think deeply can be particularly valuable. But I don't think et cetera is the answer we're looking for.

archive