The Purpose of Academics

I used to be able to enjoy learning for its own sake. I would, at a relatively early age, pick up books on dinosaurs (I liked raptors before JP made them cool), astronomy, or biology and read them for fun. I liked categorizing things just because, though I must admit that I was never much of an experimenter; hence why I am in philosophy now and not science.

But in college, I realized something: I am actually living. And I should be doing something with my life. At this point, my accumulation of knowledge seemed worthless. I decided to go into philosophy instead of math, because it offered more of an opportunity to work on important questions; math was fun, but what use was it (keep in mind that I am generally into pure math, abstract algebra and the like)? And what is the point if it has no use in the world, to do something for someone?

As time has gone by, my expectations for philosophy have not exactly been met. So, why have I continued to do philosophy? Mainly because I don't want to be like the idiots I see around me; the attitude is entirely negative (and not a little resentfully bitter). There is nothing to gain, only a hope that I can stem the losses and not deform other people's minds too much in the process.

Where to go from here? First, why does everything have to be "useful"? Useful for what? If everything were simply useful, then what would be the end for which we use things? Somethings have got to be simply enjoyed for their own sakes. People need to be fed and all, but what do they do once basic needs have been met> What makes our existence more than that of complex beasts? In addition, on a practical level, when something is done purely for itself it seems to be done better, and so whatever use it could have would be magnified; if it truly has no use (and even the purest mathematics often finds a use), then at least it has been enjoyed.

Second, there are good scholars out there who do inspire me, whose work validates their career choice (and hence mine). I just finished reading Mircea Eliade's The Sacred and the Profane, and Eliade seems to me to be one of these scholars. Why? Eliade is quite well-read; one could swear, even in an introductory book such as this, that he had read everything published on pretty much every religion out there through the amount of citations. And these are not empty citations; he genuinely uses the examples to build his case. He is sympathetic to his topic, and he writes well in helping the reader to be sympathetic as well. Finally, he ties it his research on humanity throughout time and space (but especially more "primitive" peoples, seemingly far removed from us) to the contemporary situation in helping us to understand our place today.

Eliade's work is genuinely insightful and applicable, and this seems to me because he is interested in what really matters in the topic. I myself get caught up too much in terms of style and presentation, which I think gives me part of my problem; perhaps good writing, scholarship, and living comes from simply devoting oneself to the object of one's study and being less concerned with what to do with it afterward.