Each year, the University of Toronto (in collaboration with the Ontario Philosophy Teachers’ Association) administers the Aristotle Contest, which recognizes the best philosophical essays by current Canadian high school students. Entrants choose their subject from one of three different prompts relating to contemporary issues in philosophy. The winner receives a $500 cash prize, while the second-placed essayist receives $400 and the third-ranking writer $300; starting this year, the awards come from the generous support of donor Anita Angelini. For those still toying with the idea of participating, the 2024 contest is accepting submissions until July 24.
Eric Fishback won the contest in 2018 with an essay titled “The Universal Objective Truths of Aesthetics.” Six years later, as a he graduates from our master’s program, we follow up with him and see what’s changed.
Tell us a little bit about yourself—what’s happened since high school?
I’ve been interested in philosophy since the end of high school. After I won the Aristotle Contest, I decided I was going to apply to philosophy programs, and the University of Toronto was the best-looking program for the things I was interested in: logic, metaphysics, and epistemology. After four years, I finished my undergraduate here and then I applied for a master’s program, which I’ve recently completed. So I’ve been on this academic path of philosophy, and we’ll see what the future holds.
What are you studying within the field of philosophy?
My primary interests are the crossover of epistemology [study of knowledge], metaphysics [study of existence and reality], and logic. I’m looking at questions about how metaphysics is even possible, and logical results and their implications for metaphysics. And then I’m more generally interested in deontic logic [study of obligation and permission] or non-classical logics, that sort of thing.
Can you walk us through your process of writing the Aristotle essay? Do you have advice for students who are interested in submitting to the contest?
There’s not a lot of opportunities for you to engage with philosophy in high school. I heard about the contest from a relative, and I was very interested in the questions being asked, so I decided to submit something as a way of seeing if I wanted to pursue philosophy further.
The Aristotle competition doesn’t have the largest word count [1,200], so I chose the topic where I thought I could offer the most interesting full-fledged argument in the least amount of time. When you’re writing as a student, especially with limited time and words, you want to try and contribute your own original thoughts to the greatest extent possible without having to reference too many outside sources. That’s a strategy that I still engage in.
How did winning the Aristotle Contest impact your life? Did it affect your decision to go to U of T?
It wasn’t necessarily night and day, but I did get a sense of confidence from winning it—as if now I might actually have what it takes to write philosophy and succeed in the field. I always knew that I wanted to go to the University of Toronto, but after winning the Aristotle, I felt like I really had a chance to get accepted.
What appealed to you about studying philosophy at the University of Toronto?
When I was applying to universities, I didn’t know what specific area of philosophy I was interested in. The University of Toronto has the largest philosophy department in Canada, and so the sheer number of courses offered here impacted my decision. There were several specific courses available to undergraduate students that blew my mind. I couldn’t believe that you could take a course solely on Spinoza!
It seemed like an enticing place to be able to explore different areas of philosophy that I was interested in, and come away with a better sense of what I wanted to do in the future.
How do you think the field of philosophy has changed or will change during your lifetime?
I wonder if we’re going to see a move to more systematic thinking. Right now, I feel like philosophical work is very fractured and atomic. A lot of people are currently concerned about the status of metaphysics, and I think there’s going to be more of a drive to create more structured metaphysical systems. This is pure speculation, of course—I’m no authority—but that’s what I’m seeing from my position right now.
Also, there’ve been efforts recently—at least at the University of Toronto—to make the philosophical field more international and reconsider the type of the philosophers that we focus on. For example, we’re now studying philosophers from the Sanskrit, Confucian, and Buddhist traditions, and I feel like there’s a lot of potential in considering those philosophers more seriously. Previously, philosophy studies centered around a pantheon of maybe six dudes, and if you couldn’t relate to any of them, you would probably be less inclined to study philosophy. Now there’s an opportunity to add new perspectives and bring more people into the fold.
Is there a philosopher that you feel particularly drawn to? Do you have any philosophical words to live by?
Well, the philosophers who I relate to are not necessarily the philosophers that I study. I like Kierkegaard, Boethius, and St. Augustine.
I feel like there’s a difference between philosophy that’s good to live by and philosophy that’s good to learn from. In terms of philosophical words to live by, I would recommend staying away from the metaphysicians and leaning more towards the ethicists.
Now it’s time for questions that are just for fun. If you could have any piece of our existing art displayed in your house for a month, what would you pick and why?
I would choose Edward Hopper’s Nighthawks. I really like that painting, but I don’t even think I would feel comfortable having it displayed in my apartment for a month. It would probably get stolen.
You can choose any philosopher—living or dead—to have dinner with. However, after dinner, you have to spar with them in a friendly boxing cage match. Who do you choose, and do you think you’ll win?
I would choose Schopenhauer, but I choose him dead. That way, I would have a better chance of winning in the boxing match … although I imagine the dinnertime conversation would be notably worse.
Interview by Avi Kleinman
SHARE
