Philosophy Beyond the Academy
chronicle.com
chronicle.com
Philosophical practice has certainly become bound up with academic philosophy. To such an extent that to be a "philosopher" one must become a lecturer in philosophy, preferably tenured because of the added cred. that brings. This is damaging to the grand project of philosophy because it creates an artificial division between those who supposedly "do" philosophy and those who follow.
If the review of this book is accurate then Smith reckons that there are in fact six types of philosopher: the Natural Philosopher, the Sage, the Gadfly, the Ascetic, the Mandarin, and the Courtier. The Mandarin corresponds to our academic philosopher system. One detects a slight pejorative note in the label perhaps? FTA:
“The Mandarin shares the pages of Smith’s book with five other types. There is the Curiosa [Natural Philosopher], who blurs the boundaries between natural science and philosophy. There is the Sage, who engages critically with a culture that he or she has thoroughly internalized. There is the Gadfly, whose critical engagement with the culture deploys such modes as parody or invective. There is the Ascetic, who disclaims such ersatz values as wealth or honor or pleasure for the real values: goodness, reflection, simplicity. Finally, there is the Courtier, speaking convenient untruths to power.”
I think there is a very real sense in which philosophy has taken its eye off the ball in the last 150 years. However, I believe that philosophy is going to come into its own again because of the questions that machine intelligence, genetic engineering, and computing in the humanities pose. Why so? Because philosophy thrives at the blurred boundaries of disciplines. Every ages challenge is to reinvent philosophy in its own image.
The result is that what's left for philosophers to talk about and contribute is... debatable. Worse, the space their ideas can occupy shrinks as its claimed by fields with more rigor and more of a basis in scientific endeavor.
Another example from the 18th or 19th century was when doctors thought dogs were just automatons, lacking any consciousness. Which allowed them to perform cruel medical experiments on the dogs, and ignore their howlings. But if we become convinced that animals are conscious and can experience pain and misery, do we change how we treat them?
The more self-aware an animal is, the less tasty it becomes.
Cows, seafood, and pigs simply lack the divine park.
Source: my stomach
Ethics is a huge part of academic philosophy, some would say too large a part. We have regular ethics, bio-ethics, environmental ethics, meta-ethics, and on and on.
The question "how ought we live" can be studied objectively and philosophy does just that. Do not confuse this with the subjective and value-laden responses to the question which themselves can be studied and analysed dispassionately.
In general it is best not to throw around terms like subjective and objective because they are fraught with historical baggage and misconception.
And there are plenty of philosophers who have taken findings from science and asked what the implications are. Why do we experience a flow of time, if physics is time reversible? How does consciousness fit into an empirical (objective) framework? Is there a definition of free will that is compatible with the findings of neuroscience and psychology?
Ethics, politics, art, and values are judgements we make as humans. Science can inform our values, but it cannot tell us which values to adopt, or what system of government or economics we should want. You might think that equality and justice for all are the right sort of values, but other groups and societies have (and still do) thought otherwise. For some pleasure is the highest (and only true good). For others, it's a cause, it's family, it's power, it's money, etc.
Yes, the last 150 years could be characterised by the "rise of science" as you put it. But not only science, huge technological advances that have allowed us to manipulate those very things that were once abstract notions. Technology is what is important here, not science. The things that are drawn together under a scientific heading are those things that are amenable to the scientific method and our understanding of this method is grounded in the philosophy of science. It's a two way street. The more the we discover the more there is to know. For now there is plenty of space and technology advances dictate for now that the spaces are not shrinking but growing.
Regarding brain-drain, make of it what you will but studies have shown that in terms of IQ those who choose philosophy are comparable to their peers. So quality is not lacking, quantity-wise I could not say.
Where I think that philosophy has lost its way is in believing the very things you put forward, the sort of tired old false narratives that circulate in academia and in wider society.
This is such a strangely ahistorical point of view. The obvious conterexample: we managed to get a little mileage out of political philosophy, which has no "overlap with science" in the way you mean. Creation of modern democracy and so on.
Actually I think philosophy is a victim of its own success at keeping its eye on the ball over that period. That is: analytic philosophy has eliminated a lot of bullshit and posturing at the cost of raising up a new scholasticism.
Analytic philosophy is nice and rigorous, and any argument must be defended against opponents within a well developed analytical tool-kit. In maths or science, that would be just dandy. But if any field really was amenable to such rigour it would no longer be called "philosophy".
So we get a conversation between academics where everything seemingly is there for solid analytical reasons, but is really just what evolved particular cultural ecosystem of analytical standards. Outsiders have to learn and adapt all that culture to be heard: and they are thus absorbed into it.
When the largest companies in the world have corporate mottos like "Don't be evil" and politics splits the country into parties incredulous how the other side can even think as they do, it's maybe time to teach a bit more philosophy in schools and a bit less Shakespeare (Will should stay, just make room).
The book looks interesting. But the author runs the risk of swinging too far and suggesting too broad a definition for philosophy from its current narrow, useless pedestal in academia.
If philosophy is best regarded as "a universal human activity with many distinct cultural inflections" what does that mean?
Look what happened to art, anything and everything from a Rembrandt painting exhibition to your local hippy spoken word poetry slam is an art event? Wha? Art has lost some of its potential when it becomes that overwhelmingly big and confusing.
Defining what philosophy is (and isn't) and what it offers, seems like a really difficult and important first step before you can sell it to others. It's not clear if the author does this.
This is obviously true in law and politics, and certainly other professions like engineering. But what surprises people is that it's also true within academia - if you don't conform, you don't get tenure.
The people who are successful often come from higher income households where children are made to attend numerous extra-curricular activities so as to give them an early exposure to "gaming" the political structure of a hierarchical organisation.
Two days ago at a welfare office, I said to a 21yo guy: "Take your free time and read! Learn new things!" and he asked me why...
So many lifes wasted just because you have to only be efficient in a broken system.
(I was at that office because of my too much critical thinking label)
Criticizing and critical thinking isn't the same thing.
I'm not a big fan of him but I find his view about politics pretty interesting and actual (from an online translator):
Two powers govern the crowds: jealousy and stupidity. Those who govern know how easy it is to win the flock to his views.
In politics, the public is at stake and no matter to have the truth with him. What counts is winning ground. It flatters the lowest desires.
The majority rules as if truth was a matter of numbers. For Kierkegaard, democracy is a danger because the mass does not try to understand, has no ideal and follows one that flatters most.
Against Hegel, he does not believe that moral virtue can be found only in the state. The individual is, however, constantly under threat. The crowd is lying when the individual is the awakening of the spirit.