Philosophy Beyond the Academy
chronicle.com
Philosophy Beyond the Academy
1–10 of 32 posts
Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy
#2Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but I feel like this is yet another modern philosopher re-hashing the same stuff that's been discussed ad nauseam for literally thousands of years. Classical philosophers established long ago that philosophy in a vacuum is pointless, that it shouldn't be considered as an exercise by itself, but rather as a tool to consider everyday matters, whatever these may be. Most forms of meta-philosophy are interesting mental masturbation exercises, but that's about all they achieve.
> This provincializing of Europe helps to show how at least two ancient civilizations, India and China, have intellectual traditions of writing and argument enough like "Philosophia" to merit the name of philosophy. But Smith goes further, proposing that the reflections of nonliterate societies, oral traditions, and discursive forms based on myth and metaphor have some claim to count as philosophy as well.
Again, sorry but this isn't anything new. In fact, a lot of classical philosophy takes its roots in oral tradition, you could even argue that most old religions are based on these principles. I find it a little bit offensive to not only assume that Smith is the first to come up with this idea, but to completely ignore History in the process.
All that said, this is just a book review and I haven't read the book itself. If I'm being needlessly harsh and idiotic, I'd love to be shown so and read the book for penance and enlightenment.
Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy
#3A timely book. The article is a review of The Philosopher: A History in Six Types By Justin E.H. Smith[1]
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.
Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy
#4It looks like someone learned what the meaning behind philosophy is. Here's a simple hint, philosophy, itself, has nothing to do with any western philosophers, the people, nor the English language.
Also, nobody knows what the hell Socrates, etc really meant because they've been dead and there weren't media storage back then. We don't have any of the context, this means voice tone body language etc. Also Socrates, Einstein, etc., don't (say) anything, they said something. They're fucking dead. They've been dead. You have no idea how many people who think the y are smart need shit like this to be explained to them. Jesus fucking christ
Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy
#5A timely book. The article is a review of The Philosopher: A History in Six Types By Justin E.H. Smith[1] 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 divi…
The last 150 years have seen the rise of science as the dominant force in the intellectual space. A lot of what used to be good and impressive about philosophy, as opposed to just a lot of hand-waving, were the parts which had some overlap with science. The last 150 years has essentially seen a brain-drain from Phil -> Sci.
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.
Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy
#6I'm a big advocate for philosophy to be taught much more among core liberal arts subjects like literature and history.
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.
Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy
#7A timely book. The article is a review of The Philosopher: A History in Six Types By Justin E.H. Smith[1] 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 divi…
The last 150 years have seen the rise of science as the dominant force in the intellectual space. A lot of what used to be good and impressive about philosophy, as opposed to just a lot of hand-waving, were the parts which had some overlap with science. The last 150 years has essentially seen a brain-drain from Phil -> Sci. The result is that what's left for philosophers to talk about and contribute is... debatable.…
Completely agreed. But one major area that science, in my opinion, cannot answer is the question "how should we live?" Science almost by definition strives to be objective and value-neutral. But the question of how to live is subjective and value-laden. Unfortunately, academic philosophy seems to have almost completely abandoned this pursuit, instead focusing on areas that can be considered more "scientific."
Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy
#8A timely book. The article is a review of The Philosopher: A History in Six Types By Justin E.H. Smith[1] 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 divi…
The last 150 years have seen the rise of science as the dominant force in the intellectual space. A lot of what used to be good and impressive about philosophy, as opposed to just a lot of hand-waving, were the parts which had some overlap with science. The last 150 years has essentially seen a brain-drain from Phil -> Sci. The result is that what's left for philosophers to talk about and contribute is... debatable.…
There are age old philosophical questions in metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics that science is not equipped to answer. Questions that the ancient Greeks asked which still puzzle philosophers (and anyone who thinks about them, including scientists) today.
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?
Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last 150 years have seen the rise of science as the dominant force in the intellectual space. A lot of what used to be good and impressive about philosophy, as opposed to just a lot of hand-waving, were the parts which had some overlap with science. The last 150 years has essentially seen a brain-drain from Phil -> Sci. The result is that what's left for philosophers to talk about and contribute is... debatable.…
Completely agreed. But one major area that science, in my opinion, cannot answer is the question "how should we live?" Science almost by definition strives to be objective and value-neutral. But the question of how to live is subjective and value-laden. Unfortunately, academic philosophy seems to have almost completely abandoned this pursuit, instead focusing on areas that can be considered more "scientific."
The other areas of philosophy can inform how we should live questions. For example, if science were to show that free will, at least as traditionally conceived, was impossible, how does that effect our lives? Should our system of justice be changed to reflect that (as some have thought)? Daniel Dennett wrote a book defending a compatibilist version of free will because he was worried about the hard determinist influence on politics.
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?
Re: Philosophy Beyond the Academy
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last 150 years have seen the rise of science as the dominant force in the intellectual space. A lot of what used to be good and impressive about philosophy, as opposed to just a lot of hand-waving, were the parts which had some overlap with science. The last 150 years has essentially seen a brain-drain from Phil -> Sci. The result is that what's left for philosophers to talk about and contribute is... debatable.…
There are age old philosophical questions in metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics that science is not equipped to answer. Questions that the ancient Greeks asked which still puzzle philosophers (and anyone who thinks about them, including scientists) today. 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 t…
To be honest, that sounds to me like playing in the gaps because that's what's left, and those gaps are likely to be filled one by one.