
Philosophy Beyond the Academy - samclemens
http://www.chronicle.com/article/Philosophy-Beyond-the-Academy/238052
======
igravious
A 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.

[1]
[http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10698.html](http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10698.html)

~~~
M_Grey
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.

~~~
Erik816
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."

~~~
goatlover
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?

~~~
Erik816
Certainly. I think science, and more objective areas of philosophy, are great
at providing information about the world. And that should certainly factor
into the discussions of how we should live in that world. They just can't
determine it.

------
qwrusz
I'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.

~~~
solipsism
Meh. Critical thinking skills, yes. The vast majority of the rest of
philosophy, no. We don't want to reach peak Kierkegaard.

~~~
llamaz
I have to question whether critical thinking skills are really that important.
Truly critcal people are labelled as trouble makers who have issues with
authority. People who are obedient, who can play the political game, tend to
do much better.

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.

~~~
grp
If those children were learning critical thinking, maybe they would not be
simple sad extensions of theirs parents.

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)

~~~
llamaz
I agree with you that critical thinking is important. The point of my post is
not to say "don't think critically" but rather to draw attention to how if you
pursue status in a hierarchical organisation, then you need to accept that
you're making a sacrifice. If you accept this fact, then you can better weigh
a balance between your personal goals and the easiest path to attain status.

