
Why Are Tenured Philosophy Professors Unhappy? - luu
http://www.philpercs.com/2016/05/why-are-tenured-philosophy-professors-unhappy.html
======
wmil
My suspicion is that philosophy is a dead field. Psychology and neuroscience
are coming out with fascinating new results backed up by facts and studies.

For instance Jonathan Haidt comes from social psychology, and his work on
moral foundations is far more interesting than anything that's come out of
philosophy departments this century. Even though morality is supposed to be on
of their core issues.

Once they get tenure they're forced to face the fact that they have no more
career goals and can't do any meaningful work.

~~~
jtth
There's a lot of work done in analytical philosophy.

There's still good work being done in all different kinds of philosophy. See
Thomas Nagel.

~~~
WaltPurvis
I don't mean to slight Nagel's recent work, which I haven't read, but (honest
question here, because I don't have a clue) would you say that Nagel's recent
work is generally considered as important or groundbreaking as what he did 30
and 40 years ago? Because my impression is that Nagel's most impressive work
was done decades ago, which, if true, doesn't support the idea that philosophy
is _currently_ a vibrant field with lots of groundbreaking work going on.

~~~
woodruffw
This isn't a direct response to your question, but people often refer to the
last few decades (or even centuries) of philosophy as "current". 40 years may
be ancient in experimental science, but it's practically yesterday in
philosophy.

~~~
WaltPurvis
That's true, but I don't believe the vibrancy of philosophy 30 or 40 years ago
would play much of a factor in professional philosophers' current job/life
satisfaction. They would probably need to see lots of great work being done
over the past two or five years, or at most ten years, to feel excited about
the state of their profession. (With some variation based on specialty, e.g.,
a professor of ancient philosophy probably wouldn't care as much about recent
activity as a specialist in modern analytic philosophy, who in turn would
probably care less than a philosopher of science.)

------
miles
Perhaps Thoreau can shed some light[1]:

"Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not
only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind.
With respect to luxuries and comforts, the wisest have ever lived a more
simple and meagre life than the poor. ... There are nowadays professors of
philosophy, but not philosophers. Yet it is admirable to profess because it
was once admirable to live. To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle
thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live
according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity,
and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of life, not only
theoretically, but practically."

[1]
[http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/walden/hdt01.html](http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/walden/hdt01.html)

~~~
hinkley
Thoreau called out eastern philosophy in that book at several points. Even
Baudrillard isn't that original from this standpoint. Shoulders of giants to
be sure.

------
carsongross
Most are atheists, which denies them access to one of the few institutions
shown to promote happiness and sociability and provide meaning and consolation
once life's major goals/distractions are past, and you have to stop and look
existence in the face. Downboat away, HN, but it's a major cause of
unhappiness: "He doesn't exist, the bastard."

Eventually, your choices are nihilism or God. Everything else is hysterics.

~~~
lisper
> Eventually, your choices are nihilism or God

Why are those my only choices? I am neither a nihilist nor a theist. I'm just
kind of enjoying being alive while it lasts. Do you think I'm doing it wrong?

~~~
rgbrenner
No, you're doing just fine. You see, some theists cling to their religion so
strongly, that they have difficulty imagining how they would interpret the
world without god. So right and wrong, come from god. Meaning of life comes
from god. etc, etc. The op even imagines happiness requires god.

So they take that point of view, remove god from it, and then apply what they
imagine to atheists. And it's never good. You get these ridiculous ideas like
atheists must all be nihilists; must be immoral; etc.

~~~
hinkley
The people who actually know better are too busy doing other things to piss in
the wind by arguing with a theist. Absence of disproof in this case doesn't
equate to proof. It may just mean that nobody is willing to give you
constructive criticism.

------
rdiddly
He makes 8 points, but the last 7 are all things that are presumably true
throughout a person's career in philosophy/academia. The only condition that
changes when one gets tenure is #1, and I believe that's the root of it. But I
don't look at it in terms of freedom, but rather of adversity -- adversity as
a BENEFIT, that the tenured faculty (or the miserable lottery winner) abruptly
LOSES. Adversity is what gives life meaning, improves us as people, and
(paradoxically) creates happiness. You are a knife and adversity is the rock
against which you sharpen yourself. Not necessarily because you need a sharp
knife, but because a knife is best when it's at its most knife-like. Heirs,
except when they reject or are excommunicated from the family fortune, usually
have no concept of adversity and grow up to be shitty, weak people. They never
have to strive and hence never learn what they're made of. Once you get
tenure, that is what you lose.

~~~
joe_the_user
It's not really true that the only thing that changes once you get tenure is
decompression. The other thing that changes is that your workload switches
from lots of tenure-qualifying stuff to lots of administrative stuff. As his
other point highlights, you still have an unreasonable workload, it's just
that now you aren't directly fighting for your job. You can slack off, meaning
do a mediocre job at the many, many tasks assigned to you.

And that goes to problem #3, especially the impossibility of teaching well
when a huge load of administrative BS is required and great teaching isn't
required.

~~~
WaltPurvis
I think talk about "the impossibility of teaching well" is stretching things a
bit. In my own experience, I had some philosophy professors who were
phenomenally great teachers and some others who were downright awful. Some of
the difference might have come down to innate talent for teaching, but I'm
quite sure that _none_ of the difference was attributable to the amount of
non-teaching duties they had. The best teachers I had were professors with
_heavy_ administrative and advisory duties, while the two worst had
comparatively little non-teaching work to do. The main reason they were
terrible teachers is because they just didn't give a shit; they were clearly
just phoning it in.

------
whateveridunno
I have to wonder if tenured philosophy professors are any more or less unhappy
than, say, newly tenured literature professors or economists or chemists.

I ask because 1, 3, 4, and 5 seem like the most persuasive reasons, but
they're also the ones that aren't specific to philosophy.

------
jhanschoo
At least 2 other top-level posters here have suggested that philosophy might
be dying due to their relevance being superceded by fields like physics and
neuroscience.

I have a similar notion. But what I feel most lacking in philosophy are not
its everyday relevance, but its methods. Mathematics has communicated with the
natural sciences and continues to contribute by providing a watertight
framework. The natural sciences have had empiricism and the scientific method;
and most academic fields are today exploring new data-driven methods and
computational analysis to develop new insights.

Much work that I've seen in analytic philosophy, on the other hand, continue
the tradition of thought experiments and simple classical logic, rarely
venturing into more expressive models and arguments, perhaps computational.

I personally think that the strong reliance on inexpressive logic rather than
creating more expressive mathematical models of philosophical frameworks
actively hinders it. Philosophers should be actively and profusely creating
metaphysical and ethical frameworks in mathematics, not unlike physicists and
economists.

------
mizzao
I don't think this is specific to philosophy, or even to academia in general.
Trying to get tenure isn't all that different from trying to get rich, famous,
powerful, or so on.

If you see tenure (or any of those other things) as a goal in itself rather
than the product of doing meaningful work and living a purposeful life, then
you may have just climbed to the top of the ladder and realized that it was
against the wrong wall.

------
fizixer
To all kinds of philosophers. It might sound pep-talk+patronizing but hear me
out:

\- What is science? natural philosophy!

\- What is mathematics/computer-science? modern philosophy!

The journey from continental to analytic philosophy didn't end there. Today
natural philosophy and modern philosophy are reaping the rewards of 'the
culture of thinking' promulgated by the untiring work of philosophers of
history and present.

If you feel any emptiness in your life, please consider spending time learning
mathematics and/or programming. IMO it's the highest form of exploration of
abstractions and information-structures.

You might ask? "but what's the point? and how does it help with unhappiness".

Well, here's the rub. The holy grail of computer-science is artificial
intelligence!

There is a mad rush to achieve it from all walks of life and I believe it's
going to happen very soon (within the next 10 to 30 years). You might want to
be part of that!

What's the other big thing? biological longevity! There's an equally mad rush
about to begin to extend healthy human lifespan to 100, 150, 200 years (and
beyond) if possible.

AI and longevity don't end the existential gloom, but they change the game of
which existential questions are asked.

There is another connection. The way math and CS is the natural continuation
to analytic philosophy, transhumanism is the natural continuation to atheism!
There is a connection because AI and longevity are exactly the two issues that
are front and center in transhumanist thought.

Why transhumanism? Because once you're an atheist and an existentialist, and
you realize there is no purpose in life, and that we make our own purpose,
there are a few possible outcomes:

\- nihilism/suicidal thinking (screw everything)

\- religion (you go back to "thinking-less" life)

\- absurdism (just accept the status-quo)

\- superficialism (you give yourself some purpose just for the heck of it)

All four are unsatisfying. Well guess what, transhumanism is the fifth option.
It challenges you that the drudgery of work (to make a living) and the thought
of inevitable impending death (not to mention sickness and frailty) are at
least as existentially significant as the meaning-of-life question (probably
more so in the current state of human progress). It doesn't promise to answer
the last one but it encourages to reach a life that is free of the first two.

Even if all of this is not convincing enough, consider one final thought. If
we humans are biological machines programmed to have certain feelings and
emotions which result in the existential gloom, and if we conquer our biology
to get rid of sickness and death, what makes you think we would still be
unable to switch off our feelings of existential gloom? feelings of boredom?
What makes you think we won't be able to sleep as long as we want, instead of
ending our life, and still have a shot at enjoying life when we wake up?

(P.S.: One parting word, space (the final frontier)!)

~~~
cbd1984
> What is science? natural philosophy!

It was, back a long time ago, but the natural philosophers fell away as more
technical knowledge came to be required to advance the field.

> What is mathematics/computer-science? modern philosophy!

Not really, no. It doesn't provide any guidance for life and it doesn't
grapple with any of the big questions, even to say they're meaningless. It
isn't philosophy as anyone defines the term.

> The holy grail of computer-science is artificial intelligence!

That's the "holy grail" of one sub-field, maybe. Not the whole field by a long
shot.

~~~
fizixer
Well if you're up for nitpicking, I wouldn't be surprised if you're able to
find 30 problems in my comment rather than 3.

I urge you to read it while practising the principle of charity.

------
luketych
Because they're philosophy professors..

------
Overtonwindow
Sounds like a great philosophy class.

------
CamperBob2
Funny thing about this "God" concept of yours. If I take two people from the
same church -- even if they're sitting next to each other in the same pew,
singing from the same songbook and sharing the same Bible -- and interrogate
them in two separate rooms, their accounts of who God is and what God wants
will eventually diverge.

That's a bit awkward for those who find pleasure and comfort in rigorous
thinking, isn't it?

~~~
carsongross
I didn't say you had to pick God, bro.

I didn't say I did.

~~~
CamperBob2
_I didn 't say you had to pick God, bro. I didn't say I did._

Well, you've said elsewhere you're a "conservative." That suggests you're not
a nihilist, since it implies that order and tradition are touchstones of your
personal value system.

That leaves doors #2 and #3, God and hysterics. Like everyone else, you know
nothing about God that you didn't hear from other men... but by all accounts,
one thing most Gods have in common is that they don't like people who waffle
about standing up for their beliefs.

So, hysterics it is, I guess. That's believable.

