Academic institution corrupting philosophy?

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

It seems that philosophy itself has left the mainstream populace that it wishes to enhance, or deduce its theories upon.

What's the point of philosophizing when the other of the world does not even seem to notice the intellectual breakthroughs of the academic philosophers?

Is the academy itself to be blamed for this seperation?

Have the intellectuals sheltered themselves in hopes to help create these philosophies? Have they not realized their seperation from the world?

 

[DailyBlessings]

I would blame the philosophers (and perhaps the public) more than the academy, in this particular issue. If philosophy departments choose to devote their time to questions that are uninteresting to the majority of the populace instead of engaging in popular ethical discussions, and communicate their conclusions through heavy language and the dying technology of the book, this is hardly the fault of the universities that pay the bills. But the academy could perhaps do more to engage people in dialogue with one another. A lack of conversation and public fora certainly do not help matters.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I would blame the philosophers (and perhaps the public) more than the academy, in this particular issue. If philosophy departments choose to devote their time to questions that are uninteresting to the majority of the populace instead of engaging in popular ethical discussions, and communicate their conclusions through heavy language and the dying technology of the book, this is hardly the fault of the universities that pay the bills. But the academy could perhaps do more to engage people in dialogue with one another. A lack of conversation and public fora certainly do not help matters.

Well, i don't think they exactly question things uninteresting to the public. I think though, they approach the questions and answer them only among themselves: In a way that doesn't allow the average educated individual to make way into the theories or take part in these philosophies that are supposed to help them better understand themselves.

But i think the way the academy has been used by those apart of its body is a very deceptive application of its primary goal. They merely use it as a shell to keep to themselves. Maybe they misunderstand the concept of the academies purpose in the first place? Which is supposed to abdicate the pursuit and gaining of knowledge to humanity.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Well, i don't think they exactly question things uninteresting to the public. I think though, they approach the questions and answer them only among themselves: In a way that doesn't allow the average educated individual make way into the theories.

But i think the way the academy has been used by those apart of it's body is a very bad way. They merely use it as a shell to keep to themselves. Maybe they misunderstand the concept of the academies purpose in the first place? Which is supposed to abdicate the pursuit and gaining of knowledge to humanity.

The purpose of the academy is also to control society and dictate the ways that are permissible to think, to create a visible presence in society for the aims of government-sponsored ideologies. This has been the case from the start, and it is only now that it's role in this regard has been severely undercut by the introduction of a plurality of other sources of authority. I really do think that a lot of the questions that philosophers ask, and the assumptions that they employ in answering them, are somewhat irrelevant to the interests of the average citizen. Within meters of my apartment there are hundreds of people whose daily concerns have a lot less to do with questioning the existence of God or the merits of dualism, than finding their next paycheck and coping with the drastically changing face of their community- especially since the philosophers are apt to charge them money just to hear their input! Why on earth would anyone living in a cramped apartment down on Mission Street be interested in reading what, say, Robert Greenberg thinks Immanuel Kant might have meant by a priori knowledge? It has nothing whatsoever to do with their life, or the uses of practical philosophy in their own life. If philosophy wants to make itself relevant to people in general, I suggest that it ought to take a cue from the church and meet people where they are at.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

The purpose of the academy is also to control society and dictate the ways that are permissible to think, to create a visible presence in society for the aims of government-sponsored ideologies. This has been the case from the start, and it is only now that it's role in this regard has been severely undercut by the introduction of a plurality of other sources of authority. I really do think that a lot of the questions that philosophers ask, and the assumptions that they employ in answering them, are somewhat irrelevant to the interests of the average citizen. Within meters of my apartment there are hundreds of people whose daily concerns have a lot less to do with questioning the existence of God or the merits of dualism, than finding their next paycheck and coping with the drastically changing face of their community- especially since the philosophers are apt to charge them money just to hear their input! Why on earth would anyone living in a cramped apartment down on Mission Street be interested in reading what, say, Robert Greenberg thinks Immanuel Kant might have meant by a priori knowledge? It has nothing whatsoever to do with their life, or the uses of practical philosophy in their own life. If philosophy wants to make itself relevant to people in general, I suggest that it ought to take a cue from the church and meet people where they are at.

Good point. But can't you look at the fact of the irrelevancy to be a blunder of society itself, for no longer daring to be philosophical?

Even for philosophies that deal directly with the individual and his circumstances while living have this issue with approaching and inpregnating themselves within the individual.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Good point. But can't you look at the fact of the irrelevancy to be a blunder of society itself, for no longer daring to be philosophical?

I would, except that I really don't see society as un-philosophical. What, after all, is outside the scope of philosophy? Any human life faces a multitude of questions every day that requires a knowledge base and an ethical framework to answer. Why don't philosophy departments build soup kitchens? Why do they waste their time waging war against religion and anti-intellectualism, when the systems people are vegetatively and mentally dependent on are entrenched in those dialogues? Look at this from the point of view of someone who has never had a university education, nor has ever sympathized with the goals of people who have- people who make it their business to socially and economically abuse and exploit or at least look down on those who do not. Your average university philosophy instructor has no interest in listening to what the common people have to say about philosophy, and much of what they say about ethics either apologetic to the systems that exploit people or proven hypocritical by the actions of the upper class. In that context, they have little right to demand that people listen to their opinions, do they?

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I would, except that I really don't see society as un-philosophical. What, after all, is outside the scope of philosophy? Any human life faces a multitude of questions every day that requires a knowledge base and an ethical framework to answer. Why don't philosophy departments build soup kitchens? Why do they waste their time waging war against religion and anti-intellectualism, when the systems people are vegetatively and mentally dependent on are entrenched in those dialogues? Look at this from the point of view of someone who has never had a university education, nor has ever sympathized with the goals of people who have- people who make it their business to socially and economically abuse and exploit or at least look down on those who do not. Your average university philosophy instructor has no interest in listening to what the common people have to say about philosophy, and much of what they say about ethics either apologetic to the systems that exploit people or proven hypocritical by the actions of the upper class. In that context, they have little right to demand that people listen to their opinions, do they?

Of course i don't mean totally unphilosophical-to say so would be incredibly contradictive to what a human being is.

And i see what you're saying. And i think i understand it very well. Why should a philosophy professor deal with the stoner circle epiphanies of a bunch of high-school dropouts, when their ideas were contradicted with the theories of Kant and Plato?!

By what you say, do you imply that the average intellectual participant within the academic institutions have no desire to be apart of the common individuals thoughts and situation? This seems incredibly daft and hypocritical for a bunch of people who wish to help the world by being open-minded.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Ethics and philosophy need to be required classes in high school taught through an unbiased source and view (or from several agreeing sources from different views) with the goal of promoting tolerance, goodwill and all that jazz, while allowing students to still make choices on certain things. Done and done.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Of course i don't mean totally unphilosophical-to say so would be incredibly contradictive to what a human being is.

And i see what you're saying. And i think i understand it very well. Why should a philosophy professor deal with the stoner circle epiphanies of a bunch of high-school dropouts, when their ideas were contradicted with the theories of Kant and Plato?!

By what you say, do you imply that the average intellectual participant within the academic institutions have no desire to be apart of the common individuals thoughts and situation? This seems incredibly daft and hypocritical for a bunch of people who wish to help the world by being open-minded.

I certainly wouldn't level a charge that all academics are intentionally disconnected from society, but it is something that occurs whether willed or no. And if you believe that philosophers as a whole are genuinely open minded, I'm afraid I quite disagree. One way or another, there's a large gap between popular thought and the theories of the academic world, and I think it is up to the philosopher, if she desires, to cover that gap. Indeed, a "lover of knowledge" should want to know nothing less than the full scope of human perceptions of the world. If there is one disservice that the academy has done for the realm of philosophy, it has been to set up men like Kant and Descartes as edifices: it is no longer an age of edifices, or respect for individuals who have gone before simply by meritocracy. Too many discussions of the same ideas, while ignoring the many voices of the modern world. There's this quote of Jorge Luis Borges' that I have always liked:

"Even the most dismal work is apt to contain one of the best lines of literature, and also the worst. Beauty does not belong to a few illustrious names. It would be rare if this book did not contain a single line worthy of staying with you to the end."

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I certainly wouldn't level a charge that all academics are intentionally disconnected from society, but it is something that occurs whether willed or no. And if you believe that philosophers as a whole are genuinely open minded, I'm afraid I quite disagree. One way or another, there's a large gap between popular thought and the theories of the academic world, and I think it is up to the philosopher, if she desires, to cover that gap. Indeed, a "lover of knowledge" should want to know nothing less than the full scope of human perceptions of the world. If there is one disservice that the academy has done for the realm of philosophy, it has been to set up men like Kant and Descartes as edifices: it is no longer an age of edifices, or respect for individuals who have gone before simply by meritocracy. Too many discussions of the same ideas, while ignoring the many voices of the modern world. There's this quote of Jorge Luis Borges' that I have always liked:

"Even the most dismal work is apt to contain one of the best lines of literature, and also the worst. Beauty does not belong to a few illustrious names. It would be rare if this book did not contain a single line worthy of staying with you to the end."

The charge and accusation that the academy is the proprietor for this is not what i mean. I mean the philosophers who build themselves upon already compiled knowledge are to blame. They have misunderstood the branches of philosophy for themselves, and have reflected this degeneration onto the world through not being apart of the world.

I agree entirely. It is intellectual arrogance then, that poisons the philosophers heart, and stones their thinkers mind?

 

[variant]

It's a social issue. The issue is that so many more people are literate.

When people like Kant were writing only a very small portion of the population was even literate. They could appeal to a very small population within that literate population that was interested in philosophy, the old philosophers essentially had the discussion to themselves, which allowed them to be daring and individual, and have a sort of philosophical conversation with the other philosophers of their time and before.

They could be certain of what other ideas were out there and they could address them.

Today the information available is simply more massive, and the audience has increased by many factors of ten.

You could spend your entire life studying philosophy and not read all the relevant philosophical ideas pertaining to a specific question you might have. This means that in academia most people write referentially and papers are about combining other people’s ideas (which needs to be done to be taken seriously) instead of really expressing their own.

This has set up a sort of intermediary of popular philosophers, who address the ideas that people are actually interested in by stealing from the academic philosophers and relating it to the general public.

 

[redmartian89]

Catering philosophy to generate numbers is a bad idea.

If intellectuals prefer to pursue rational discourse without much interference from popular sources, that is their choice.

But, it is the choice of the universities over which people to hire and fire.

Philosopihzing need not be for big audiences, or any at all. You could build up your philosophy of life wo a need of ever telling anyone about it ever.

Doesn't happen much, but it still happens.