I'm looking at the course listings, and my first thought is, it's telling that these are all 'multi-interidsciplanry approaches to post-21st century reactions to the rise of anti-post-Hegelian science' sorts of things, and there's no, say, Linear Algebra course.

Totally.

But what do you think about the idea in a more general sense?

I think the ideal school has people living and interacting in physical proximity. I'm old-school that way. Departments on traditional campuses are alright, but I actually like the old Greek model even better. I like the idea of research as a lifelong joint project and lifestyle, rather than an ephemeral meeting of people to swap notes at 'conferences' or in 'lectures' and meetings.

Perhaps a criticism of internet philosophy is that it is a user-directed search that can land upon an isolated community such that an internet philosophical movement is a collection of individuals that share a common cognitive bias and continually reaffirm that bias in their own blogs. Of course the case can be made that the same happens in academia and schools, but if the internet (search engines) directed you to opposition to your position in the way a library might arrange books by topic, there might be more of a realization that there is serious work opposed to the movement. I wouldn't categorize philosophy on the internet as fruitless, but it can give the appearance of a greater understanding and consensus and should be cautious of becoming a "safe" community absent of dissent.

I know there is a "College of Stoic Philosophers" associated, I believe, with the New Stoa, both online. There are some professional philosophers involved with it, but have no idea what it does or teaches (I suspect it has something to do with Stoicism, though). I assume it's potentially a serious effort. Obviously I don't participate in it. I spend what free time I have playing chess, shooting clays, reading and napping. But I don't think the fact that this New Centre is online necessarily renders it frivolous. I know of respected universities which offer graduate degrees obtained through online courses, and it's likely the way things will go in the future, which would have the sad result that students may no longer have the opportunity to demand that statues and names be removed from campus as they offend their sensibilities.

Generally speaking, is the quality of internet philosophy low? Yeah. But to say that it's impossible for anyone to do any serious philosophy on the internet just reeks of unwarranted self-importance by academics. What, do lecture halls contain special vibrations that make you better at philosophy or something?

That quote is exactly the kind of thing some arrogant, pointy-headed tenure track professor would say. He ran the lottery and somehow got into the academic establishment, probably thanks to nepotism, and now has the family jewels heavy enough to trash anyone outside of his little bubble, including his own apparent admirers.

Philosophy ought not to be done outside of the academy? Tell that to Spinoza, Hume, Schopenhauer, and a host of other vastly more important thinkers than the paper thin light weight and peddler in obscurantism known as Ray Brassier - all of whom never operated within the academy or indeed even repudiated it. It's a shame such a smug, backstabbing plebeian has the gall to fancy himself the judge of what is worthy philosophy.

No verbal Judo here. More like verbal baseball bat to the cranium. :-O

In all seriousness, it never ceases to amaze me that academics in the humanities - the people who never get tired of prating about "equality" - are such elitist asswipes.

Vitriol aside, I do think that Brassier has a point. When speaking of the hard sciences, usually in hushed tones, people would never really expect that a complete amateur, with little to no formal training would be accepted by the scientific community, especially not in the modern sense of today. However, when it comes to the humanities, people assume it is simply just people using fancy words and bullshitting each other. Therefore, any unsubstantiated, or unthought opinion is as good as any other.

Let's just use PF and TPF as examples. Most of what is passed for philosophy on these boards is half-cooked. Some semblance of argument is put forward and then the name calling and arrogant tones begin. I would assume that many here are not formally academically trained in philosophy? Philosophy and Humanities majors are "usually" trained to make and defend their points rigorously, to take things to their logical conclusions and to be open to contradictory information. The average human does not do this.

Sure, Hume, Spinoza, Schopenhauer were not part of the academic club, (which is untrue because Schopenhauer tried to become a professor, and Hume worked directly with the staff of Oxford and Edinburgh universities whilst writing his Histories) but they were also exceptionally well educated. They really weren't just some amateurs. Does this mean that philosophy, or any academic pursuit is only meaningful if pursued inside of the academy? No, certainly not, but the bar for those outside of the academy and its rules are set higher, partly because the work created is so poor. Instead of getting angry and calling names, look to yourself and exceed the standards. Should make you a better thinker and writer. My two cents from both inside and outside of academia...

. . . but the bar for those outside of the academy and its rules are set higher. . . — Phil

That's what interests me most. What, precisely, is that bar? Higher or no, what are the standards in the first place?

To be honest, good philosophy outside of academia is literary. With few exceptions, non-academics will never be published in academic journals. That does not mean that those rare individuals are without voice. Literature, journalism and essays are strong ways to influence the conversation from the outside.

I tend to look at writers like Camus, Kafka, Asimov or Orwell. Many also contributed to news journals and wrote more personal essays. Technically I would classify These people alongside Hume, who was known as an Historian, rather than philosopher in his day.

As for the bar, abstract though this may be, would come back to novelty of insight and rigor in argumentation. Compare Georges Bataille and Sam Harris. One is quite obviously philosophy, the other, controversial to say the least.

No, certainly not, but the bar for those outside of the academy and its rules are set higher, partly because the work created is so poor. — Phil

But Brassier said,

I don’t believe the internet is an appropriate medium for serious philosophical debate;

He's not saying that internet philosophy must be held to a higher standard. He's saying that you literally cannot do philosophy outside of academia. Which is hogwash.

And I'm sure he bloviates about "structural inequality" day and night, being a humanities academic...

Out of curiosity, Pneumenon, where on the internet can you do serious philosophy? The only thing I can think of is academic journals published online, which clearly isn't what you mean.

I am aware of literally no place on the internet where you can have a good philosophical conversation. Your egalitarian view sounds good on paper, but then when you hit brass tacks, there are places where good philosophy is done, and the internet is not one of them. Is that a coincidence?

I've had philosophical conversations with people over the internet that were just as good as the ones I've had in academia. As to having consistently good conversations, that's another story - academia is better for that. That is to say, you may not find an online community with consistently good philosophical conversation going on, but any sufficiently large philosophical community will probably have a few people capable of such a conversation.

That being said, Brassier's idea that the internet is "not an appropriate medium" would seem to suggest that an online community that produces good philosophy is something we can't have, which I find implausible.

The irony being that Brassier owes much of his current popularity in no small part due to pop culture and the Internet. I feel though in part, you greatly dislike the humanities. And that is a topic I find far more interesting

I feel though in part, you greatly dislike the humanities. And that is a topic I find far more interesting — Phil

I'm flattered.

jests aside, you have mentioned supposed hypocrisy, aloofness, and elitism and I am genuinely curious why you believe that to be so.

But then it bears asking, if such a community is something we could have, why don't we have it? Again, it's nice in theory.

Universities are old institutions. They were built painfully and slowly. It shouldn't be expected that other fora for the same caliber of discussion could just pop up overnight for no reason.

jests aside, you have mentioned supposed hypocrisy, aloofness, and elitism and I am genuinely curious why you believe that to be so. — Phil

1) The humanities have a very strong current of ostensibly egalitarian sentiment.
2) There is a great deal of elitism in academia.

I don't think either of those are controversial.

But then it bears asking, if such a community is something we could have, why don't we have it?

Universities are old institutions. They were built painfully and slowly. It shouldn't be expected that other fora for the same caliber of discussion could just pop up overnight for no reason. — The Great Whatever

I don't think that we can build an online version of the Stoa from scratch in a decade. But if we take Brassier's lead, then we won't even start, now, will we?

I don't think that we can build an online version of the Stoa from scratch in a decade. But if we take Brassier's lead, then we won't even start, now, will we? — Pneumenon

Well, I think there are a couple problems. The first is, the university is an old system that was built slowly and painfully. We can't expect other fora for the same quality of work to just spring up overnight for no reason. So yes, the internet is new. It doesn't have the same social institutions underpinning it. It has other interesting social institutions that I think are good for other purposes, and that you can't find in real life, certainly not in academia. But its virtues don't include good philosophical discussion.

Second, I really think that part of a good academic community is living and working in physical proximity. Being an academic, to me, means being dedicated to seriously trying to understand a topic as a lifestyle. I don't think the internet, now anyway, is at all amenable to that level of dedication and seriousness, and there is the problem of physical distance as well.

Second, I really think that part of a good academic community is living and working in physical proximity. Being an academic, to me, means being dedicated to seriously trying to understand a topic as a lifestyle. I don't think the internet, now anyway, is at all amenable to that level of dedication and seriousness, and there is the problem of physical distance as well. — The Great Whatever

I think that there are enough people who come home from work every day and immediately get on the computer for such things to begin popping up, given enough time, at least when we're looking at it from the "dedication" angle. If some guy works at a boring job, then spends all his leisure time contributing to an online philosophy community, then we might have something good going on, provided that nobody minds the "internet socializing loser" stigma.

As to working in physical proximity - that's an intriguing point. Why is physical proximity necessary? It didn't stop Kant from replying to Hume, for example. Then again, I notice that you often take the ancient Greek stuff as a model. Are you doing that here? And if so, what's your motive?

It didn't stop Kant from replying to Hume, for example. — Pneumenon

It did, though.

If some guy works at a boring job, then spends all his leisure time contributing to an online philosophy community, then we might have something good going on, provided that nobody minds the "internet socializing loser" stigma. — Pneumenon

But the problem is, I don't think it's 'leisure' at all, if by that you mean something opposed to work. The ideal academic life is one in which there is no distinction between the two, because what you do is simultaneously deeply enjoyable and serious. That is something that I think is missing from online communities, including this one, seriousness. People argue without reading, when they're contradicted they get offended and don't want to probe any deeper, it's just a kind of game of verbal jousting. There is no genuine desire here to spend hours conducting serious research and digging deeply into a topic that there is a serious effort to understand. A mind can't be sustained on that sort of thing, it needs substance.

Then again, I notice that you often take the ancient Greek stuff as a model. Are you doing that here? And if so, what's your motive? — Pneumenon

Greek philosophy was a historical anomaly, and utterly extraordinary. Whatever the material conditions were that allowed it to exist as it did, it was something precious. Modern philosophy doesn't have quite the same depth of community or commitment to understanding life on its own terms. It is 'professional' and exists in the universities alongside other 'professions.' Again, the ideal academic life is one in which there is neither profession nor vacation. Modern philosophers for the most part are just regular people who do a certain kind of thought-work as a 'day job' Sure when they go to the pub they talk about certain things other people wouldn't, but even then one gets the impression they're chatting about 'work stuff.'. Once they clock out they want to fuck their wives and go to the Bahamas or whatever. There is a kind of lack of seriousness there, a separation between 'work life' and 'real life,' where at the end of the day there's a sense in which the latter is what really matters, and philosophy is a kind of professional game. But still, I think the university is more serious than the internet, by far, because while on the clock, people think seriously.

I dunno. I guess it depends on why you think the internet is generally less serious. Maybe it's anonymity?

At any rate, I think that humanities departments are, by and large, on their way out. There will always be a philosophy department at Yale for the children of CEOs who want to study it, but non-elite universities as we know them will go the way of the thylacine. With the rising percentage of adjunct faculty, the steady encroachment of corporate models, bureaucratic parasitism, and so forth, I foresee universities become job-training daycares for middle-class kids within the next three decades or so, with maybe a few elite institutions remaining as they are. Maybe we need to look into building philosopher communes or something. Meh. Not sure where to go from here.

I foresee universities become job-training daycares for middle-class kids within the next three decades or so — Pneumenon

This is what they already are, at the undergraduate level. But then, I kind of think the graduate model is where it should start anyway. I really don't see the point of the undergrad system other than to perpetuate adolescence and make money. You don't really learn anything as an undergrad, and it's not because of age, it's because of the system.

I would like for genuine philosophical communities to make a comeback, but like I said, when they happened in Greece that was extraordinary, not the rule. I don't see it happening. There is a fundamental disconnect with that way of life and the modern one: it's not a matter of certain contingent things about life being out of whack, but the values that determine what people think a life should consist of to begin with are so foreign to those interests that there's no connection.

Maybe we need to look into building philosopher communes or something. Meh. Not sure where to go from here. — Pneumenon

Now that would be a dream come true for me.

Just to note.

In some way my friendship groups -- who I remain in contact with -- from university were like this. We lived together, we read books together, we put on philosophy talks together in public and tried to promote philosophy as a group. While we maintain contact we've hit the diaspora at this point -- to the point of living in different states. It would be nice to have that closeness over philosophy again.

Not sure if "commune" would be the preferred model. I'd prefer "collective" -- since I think anarchist spaces are healthier and more prone to longer lives. [since they do recognize individual needs in addition to collective needs]

Not sure if "commune" would be the preferred model. I'd prefer "collective" -- since I think anarchist spaces are healthier and more prone to longer lives. [since they do recognize individual needs in addition to collective needs] — Moliere

I wasn't talking about Marxism, just communal living. Really my thinking was something along the lines of "secular monastery." It's fashionable to talk shit about asceticism (given our culture's permissiveness fetish), but I think that a community that looks down on wanton self-indulgence would be a good place for philosophy.

People like Brassier are already fossilized dinosaurs, and because they can't see past their own noses, they imagine the asteroid hasn't actually hit them. As you point out, several asteroids have already hit academia, and especially the humanities. It may still represent the lesser of two evils (being a professor as opposed to being a menial laborer of some kind is always going to be more amenable to contemplative persons) but it doesn't negate the fact that it's still an evil. The corporatization of higher education is nigh complete, and humanities departments have felt the full brunt of it. There are scores of enormously intelligent people who would make fine professors and professional scholars who simply do not make it through the system, through no fault of their own. Meanwhile, those who do tend to develop an elitist mentality like Brassier's. What he probably doesn't realize is that he has merely played the lottery and won. Nor does he seem to understand that being educated is not measured by having three meaningless letters next to one's name. What would he do if his present institution fired him due to budget cuts and he couldn't find work after that? I suspect he might whistle a different tune.

Universities are old institutions. They were built painfully and slowly. It shouldn't be expected that other fora for the same caliber of discussion could just pop up overnight for no reason. — The Great Whatever

What makes you assume that universities do have a higher caliber of discussion? The pomposity and vanity is certainly of a higher caliber, but this is to describe sophistry of the worst kind, not philosophy. "Professional philosophy" is almost an oxymoron, for in reality it amounts to little more than a good old boys club of spineless, egomaniacal careerists. They feel the pressing need to live well, support families, and idle away their time on the public purse. They do not feel any pressing need to be wise. Huge amounts of wasted paper and bandwidth are used each year to publish literature that no one but this same clique ever reads. If you count writing in tortuous academic prose, with the occasional bit of symbolic logic thrown in every once and while to show off, as "high caliber" philosophical writing, then I'm afraid I don't see it. More academics ought to heed the Spartan maxim that he who knows how to speak knows also the right time for speaking. They ought not produce more chaff to be blown away almost as soon as it is written. Instead, write only if one has something important to say. As Christopher Hitchens once said, everyone has a book in them, but perhaps in most cases that's where it ought to stay.

To me, the quality of philosophical writing in general, whether on the internet or from the academy, is piss poor at present, for I have found nothing of any real enduring value published among so called contemporary philosophers. The charge both analytic and continental philosophers accuse each other of, that of being morbidly useless and hopelessly obscure windbags, is true of them both. And seeing as these two camps pretty well exhaust the category of "professional philosophy" today, the whole discipline is not worth anyone's time. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the ideal of the university system, and realize there is a need to codify and organize serious scholarship on various topics, but it is the furthest it's ever been to reaching this ideal right now, especially in philosophy.

A secular monastery is precisely what I greatly lament doesn't exist in this day and age. If only they did, then I should be the first to sign up!

(being a professor as opposed to being a menial laborer of some kind is always going to be more amenable to contemplative persons) — Thorongil

You might be surprised. Right now I work at a factory, doing the same thing over and over. When your work is so menial that it requires literally no attention, you get to space out and think about anything you want. Perhaps that's why Socrates chose to be a stonemason. ;)

True, I was speaking in generalities (and partially of myself).