It is perfectly obvious how the professionalization of empirical disciplines advances them, as those require tremendous resources to make progress, halting and uncertain as that progress may be. It is not obvious, not to me anyway, that the same model has been well applied to the arts or to philosophy. — Srap Tasmaner
Where it becomes nonsense is if you'd start arguing that you're just as a good a tennis player as the professionals, but you just play by a different set of rules, and who's to say which rules are the ones we ought to follow. — Hanover
I'll be the first to admit the OP leaves much to be desired, blindly following the sentiments of the OP will likely lead to not only ignorance but a life unlived. But at least in my view, the OP is redeemed because it has the spark of true wisdom and philosophy that, if nurtured and exposed to the right intellectual catalyst will grow into a raging inferno of enlightenment and with any luck, happiness. — Outlander
Not always? — Alkis Piskas
You offered T Clark one of the standards for being a professional academic philosopher, but there's clearly room for doubt that this is the sort of standard he was asking for, and what Cornel West suggests here might be closer to the mark, something that might be pursued by academic institutions but that, West says here categorically, is not. — Srap Tasmaner
This whole discussion might have benefited from distinguishing two issues: T Clark's regularly avowed discomfort with the Western philosophical tradition, and the professionalization of philosophy in academic institutions. — Srap Tasmaner
Mathematics may not require expensive research facilities (no large hadron colliders needed) or hordes of grad students to do the grunt work of research, but to do original work requires a tremendous amount of quite specialized education. Is the same true of philosophy? — Srap Tasmaner
Here's another angle. I think you've said a couple of times that you're seeking the insights of people here who you respect. So why not seek the insights of the people who have dedicated their lives to thinking things through? — jamalrob
The question is whether philosophical thought is advanced by increased rigor, which would require one be intimately familiar with the underlying issues, the prior objections raised by prior philosophers, and what those responses have been. — Hanover
If I have the opportunity to speak with Person A who has read the pertinent literature and has taken course work and written papers with regard to Issue X or Person B who has only generally considered Issue X, but has read next to nothing and has taken no coursework and not written on the Issue, I'd choose Person A for the more meaningful response. — Hanover
If we accept the notion that we're all on equal footing just by virtue of our natural intelligence and worldly wisdom — Hanover
I like the idea of soul-forming education. — T Clark
In my opinion, knowing that this philosopher said one thing and another something else is of limited importance. What is important is knowing how to think along with and evaluate what is said. But by doing the former one may increase her ability to do the latter. That others have thought about these things, and often with more insight than we have is not a resource that should be ignored. — Fooloso4
The sentence that I've bolded here: maybe you can see that it's mistaken, if you think about the difference between, on one hand, being unknowingly influenced, and on the other hand, reading the influential thinkers to understand how you and others are being influenced — jamalrob
I suggest you read the short opinion piece by West that I quoted above — jamalrob
He implies that what might appear as the "decolonizing" of education has more to do with a utilitarian anti-intellectualism in the wider society. I think it's fair to say that there is more than a hint of this in your OP. — jamalrob
This is just "looking where the light is best", isn't it? — Srap Tasmaner
Cornel West does claim that there is benefit to studying the great minds of the past, and makes that claim exactly in the context of a critique of the current state of academia. — Srap Tasmaner
I don't think I'm anti-intellectual at all. — T Clark
An intellectual is a person who "engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection to advance discussions of academic subjects."
So, you are in part anti-intellectual, because you reject the need for research. You do fulfill the rest of the criteria to a certain degree. — Artemis
"Intellectual", that's quite a funny word. Can be used as praise, as an insult or even neutral sounding.
As far as I can see everybody is an intellectual, literally. Unless they're in a coma. — Manuel
I don't think I'm anti-intellectual at all. I live in my intellect. Everything good I've ever written on the forum comes from my intellect, reason, resting on a foundation of experience and awareness. — T Clark
I think there's a good case to be made that western philosophy is founded on distrust of experience and awareness. — T Clark
When I called myself an intellectual, I gave a specific definition of what I meant by that to avoid any confusion. As I noted, calling myself an intellectual "doesn't mean I'm smart, it means that my primary way of dealing the world is through my intellect, by thinking about it, talking about it. I am also a recreational thinker. It's fun. It's a game. It's what I'm best at." — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.