Thanks for posting this, I read it a while ago but mostly forgot about it.

I particularly like one of the comments on the article, which says that we need philosophy desperately because science has failed to produce rational thinking individuals.

The authors lament the movement of philosophy away from the impetus to cultivate wisdom -- conceived in broadly moral terms -- and towards cleverness, and a disinterested quest for objective knowledge on the model of the natural sciences. The dire portrait that they draw of the current state of over-specialization, and the prevalent concern for 'disengaged' knowledge, seems to faithfully represent 90% (more or less) of the productive activity of academic philosophers, especially analytic philosophers (possibly). But then, one ought to be reminded that 90% of everything is crap.

Maybe it's even fewer than 10% of published academic philosophy that rises above the level of crap. But I tend to be quite tolerant of that. It's always been the case that in any domain intrinsically worthy of human pursuit, a minority excel and very many who don't excel nevertheless are uplifted by the collective achievement to which they contribute more modestly. 'Crap' also is a relative term. It may not just be possible for everyone in the city to be a wise man/woman. But proper respect for the worthiness of the pursuit (of wisdom) is sufficient to enlighten most everyone. There only were one Beethoven, one Mozart, and on J.S. Bach, each, but they had audiences, students, interpreters/performers, and patrons. There are mutual dependencies between the wise individual (who may or may not be specialized) and other specialists, as well as more practically oriented craftsmen/women, 'consumers' of the products of wisdom, and non-specialists.

The authors also seem to contrast knowledge and wisdom (without going quite as far as claiming a dichotomy) while somewhat neglecting philosophy's ongoing contributions to our understanding of the evolving human condition. They are right to deprecate the pursuit of knowledge (or clever arguments) that are divorced from the impetus to seek wisdom (in a moral sense). Once it's acknowledged that it ought not to be expected that everyone will attain self-sufficiency in point of virtue or moral understanding, it ought to be acknowledged also that many more will contribute to understanding. Moral virtue might not always go hand in hand with the ability to explicate itself (just as great novelists don't always have the skill to teach proper style and grammar). Some degree of moral wisdom (or proper concern for the worthiness of the best human aspirations, and contempt for the motivations that ought to be reviled) no doubt is a prerequisite to determining what are the questions of philosophy that are worthy of being pursued, as opposed to merely constituting hair-splitting pointless technicalities. Progress in areas of understanding that are typified by the best products of academic philosophy ought to be appreciated by the morally wise since it responds to universal intellectual aspirations that the attainment of moral virtue likely leaves intact, or else it may procure inoculation against confusions that even the best-intentioned (and most virtuous) people -- including some politicians, activists, reformers, etc. -- are liable to fall into.

The professionalization of philosophy began with Plato, not in the 19th century.

The professionalization of philosophy began with Plato, not in the 19th century. — The Great Whatever

No doubt. But one of the main points that the authors make is that there was until recently an expectation that a philosopher should have a special insight into what is good, not just what is technically effective, what is simply true (albeit of little practical concern to someone who is wise) or what is a valid argument. Professionalization was thus going hand in hand with an idea of natural aristocracy. (The Greeks also thought there were 'natural slaves'). The professionalization of philosophy only recently became, in addition, a response to the perceived social need for efficiency and the instrumentalisation of human excellences.

Maybe. I think the Academy was already concerned with technical issues of no general interest.

Maybe. I think the Academy was already concerned with technical issues of no general interest. — The Great Whatever

Some things (1) are of no general interest because they are trite and trivial. This is different from them (2) not arousing general interest just because many don't care, even though they would care if they were wiser or more receptive. Lastly some things (3) are 'of general interest' (in a sense) just because they are practically useful for the community (e.g. specialized crafts) although they need not arouse the interest of wise people. It is quite enough that specialized craftsmen/women would take care of those things.

If the Academy was concerned with things that wise people ought to be interested in (i.e. neither trite nor trivial) then, even though they were of 'no general interest' in the second or third senses mentioned above, there wouldn't be anything objectionable about them akin to what the authors of the article mentioned in the OP (Frodeman and Briggle) blame on the professionalization of philosophy.

Borrowing from the authors book title, "“Socrates Tenured: The Institutions of 21st-Century Philosophy”, It's safe to say that Socrates would have found TENURE DENIED. Indeed, he wouldn't have been offered a tenure track job in the first place. He would probably have been lucky to get an adjunct instructor job (academic day laborer). Troublemakers don't do well in academic settings these days, if they ever did.

One could write similar Stone pieces about the baleful influence of the large-scale university on the various fields of the humanities, and maybe the sciences as well. Indeed, in the comments following this Stone piece was a letter very critical of the way PhDs in physics are produced.

Another responder noted "various bulls in the china shop" that may or may not be the fault of the modern university:

* materialism--the belief that human thought and values are purely mechanistic phenomena...
* radical relativism/subjectivism in support of radical individualism, which made it nearly impossible to talk about the actual truth or falsity of anything...
* utilitarianism, which reduced things to the algebra of value propositions identical to the calculations done by insurance companies...
* and a cluster of closely related, highly reductive approaches which assess ideas not only by their content, but by the social group, ethnic background, skin color, and gender of the people expressing them.

And, as Moliere pointed out, there is capitalism.

Large scale academic institutions (large scale institutions in general) under Capitalism or Communism, or whatever political arrangement prevails, crush the brave.

I would like to know more about "the brief window when philosophy could have replaced religion as the glue of society".

This is how Alasdair MacIntyre explained philosophy’s contemporary position of insignificance in society and marginality in the academy. There was a brief window when philosophy could have replaced religion as the glue of society; but the moment passed. People stopped listening as philosophers focused on debates among themselves.

Yes, in some sense that's true, but I would also say that the phenomena of modern philosophy differs from what Plato was doing.

Insofar that I understand Plato it seems to me that he created an institution which was meant to make men good. Where Socrates was the gadfly who exposed the powerful to their own idiocy, Plato was the patriarch who tried to raise the next generation of the powerful to be wise. So there is still this element of pursuing wisdom and the good life.

Further, there were competitors at the time which didn't agree with this form of institutionalization, and philosophy managed to be practiced in spite of the decline of the schools and transformation of the academy into something wedded to the church (and beyond).

It's interesting to review how the study of philosophy and its significance is described on the website of the university where these gentlemen teach, in light of this article: http://www.unt.edu/majors/uphil.htm

Shoes for Industry!

And despite the myriad of ways that society has demolished creative philosophical thought, the author of that article has been able to transcend it all and still create insightful philosophical musings about the failed philosophical state of the world. It is refreshing to see that the inherently philosophical mind of man perseveres even in the most trying times.

The specialization and fragmentation of society is what we would expect under capitalism, and as all occupations become something which must produce goods or services which are marketable, everyone specializes into their niche. — Moliere

You could probably replace capitalism with civilization. Specialization comes with the rise of civilization. It's not new.

That seems too general to me. And it wouldn't make sense of the difference between philosophical periods, either. The Canon, even, was certainly always part of civilization. But this difference, so I would say, is the result of a particular way in which civilization is organized, rather than civilization as such.

Plus the specialization of capitalism differs from, say, having the cooper, the tanner, the blacksmith, etc. Of course we are all interdependent upon one another in any economy, and specialization (in this weaker sense) generally means prosperity for said society. But the specialization of capitalism is meant to either make work such that it can be done by anyone (the pin sharpener, for instance, in a sewing supply factory), or we compete to individuate ourselves so that we have value. In addition, we look at occupations as something which must be productive of some good or service -- there has to be an end product. So I would say that there's more at work than specialization, even in the stronger sense. The fact that we must produce would also encourage people to deal with smaller problems. They are easier to tackle, and thereby, make a product with (publish or perish, as the saying goes) -- plus you lower your competition if you have fewer people who know your niche.

I'm not quite sure about that part either, now that you mention it.

For one, I don't know if it's possible for philosophy to replace religion even in principle. Would people cease being religious if they lived more philosophically? A brief gander at those who study and write and do philosophy seems to indicate that the answer is "no". Perhaps one could say that particular strands of religion wouldn't exist, but not religion tout court.

Also, I'm not sure that people don't listen to philosophy today anymore than they had at another point. Philosophers make themselves heard whether people like it or not. They don't garner popular audiences, more often than not.

But, these are just reasons to be uncertain. I'd actually like to know more about the reasons why they assert as much.

I would like to know more about "the brief window when philosophy could have replaced religion as the glue of society". — Bitter Crank

I would look at someone like Schopenhauer, who estranged himself from the academy, called his followers "disciples," and thought of his philosophy as a kind of surrogate religion for people who could no longer believe the old religious dogmas at face value nor embrace the crude materialism and hedonism on the rise as the major response to formal religion.

I would have envisioned something like the re-flowering of how ancient Greek philosophy operated, with its many independent schools of thought, each encouraging a certain metaphysic and way of life non-dogmatically. It would be akin to the development of a philosophical monasticism.

I'm not sure that I would blame philosophers needing to conform to the modern academic model for the transformation of philosophy. It seems to me that these shifts are wider than the mere intentions of a group of people competing within the academy. The specialization and fragmentation of society is what we would expect under capitalism, and as all occupations become something which must produce goods or services which are marketable, everyone specializes into their niche. — Moliere

In my view the article is more about the modern university than just philosophy.

I think a similar tone article could be written about.... let's say history.

Perhaps in a way the institutionalized academic university structure has morphed more into the Medieval University than the free-thinking Academia. Sure, you can think freely ...in your own narrow subject you have gotten the money to research.