Who in particular do you have in mind? — Joshs

Not who but what. The philosophy industry. This includes not only names we might recognize but thousands we may never hear about. Those who write books and articles as well as those who publish books and articles few will read. Readers who name drop and come to sound like those they name.

But with regard to the names you name. Why does Derrida write the way he does? Who is he writing for? What does he mean, for example, when he says:

Here or there we have discerned writing: a nonsymmetrical division designated on the one hand the closure of the book, and on the other the opening of the text. On the one hand the theological encyclopedia and, modeled upon it, the book of man. On the other a fabric of traces marking the disappearance of an exceeded God or of an erased man. The question of writing could be opened only if the book was closed. The joyous wandering of the graphein then became wandering without return. The opening into the text was adventure, expenditure without reserve.

(Writing and Difference, "Ellipses")

Given the title of the essay something is omitted. A deliberate omission or the fact that something is always left unsaid?

Criticism is only valid if it is balanced. — Pantagruel

Must it be balanced? What does this mean? Wherein lies the balance? The good with the bad? The positive with the negative? What is the balance that turns my claim that:

Philosophy has become in large part insular and self-referential. — Fooloso4

from something that is not valid into something that is?

Reminds me of this New York Times The Stone article.

Thanks for the link to the article.

I like this phrase:

... a hyperactive productivist churn of scholarship ...

It is what I was talking about in my response to Ying above.

A few, such as this one:

Once knowledge and goodness were divorced...

made me curious about who the authors are. Robert Frodeman was a student of Stanley Rosen. The influence is apparent. In the threads on Heidegger's downfall I quoted Rosen:

Nihilism is the concept of reason separated from the concept of the good.

Must it be balanced? What does this mean? Wherein lies the balance? The good with the bad? The positive with the negative? What is the balance that turns my claim that:

Philosophy has become in large part insular and self-referential.
— Fooloso4

from something that is not valid into something that is? — Fooloso4

Because that generalization clearly doesn't hold for the entire spectrum of philosophical writing. Possibly it is true for the category that troubles you. Because you haven't offered any suggestions for reconciliation or remediation of the issue. Because this unconstructive approach itself is nihilistic, which is how you are characterizing what you are criticizing.

According to Leiter's survey, these are the best general philosophy journals as of 2022.

browsing through just the recent titles, how many of these leading philosophical research articles would you be interested in reading even if you could understand their meaning?

It's a great question, one that Susan Haack (surely an exception to the current norm) writes about in several papers.

There are many reasons, including more burdensome bureaucracy in university departments, the publish or perish incentive which often sacrifices originality for prestige, a lamentable tendency to stick to recent philosophers' ideas (Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Quine, Kripke, Derrida, etc.) instead of wrangling with hard questions found in the older tradition and other factors.

One issue - pointed out to me by a distinguished figure - is that modern philosophy is more sophisticated than before.

We have significantly advanced our knowledge in science since the scientific revolution, but (and this is my formulation) we discovered that we understand nature much less than was originally anticipated, so instead of having something like Hume's Treatise or Schopenhauer's World, we now have experts in biology focusing on the neurons of a worm, instead of looking at the whole of nature. Which is not a critique of biology, just a fact of ever more specialization, which leaves out most of the world.

Similarly, instead of devoting a section to language (as Locke did) or even a few pages (as Reid did), we have philosophers writing entire books about reference, and leave out, say, the study of how ideas are involved in language, and other larger concerns.

Even with that caveat, I agree with your OP, and suspect that unless the incentives of university departments change from being oriented towards "prestige" and profit, back to gaining knowledge for its own sake, this current tendency in philosophy will not change.

Because that generalization clearly doesn't hold for the entire spectrum of philosophical writing. — Pantagruel

Yes, there are exceptions. I said as much. I speak from within academia as do the authors of the article @Moliere linked to above.

Because you haven't offered any suggestions for reconciliation or remediation of the issue — Pantagruel

The first step is to acknowledge the problem. I can offer no solutions at the institutional level. On a personal level I attempt to speak and write simply and clearly, and when discussing the writings of philosophers who do not write so simply and clearly try to make their work more accessible. When I was teaching I used primary texts, and by example, how to read these texts. I do something similar here in my discussions of the philosophers.

unless the incentives of university departments change — Manuel

I think that change is not going to go in the direction we might hope to see. As tenured professors finally leave it is often the case that they are not replaced by tenure track new hires. New instructors are either hired without that assurance or replaced by adjuncts who do not earn a living wage and have no benefits. Or the size of the department and courses offered shrinks. Bottom line administrators see this as a good thing. The cost to maintain the department far outweighs the funds they generate.

You would know, I only briefly engaged with academia, it left a lot to be desired, despite having some nice aspects.

But knowing this, as you do, then how can we expect original work to arise? It's risky to develop a new original system in philosophy that may be a total failure. But there's also a small chance that some of these risks pay off, but this is not encouraged.

how can we expect original work to arise? — Manuel

Original work comes from original thinkers. They are born not made. I would not be surprised if originality will be found outside the university. As much as I prefer to read philosophy rather than watch and listen, the cost and barriers to posting videos is low, and can reach a much larger audience.

Philosophy has become in large part insular and self-referential. Written by philosophers for philosophers. — Fooloso4

Has this not always been the case? I suppose philosophers may not have always been writing for philosophers. But they have always been writing for a small target audience. Though occasional writings may break through to a larger audience, even that audience tends to be limited to intellectuals.

How would philosophy look different if philosophy had not "went wrong"?

That's exactly right, which is why Bernardo Kastrup now has a decent following, he has many videos on YouTube.

To my mind, the best original philosopher I've read is Raymond Tallis.

Neither are from academia.

But I think that an argument can be made that original thinkers can be spoiled (not to say damaged) by going through the academic process. They get stuck in the current zeitgeist and are unable to get out. Instead of producing original ideas, they become followers of the Churchlands' or Derrida, etc.

I think philosophers have always written for philosophers but not only for philosophers. A significant change occurred when mathematical certainty became the model of reason. Theoria was replaced by theory. Contemplation of the beautiful and the good pushed aside as being of no practical use. The question of how best to live replaced by the problem of how to secure the right to live as one wants.

How would philosophy look different if philosophy had not "went wrong"? — Arne

For one there would be no philosophy industry cranking out its product. Less emphasis on the pretense of "originality" and more emphasis on teaching and open-ended thinking that had as its goal the pleasure of thinking.

But I think that an argument can be made that original thinkers can be spoiled (not to say damaged) by going through the academic process. — Manuel

I agree. I almost added something along the lines of a Hippocratic Oath for thinkers and thinking.

Contemplation of the beautiful and the good pushed aside as being of no practical use. The question of how best to live replaced by the problem of how to secure the right to live as one wants. — Fooloso4

I am not convinced that the above is anything new. Such tensions have always been in philosophy. The actual amount of historical time in which philosophy per se was about "contemplation of the beautiful and the good" is actually quite minimal as are the philosophers who pushed such notions. As worthy as the "contemplation of the beautiful and the good" may be, it was never a philosophical paradigm.

Similarly, there has always been philosophy as industry. The democratization of higher education has simply made the industry larger.

Plato pointed to the attitude that philosophy is useless, but he did not attempt to make it useful.

Modern philosophy certainly is nothing new.

On what basis do you claim that contemplation of the beautiful and the good" is actually quite minimal? Philosophical practice did not always generate or result in writings.

As worthy as the "contemplation of the beautiful and the good" may be, it was never a philosophical paradigm. — Arne

Of course not! It is not about the establishment or use of paradigms.

there has always been philosophy as industry. — Arne

Socrates neither produced or sold anything. Plato criticized the sophists for teaching for money. He did not require payment to attend his school. Aristotle's school was also free of change. Descartes inherited wealth but died poor. Spinoza was a lens grinder. In none of these cases was there a demand by an administration to produce.

You are supposed to disagree for us to have a discussion. :shade:




Anyway, good thread, looking forward to see what others think.

On what basis do you claim that contemplation of the beautiful and the good" is actually quite minimal? Philosophical practice did not always generate or result in writings. — Fooloso4

You may rest assured I speak only to those philosophical views that resulted in writings. How could I possibly speak to those that did not result in writings? As for those that did result in writings, the philosophy writings in the libraries I visit are not dominated by contemplations of the beautiful and the good in general or in a historical timeline. And as far as I know, aesthetics and ethics are still lively subject matter.

Are you suggesting that philosophy should be more limited in its subject matter or that it would become so if not dominated by the academy and/or industrial forces?

What is philosophy and who are philosophers anyway? Is there an agreed upon understanding of what philosophy is and/or who qualifies as a philosopher? How can any of us even say philosophy went wrong without having some shared understanding of what we mean by philosophy?

What do you mean by philosophy?

The first step is to acknowledge the problem. I can offer no solutions at the institutional level. On a personal level I attempt to speak and write simply and clearly. — Fooloso4

This addendum would have made me appreciate the original OP more.

There is no substitute for clarity, either of expression or of perception.

How could I possibly speak to those that did not result in writings? — Arne

That is the point. You said:

The actual amount of historical time in which philosophy per se was about "contemplation of the beautiful and the good" is actually quite minimal — Arne

But philosophical practice and philosophical writing are not the same. The ancient practice of philosophy was not about writing but a way of living.

Plato had a great deal to say about beauty. It is one of his trinity: the just, the beautiful, and the good.

And as far as I know, aesthetics and ethics are still lively subject matter. — Arne

So then, not as minimal as you claimed? Aesthetics as a "subject matter" is to push it aside in that it is treated as something on its own. Ethics is not the same as the good. Both beauty and the good are for the ancients more encompassing terms integral to many different aspects of life.

Are you suggesting that philosophy should be more limited in its subject matter or that it would become so if not dominated by the academy and/or industrial forces? — Arne

I am suggesting that it has become more limited than it was for the ancients and that this is a loss. The article linked about by Moliere addresses this as well as the good.

How can any of us even say philosophy went wrong without having some shared understanding of what we mean by philosophy? — Arne

And yet it is a term you have been using. You even claim:

Philosophy is not an end in itself, it is a tool. — Pantagruel

This addendum would have made me appreciate the original OP more. — Pantagruel

This is something that has been under discussion for some days now in the threads on Heidegger. I started this topic based on just this problem.

The opening paragraph of the OP is about this.

We all got fed up with drinking hemlock, and caved in to the polis.

I genuinely believe that philosophy is good for an education. Rather than philosophy losing its way I'd say philosophy has a lot of unexplored fecundity.

But that's as an outsider, and someone interested in what philosophy is or can be outside of the academy.

So then, not as minimal as you claimed? — Fooloso4

And how minimal did I claim it to be? I was referring to the historical body of written philosophy which does not indicate that contemplation of the beauty and the good were somehow the central themes of philosophy either before or after Plato. And I am certainly not arguing against either as legitimate subject matter for philosophy.

How can any of us even say philosophy went wrong without having some shared understanding of what we mean by philosophy?
— Arne

And yet it is a term you have been using. You even claim:

Philosophy is not an end in itself, it is a tool.
— Pantagruel — Fooloso4

This confuses me. I do not know who you mean by "you." I am not both Arne and Pantagruel. But if you are addressing me, it would be unreasonable to expect me not to use the term "philosophy" when responding to a post about how philosophy "went wrong." In addition, it is not my post so what the poster means by the term strikes me as the appropriate question. I already know what I mean by the term.

And just to be clear, none of us is any more qualified than the other to talk about those philosophical contemplations that were not committed to writing. That is just kind of a non-starter.

I do not disagree that more philosophical contemplations regarding the good and the beautiful may be good. But nobody's permission is required.

I genuinely believe that philosophy is good for an education. — Moliere

I agree. My original undergraduate major was political science with a minor in philosophy. But the residency requirements at the school I was attending required me to remain 2 more semesters even though the actual number of credits needed was satisfied. So I turned my minor into a second major and spent the next 2 semesters studying only philosophy. It was the best academic decision I ever made.

Nice. :)

Similarly my exposure to the academic world of philosophy, and really the tools of philosophy proper, was in my undergraduate days.

I'll note here though:

And how minimal did I claim it to be? I was referring to the historical body of written philosophy which does not indicate that contemplation of the beauty and the good were somehow the central themes of philosophy either before or after Plato. — Arne

But philosophical practice and philosophical writing are not the same. The ancient practice of philosophy was not about writing but a way of living. — Fooloso4

"The central themes of philosophy" isn't in the academy's jurisdiction. Its mission, though it ought to treat philosophy better -- at least that's where a lot of my motivation is coming from -- isn't the same as philosophy proper.

I am not both Arne and Pantagruel. — Arne

My mistake. Sorry. You Arne did ask:

How can any of us even say philosophy went wrong without having some shared understanding of what we mean by philosophy? — Arne

And did say:

Such tensions have always been in philosophy. — Arne

...it would be unreasonable to expect me not to use the term "philosophy" when responding to a post about how philosophy "went wrong." — Arne

The point is, you used the term and did not see it as problematic. It is not a term you are not familiar with. We may have difficulty trying to come up with a definition but there really is no need to do that. There is enough of what Wittgenstein calls a "family resemblance" that we can talk about philosophy and discuss our differences.

And just to be clear, none of us is any more qualified than the other to talk about those philosophical contemplations that were not committed to writing. That is just kind of a non-starter. — Arne

That is not the case. Pierre Hadot has done just that using ancient sources. It is not as if no one back then said anything about contemplative practice.

But nobody's permission is required. — Arne

Permission? What does any of this have to do with giving permission?

Yeah, I like a few of them too. — 180 Proof

:up:

But philosophical practice and philosophical writing are not the same. The ancient practice of philosophy was not about writing but a way of living. — Fooloso4

Is it possible some philosophers when writing run out of ideas, but continue writing? :chin:

Is it possible some philosophers when writing run out of ideas, but continue writing? :chin: — jgill

Hard to imagine that they don't, given it happens to so many writers, journalists, politicians, artists, etc. Almost anyone who earns a living by trying to stay relevant, eventually ends up as depleted currency.