I am currently writing a dissertation in philosophy, and I’ve struggled with this a lot. It gets to a point where you can’t philosophize without also meta-philosophizing. It also explains why so...
Exemplary
I am currently writing a dissertation in philosophy, and I’ve struggled with this a lot. It gets to a point where you can’t philosophize without also meta-philosophizing. It also explains why so much work in the academic field of philosophy is not really philosophizing, but general research about philosophy and philosophers (philosophology as Robert Pirsig calls it). Over the past 100 years or so, the modern university has committed itself more and more to a quasi-scientific model of scholarship. This is awkward for anyone try to actually do philosophy for the reasons the author mentioned. Philosophy doesn’t prove things in the way science does (maybe with the exception of logical proofs, which are only a subset of what goes by the name philosophy). It is not even necessarily concerned with objectivity at all. If philosophy is really concerned with wisdom, how can it be reasonably articulate in a medium that is not?
Also, the issue of audience is almost suffocating. I had a preliminary defense in the spring, and I was amazed by how the committee perceived my writing. With the exception of one professor, comments were directed almost entirely to form. It was like they were unconcerned with the ideas themselves and what they meant, and more interested in their presentation. As a plankton of a grad student who just sort of arrived on the scene, I was surprised by how much other philosophers expected me to unpack and rehearse the same arguments that have been handled ad nauseum for centuries. It is like you can’t have an original idea about (A) without first addressing everything else that has ever been said about (A). It made me realize too, though, that I had become an expert on my topic. Which felt nice, but it made me also feel a little insulated. We go so far down our own rabbit holes that even other professionals in our field have trouble tracing our steps. This is a problem academic writing won’t fix for itself. I think it is more a symptom of how limited of an activity professional scholarship is, and really, how insufficient it is for communication—especially concerning something like wisdom.
Really cool to hear your perspective from the trenches. I gave up on pursuing further studies on political theory because of the dismal job market for tenure track positions, but when I was...
Really cool to hear your perspective from the trenches. I gave up on pursuing further studies on political theory because of the dismal job market for tenure track positions, but when I was considering it one of the things that put me off was a sense of academia feeling so far removed from the arena where things happen.
Engineers or scientists get to float between practical implementation of their ideas as well as exploring esoteric bits of knowledge depending on where their curiosity (and the grant funding) leads. But in the humanities it almost seems like this culture has taken hold where the more involved you are out in the world or the more accessible you make your work for lay-people it’s as if you’re sullying yourself somehow and can’t be taken as seriously as an academic.
Sorry I never got back to you, I’m sure you’ve forgotten by now! Anyway, I’m writing about learning as “inhabitation.” It’s the idea that learning is the art of adapting and adapting to one’s...
Sorry I never got back to you, I’m sure you’ve forgotten by now! Anyway, I’m writing about learning as “inhabitation.” It’s the idea that learning is the art of adapting and adapting to one’s habitat—world or “way” making. Kind of an ecological critique of what “sustainable” and humane lifeways look like on the horizons of the 21st century.
I was going to call clickbait, then I reread the title. Good article. I've always wondered why Plato only explains the obvious stuff and leaves off the stuff I care about. Keeping a historical...
I was going to call clickbait, then I reread the title. Good article. I've always wondered why Plato only explains the obvious stuff and leaves off the stuff I care about. Keeping a historical context is really important.
I was pondering on this recently. It kind of explains why interactions with large quantities of strangers on the internet is a bit of a disaster. Discussion of complex topics often requires...
I was pondering on this recently. It kind of explains why interactions with large quantities of strangers on the internet is a bit of a disaster.
Discussion of complex topics often requires complex shared understandings. This is true IRL as well, but is even more pronounced online.
Discussing anarchy with someone who only knows of 'The Anarchist's Cookbook' is going to take a good amount of retreading basics. Repeat ad-nauseam for every topic with (generally) more outsiders than insiders.
It seems like this problem might be at least partly solved by asking for feedback from beta-testers that you trust? That way you can make sure that at least some people understand what you wrote.
It seems like this problem might be at least partly solved by asking for feedback from beta-testers that you trust? That way you can make sure that at least some people understand what you wrote.
I have this problem with philosophy where it seems to be overly proud of not having a clear definition but doesn’t that make... everything philosophy? And if literally everything is philosophy,...
I have this problem with philosophy where it seems to be overly proud of not having a clear definition but doesn’t that make... everything philosophy? And if literally everything is philosophy, what’s the point of having a word for it? Basically, it seems like the closes definition of philosophy is that it’s not rigorous enough to be science.
I am currently writing a dissertation in philosophy, and I’ve struggled with this a lot. It gets to a point where you can’t philosophize without also meta-philosophizing. It also explains why so much work in the academic field of philosophy is not really philosophizing, but general research about philosophy and philosophers (philosophology as Robert Pirsig calls it). Over the past 100 years or so, the modern university has committed itself more and more to a quasi-scientific model of scholarship. This is awkward for anyone try to actually do philosophy for the reasons the author mentioned. Philosophy doesn’t prove things in the way science does (maybe with the exception of logical proofs, which are only a subset of what goes by the name philosophy). It is not even necessarily concerned with objectivity at all. If philosophy is really concerned with wisdom, how can it be reasonably articulate in a medium that is not?
Also, the issue of audience is almost suffocating. I had a preliminary defense in the spring, and I was amazed by how the committee perceived my writing. With the exception of one professor, comments were directed almost entirely to form. It was like they were unconcerned with the ideas themselves and what they meant, and more interested in their presentation. As a plankton of a grad student who just sort of arrived on the scene, I was surprised by how much other philosophers expected me to unpack and rehearse the same arguments that have been handled ad nauseum for centuries. It is like you can’t have an original idea about (A) without first addressing everything else that has ever been said about (A). It made me realize too, though, that I had become an expert on my topic. Which felt nice, but it made me also feel a little insulated. We go so far down our own rabbit holes that even other professionals in our field have trouble tracing our steps. This is a problem academic writing won’t fix for itself. I think it is more a symptom of how limited of an activity professional scholarship is, and really, how insufficient it is for communication—especially concerning something like wisdom.
Really cool to hear your perspective from the trenches. I gave up on pursuing further studies on political theory because of the dismal job market for tenure track positions, but when I was considering it one of the things that put me off was a sense of academia feeling so far removed from the arena where things happen.
Engineers or scientists get to float between practical implementation of their ideas as well as exploring esoteric bits of knowledge depending on where their curiosity (and the grant funding) leads. But in the humanities it almost seems like this culture has taken hold where the more involved you are out in the world or the more accessible you make your work for lay-people it’s as if you’re sullying yourself somehow and can’t be taken as seriously as an academic.
Slightly off topic, but what are you writing about? :)
Sorry I never got back to you, I’m sure you’ve forgotten by now! Anyway, I’m writing about learning as “inhabitation.” It’s the idea that learning is the art of adapting and adapting to one’s habitat—world or “way” making. Kind of an ecological critique of what “sustainable” and humane lifeways look like on the horizons of the 21st century.
I was going to call clickbait, then I reread the title. Good article. I've always wondered why Plato only explains the obvious stuff and leaves off the stuff I care about. Keeping a historical context is really important.
I was pondering on this recently. It kind of explains why interactions with large quantities of strangers on the internet is a bit of a disaster.
Discussion of complex topics often requires complex shared understandings. This is true IRL as well, but is even more pronounced online.
Discussing anarchy with someone who only knows of 'The Anarchist's Cookbook' is going to take a good amount of retreading basics. Repeat ad-nauseam for every topic with (generally) more outsiders than insiders.
It's no wonder Usenet died a swift death.
It seems like this problem might be at least partly solved by asking for feedback from beta-testers that you trust? That way you can make sure that at least some people understand what you wrote.
I have this problem with philosophy where it seems to be overly proud of not having a clear definition but doesn’t that make... everything philosophy? And if literally everything is philosophy, what’s the point of having a word for it? Basically, it seems like the closes definition of philosophy is that it’s not rigorous enough to be science.
Analytic philosophy wants a chat with you...
I don’t know how to degoogle the link and I don’t have a computer. Mods? :)