Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!brahms!m128abo
From: m128abo@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Decline of Philosophy
Message-ID: <15653@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 12-Sep-86 09:22:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.15653
Posted: Fri Sep 12 09:22:57 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Sep-86 03:23:13 EDT
References: <5155@decwrl.DEC.COM> <11700379@inmet>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: m128abo@brahms.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 62

> Jan >> John

>> The average value of philosophy in the states can be approximate-
>> ly measured by the number of philosophy books you can find in
>> bookstores.  The current theme appears to be " business manage-
>> ment " and " self help ".  Both these fields are symptomatic, and
>> actually contain little or no insight into modern problems.

> For this reason philosophers ought to be grateful to Ayn Rand, whose
> philosophy books are in the bookstores and sell.  That can open the
> market to others - e.g., those who would criticize her.

> Even the cheap mysticism now flooding the shelves opens the way to
> people who would start with debunking it, then propose their own
> ideas.

    Do you think that the presence of all that cheap mysticism has
    opened the market to truly worthwhile mysticism? I'm about as sure
    of the answer to this question as I am that Rand's misosophy has
    been opening doors to worthwhile philosophy.

> A philosopher ought not to be snotty, but come to the readers and
> begin by discussing *their* concerns in plain English (or whatever
> the language of the land is).  It is easier for philosophers to do
> than for anyone else, since philosophy is universal and applies to
> everything (including self-help and even business management).

    Certain areas, like phenomenology or analytic philosophy, indeed
    seem to be difficult to put into plain language. I'm not sure
    whether that is intrinsic to the subject matter or whether it is
    due to an affliction that tends to characterize those drawn to
    these pursuits.

    Personally, I find that Quine (for analytic philosophy) and Dreyfus
    (for phenomenology) are able to make everything clear and jargonfree,
    and, most importantly, downright compelling. 

>Those philosophers whose work is esoteric and  unreadable  cannot
>do  it, but that's only fair.  Why should laymen pay, directly or
>through taxes or through tuition fees, for someone else's hobby?

    Frankly, I don't think discussion about academic funding
    belongs here, Jan. I respect your opinion on this issue, but
    *please* keep political discussions in net.politics.theory, the
    newsgroup intended for such topics. 

    Now as to the question of whether current philosophy is important
    enough to be classified as important research, is it your
    opinion that what you apparently cannot or will not understand
    ("esoteric or "nreadable") must obviously be somebody's idle
    "hobby"? 

>The customer is the boss. Educate your bosses - but don't
>ignore them. 

    Don't forget to educate yourself while you're at it..

-michael

    Non potest esse in intellectu solo

-Anselm