Science's
Favorite Ho
Why Academic
Philosophy SUX!
Philosophy
as the Religion of the Rational Man
+
] Philosophy Forums > General Philosophy
] Post Topic > Science's Favorite Ho / 3Jan07 /
.
Note to Reader: The following quotes are taken from the thread entitled
'When philosophers go bad...' in the Intro to Philosophy ... section.
.
>> Luciferous Luna wrote: ... As for the main topic, when Philosophers go
>> bad? I won't name specifics, but I will say that philosophers are not
>> the people who study philosophy or get degrees in philosophy ...
.
> Tobias replied: Yes they are, why would you think otherwise?
.
wurm answers: Well Tobias, I can answer that one for you. It's because
Academia is no fit place for any *sensible* philosopher! It's true. If a newbie
came to me asking for the best way to learn about philosophy, the LAST
thing I would tell him to do would be to go and sign up for a few university
courses: Philosophy 101, 102, and 103. No indeed. I would only advise that
if I wanted someone to learn to *hate* philosophy in a hurry. Making people
hate philosophy is really all that academia can boast of. Why so, you ask?
Because these "teachers of philosophy" (and I use that term very loosely),
these professors and "Doctors of Philosophy", are all of them part and parcel
of the prevailing popular paradigm that sees philosophy as little more than
Science's Handmaiden (to put it nicely); or as Science's Whore (to put it not
so nicely).
.
For them, philosophy is just an afterthought grafted onto the intellectual
superstructure that is Science. Sophia is thus forced to accommodate Herself
to the needs and desires of Science merely in order to *justify* Her very
existence! If Sophia wants to survive in this "brave new world", She had
damn well better learn to prostitute Herself to the max, by way of taking on
the form and appearance of a specialized science. And this is exactly what
Philosophy is, within the exalted corridors of academia. Or rather this is what
philosophy *pretends* to be, since the "hard scientists" know very well that
Sophia is only faking it. But that's okay. She's a good little ho-slave; and in
the end that's what really matters.
.
And as long as the professors and doctors of philosophy can hold onto their
tiny little piece of academic turf, they are more than content. There's only
one problem with all this rosy ivory-tower picture; or rather, only one *major*
problem. It's all bullsh*t! ... Why? Because Philosophy is NOT a job. Nor is it
a profession, nor an occupation. But it IS a way of life. Philosophy is NOT a
science; it is a form of vision or perception. Philosophy is NOT a static and
boxed-up package of knowledge designed exclusively for arrogant, elitist egg-
heads; but it IS an historical process: an ongoing and unstoppable growth
and development of human intelligence, rationalization, and wisdom.
.
And I'll tell you something else, Tobias. Your academic philosophers are all
but entirely worthless. I seriously doubt that you can find more than one real/
true philosopher among a thousand of these myriad professors and doctors of
philosophy. Now this may sound like an extreme statement to you, but it's
actually absurdly easy to demonstrate. Just think about what it is that these
*alleged* philosophers do; besides their counter-productive teaching, I mean.
Yes, they write; and writing is the one thing that every philosopher (real or
otherwise) MUST do. But the question is: Who do they write for? Certainly
NOT for their students. And certainly not for the general public either. No,
they write for each other! They write almost exclusively for their own highly
specialized, highly insulated, and highly *disconnected* intellectual elite.
.
And why not, eh? Certainly no one else could possibly stomach the dreck
that they call philosophical literature. Their literature is about as interesting
as watching grass grow, and about as relevant as the volcanoes on Titan. For
centuries Sophia was the slave and whore of Theology. She only earned Her
freedom very recently, and what happened? The academics do an about face
and turn Sophia into the slave and whore of Science! Yes, I think it's high
time that we all got together and rescued Sophia from this dismal fate forced
upon Her by these self-serving, arrogant brutes, and so steer Her back onto
the road leading to Her true destiny: Philosophy of the People, by the People,
for the People! Sophia knows it. All real/true philosophers know it: wisdom is
for everyone. Death to the prevailing popular philosophical paradigm!
.
P.S. This rant brought to you by the excessive outrage of da wurm. grrrrrr
x
+
] Philosophy Forums > General Philosophy
] Thread > Science's Favorite Ho / 3Jan07 /
] Post Title > Why Academic Philosophy SUX!
.
> On 3Jan07 Timothy replied: Funny enough, most philosophers (the ones called
> so by history, to avoid being insulted) have agreed that nothing can be more
> dangerous than "the people". You don't have to be a philosopher to notice
> how idiotic, ignorant, self-centered, arrogant and unwilling "the people" are.
> Nothing worse, pace Plato, Aristotle and Nietzsche, than "the people".
.
wurm say: I agree that the People are everything you say they are, but I don't
agree that this is a situation that must abide forevermore. If the People are
ignorant (as indeed they are), what should philosophers do about it? Most would
say that, well, there's nothing we can do about it, so let's just forget about it,
ignore the People altogether, and so get on with the business of Philosophy as
if the People didn't exist or don't matter anyway. To me, this is a defeatist
attitude that does harm not only to the People, but also to Philosophy.
.
If the People are ignorant, then it is up to Philosophy to TRY to educate them.
If Philosophy can only "save" one person out of ten thousand, then I say it is
still an effort worth making. The only alternative is to let the priests and other
religious nutbars have their way by keeping the People for themselves. And this
is wholly unacceptable. The only way to defeat the idiocy of organized religion
is to offer the People a viable alternative; and only Philosophy is capable of
providing this much needed alternative. The ongoing march of historical
rationalization demands that Philosophy takes notice of the People, and try
to inject some Reason into them. As much as humanly possible anyway.
.
> Democracy is certainly the worst thing ever!
.
Democracy is the tyranny of the immoral-majority, fer sure.
.
> "Philosophy of the People, by the People, for the People!" ???
> That's called religion and absurd mysticism, not philosophy.
.
This is just the kind of elitist attitude that makes Philosophy irrelevant,
meaningless, pointless, and valueless. If any philosophical observation or
proposition is true, is it true ONLY for professional academic philosophers? If
so, then any such "truth" is entirely worthless. If it's really true, however, then
it must be true for everyone, even the People. Philosophy doesn't have to be
religious or mystical in order to engage the People; it only has to be interesting
and (above all) relevant!
.
> I agree with kwalish. That rant could be written only by someone who failed
> Philosophy 101.
.
Ha! Well then, you're both wrong. In fact, I passed all my philosophy courses;
I won't say with flying colors, but with a better than average grade, to be sure
(as befits a quality philosopher of my unique genius and ability). Yes, it's been
decades since I left the local university, but I still remember my first philosophy
course: Philosophy 101, Introduction to Philosophy. Some introduction. You
know what we did in that class? I went in there expecting a general survey
of the history of philosophy. Instead what we got was a very brief history of
epistemology (starting with Descartes). That was the first half of the course.
The second half was spent studying the teacher's own contribution to
epistemology: a book-length dialogue (modeled after Plato), which focused on
questions of interest only to epistemologists. Gross! It was this course that first
inspired my hatred of academic philosophy; and nothing I have seen since then
has done anything other than to encourage my disgust and revulsion.
x
+
] Philosophy Forums > General Philosophy / 23Feb07
] Subject > What is the reason for philosophy?
.
. . . Philosophy as the Religion of the Rational Man
.
>> In 'Science's Favorite Ho' cybrwurm previously wrote: If the People
>> are ignorant (as indeed they are), what should philosophers do about
>> it? Most would say that, well, there's nothing we can do about it, so
>> let's just forget about it, ignore the People altogether, and so get
>> on with the business of Philosophy as if the People didn't exist or
>> don't matter anyway. To me, this is a defeatist attitude that does
>> harm not only to the People, but also to Philosophy.
.
> On 14Jan Timothy replied: Sorry for the late reply. I was travelling.
.
wurm say: No problem. I too regret the late reply, but sometimes it can't
be helped. In my case I am/was caught up in a major project that demands
most of my time and energy. It's not quite finished yet, but at least I
got the bulk of it behind me now ... I hope.
.
> I haven't read the first philosopher that has said that. That the
> ignorance of people can't be helped is something on which all agree,
> I would say. But that we should go on ignoring them is not. [snip some]
.
Agreed! :)
.
>> If the People are ignorant, then it is up to Philosophy to TRY to
>> educate them.
.
I agree ... of course :D After all, Sophia is a teacher too, as one of
Her prime functions/duties/privileges is to teach ... not just philosophy
and/or history-of-philosophy, but also the love of wisdom (which is a
large part of the inner essence or "spirit" of Philosophy).
.
> Are you suggesting that Philosophy should advertise itself?
.
Philosophy should advertise itself as a viable alternative to religion,
and as a viable substitute for religion; as least to those few who might
want to consider themselves to be "rational" people.
.
> Whatever attempts that have been made to turn philosophy into a public
> interest seem to have failed (see Plato's experience with a ruler of
> Sicily - he ended being sold as a slave).
.
See also Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the greatest of all of Plato's
philosopher-kings, who drafted a declaration that eventually rid the
world of the institution of slavery. In fact, Jefferson's entire life was
the very incarnation of philosophy-in-action. That he was a president
and an architect are almost incidental. First and foremost he was a
philosopher, a thinker and a writer; not a "mere philosopher" at all,
but rather a true son of Plato.
.
> Certainly, and this is what I've learned from the history of philosophy,
> Philosophy, like Science and Art, is at its best with a few brilliant
> minds. You can teach someone whatever it was that x philosopher said
> about x topic; but that's not philosophy. Teaching a high school student
> newtonian mechanics does not make the student into a physician. It might
> ignite an interest in him, it's true. But that depends on him, not on
> philosophy.
.
So then if we were to make philosophy more interesting to average people,
then it stands to reason that more people studying philosophy results in
more people becoming philosophers. True, only a few of these will become
brilliant philosophers, but that's ok. I'd rather have a million not-so-
brilliant philosophers than just one brilliant philosopher; in the long
run they are worth more to society simply because they can do more to
raise the general level of rational thinking and behavior. The problem
with all of this is that the current popular paradigm forces philosophy
to be boring and irrelevant to most people, so there's simply no
possibility of "igniting an interest". For this reason alone, academic
philosophy must be judged a dismal failure.
.
>> The only way to defeat the idiocy of organized religion is to offer
>> the People a viable alternative; and only Philosophy is capable of
>> providing this much needed alternative. The ongoing march of historical
>> rationalization demands that Philosophy takes notice of the People, and
>> try to inject some Reason into them. As much as humanly possible anyway.
.
> It is well known that the people always prefer the easiest and most
> simple explanation.
.
Max Weber prophesized that religion would make a comeback because the
increasing complexity and sophistication of post-modern civilization would
cause a general reaction in many people. The need for simplicity and easy
answers to difficult problems and realities surely fuels the resurgence of
fundamentalist Christianity and Islam. This is understandable, but also
very unfortunate, as it only increases the amount of irrational thinking
and behavior in the world. Philosophy is thus the road-less-traveled
because it requires effort and determination to think and behave rationally
in an increasingly irrational world. I think that Russell himself would
agree that the ultimate goal of Philosophy is to make the world somewhat
LESS irrational, and the only way to do that is to make Philosophy more
accessible to "the general public".
.
> Who would the people choose, between the religious dogma of
> the ten commandments and the system of Spinoza? Philosophy is not easy;
> it demands a high level of abstraction and a whole army of distinctions.
.
The problem here is that too much emphasis on analysis and abstraction
turns philosophers and philosophy students into spiritual pygmies, and
otherwise stifles any possibility of increasing insight and vision ...
which is very counter-philosophical when you stop and think about it.
But in any case, awareness and enlightenment do not come cheaply or
easily; nor should they. The rabble tends always to resist change,
especially difficult and bothersome developments and disciplines.
Nevertheless, in today's world Reason is no longer an option ...
and neither is Philosophy!
.
> It's easy to get bored by it,
.
But the general public has a proven taste for *good* philosophy books!
If too many people find Philosophy boring, this may have more to do with
the particular writer or teacher than with the subject matter itself.
.
> and it's highly unlikely that any education can change that.
.
Right. Only good philosophers who are also good writers and teachers can
change that; by showing that philosophy is only boring because you want
it to be boring.
.
> That there are philosophers that try to open Philosophy to any folk may
> be seen precisely on the existence of the Philosophy Departments that
> you so hardly criticize - I doubt that they seek any substantial profit
> from opening such departments.
.
The "profit" comes from maintaining the current paradigm of philosophy
which favors the status quo and accomplishes only 'treading water'.
.
>> This is just the kind of elitist attitude that makes Philosophy
>> irrelevant, meaningless, pointless, and valueless. If any philosophical
>> observation or proposition is true, is it true ONLY for professional
>> academic philosophers?
.
> Same elitism of almost all philosophers - there I'm in good company!
> But you'll see that philosophy is not so much about finding true
> observations, but rather about reaching awareness. Awareness of problems
> existing in many fields, from the most abstract science to the most common
> experience, like social life. To reach such awareness requires an effort
> that most people is not willing to do. To our everyday purposes, they
> may not even be problems at all! After all, who cares what constitutes a
> justified true belief? Who cares what "truth" is? We can go on living with
> our unrevised notions of "truth", "knowledge", etc. But that's missing the
> best part of being human: to be able to think about those topics.
.
Right. The 'rabble' don't really care to examine their own lives too care-
fully or too closely. Besides, money trumps monads any day of the week. Most
people see no practical value or utility in Philosophy, and so reject it
for that very reason. Others deliberately turn their backs on Philosophy as
an act of faith-affirmation. And others simply follow the path of least
resistance, being the path of the herd. But thinking and reasoning (despite
these grave handicaps) IS practical and useful, and Reason is it's own virtue
and reward. There will always be people who are not satisfied with fascism
or fanaticism, and these are the ones who can give Philosophy a future.
.
>> Gross! It was this course that first inspired my hatred of academic
>> philosophy; and nothing I have seen since then has done anything other
>> than to encourage my disgust and revulsion.
.
> You're not hating academic philosophy then; you're hating academic
> philosophers. So you had a poor teacher. Big deal! So did I. [snip]
.
So do a lot of other people. *That* is the problem. This isn't about my
experiences, or yours. I'm concerned about the general condition of
Philosophy within the context of the global community. If Philosophy
doesn't ultimately serve the People by encouraging them to be more
rational in all aspects of their lives, then Philosophy must be counted
as a failure. A failure, I say, that is chiefly caused by a serious lack
of will and imagination. But it is NOT Philosophy herself that fails, but
rather the current popular paradigm of philosophy that shows itself to be
insufficient and inadequate, and unable to come to grips with the needs
and realities of the current generation of humanity.
.
> The ability to spot problems, possible solutions and possible
> refutations of those solutions is what makes this interesting.
.
Philosophy is not a game, Timothy. This is serious business. The fate of
all humankind hangs in the balance. If we do not become a more rational
kind of species, and fast, there may not be many tomorrows left to us.
.
> But if there is no problem (as much people may think), then there's
> no philosophy.
.
You might as well just say that Curiosity is the mother of Sophia. With
that I would agree. After all, there's more to Philosophy than just
solving interesting problems. And speaking of interesting problems, this
matter of the ignorant masses and philosophy certainly qualifies as one.
Hegel and Shaw and Toynbee all thought that the answer to the rabble's
incorrigible ignorance and stupidity might be some new form of religion
(presumably a more rational form than any of the current inadequate
crop of religions).
.
Spencer decided to cut straight through all that rubbish, and wanted to
make a religion of holy Science itself. And H.G. Wells and Russell both
saw very little chance that the rabble could ever be made more rational.
But what is needed today is not a new religion, still less a philosophy
that is pseudo-religious, or only pretends to be religious. No, what is
required is a new form of Philosophy that not only embraces all Science,
Art, and History, but is also a genuinely spiritual philosophy that
addresses all of the moral and religious concerns, questions, and
problems that people may have within the context of the human condition.
.
- one with too many concerns - cybrwurm ;>
.
P.S. "Einstein destroyed the idea of absolute measurements of space or
time, and insisted on the part of the observer in scientific calculation.
Toynbee's vision of history begins from the historian and his imagination.
It is a denial of the abstract; an insistence on the personal. He sees
history, not as a science, but as a mode of spiritual discipline.
... He protested against those historians who write as if they are in
some way standing outside history. This is precisely the same as the
existentialist's dislike of philosophers who write as if they were
standing outside life." -- from 'Religion and the Rebel' by C.Wilson
x