Topics Philosophy

Question What is it that seems constantly to put philosophers in a position where they are compelled to justify their work? Even if we accept such asinine criticisms as that philosophy is impractical, say, why aren't people similarly critical of literature or other fields in the humanities? What is it about philosophy in particular that seems to get under peoples' skin?

Accepted:
May 13, 2010

Comments

Well, of course, everyone on this panel loves philosophy, so we're probably not the best people to ask. But here are some speculations. First of all, philosophy deals with questions that a lot of people find tremendously important: what happens after death? what gives life value? is there a God? what is consciousness? So many people --many students -- come to philosophy with high hopes, and with expectations. But second, it turns out that these questions are extremely difficult to answer -- indeed, they turn out to be difficult to even ask. The process of clarifying the issues, breaking down the questions into sub-questions, reviewing answers that others have proposed, taking account of new information -- all this can seem very tedious, and very far removed from the original questions that seemed so pressing and so interesting. People who devote their careers to thinking about these questions --academic philosophers, for the most part -- necessarily specialize andfocus, and their writings and their conversation become technical, arcane, and inaccessible to people outside the field.

I think that people who try to engage philosophers on the "big questions," whether as students or as fellow airplane passengers, can reasonably become impatient, frustrated, andperhaps a little suspicious when they get their answers -- "Hey -- I was interested in how God could allowsuffering -- why are we talking about 'scope ambiguities' and 'modallogic'"? A polymer chemist or nuclear engineer would probably not be expected to put his or her work into a nutshell -- people are tolerant of technicality in science because they accept its necessity. But it's not as obvious why someone can't just tell you what the hell conscious is, and so it can look like obscurantism when a philosopher tries to give a serious answer.

If my diagnosis is correct, then the condition is made worse by the zillions of shallow (and callow) poseurs who offer (for a price) quick, superficial but profound-ish answers to the big questions, promoting. (I won't name names, but check out the "Philosophy" section at your local Barnes & Noble, and you'll find a few.) But we academic philosophers have to take a little responsibility, too, for our bad public image. We need to try harder than we do to make our research intelligible to people outside our field, or at least to trace the connections between the big questions and the specialized work we engage in. This website is an excellent move in that direction.