Topics Philosophy

Question Recently a question was asked about the nature and value of philosophy. I was surprised that only one panelist chose to respond. In his response, Gordon Marino wrote the following: "There are people who make their living doing philosophy who are really into it because they enjoy unlocking intellectual puzzles and building models." By not replying, is the implication that the other panelists agree with this assessment of what professional philosophy is? And if this is an accurate characterization of professional philosophy, why is it a department at the college level? It sounds more like the description for one of the many enrichment activities offered after school at the local elementary and middle schools. It seems to me that this cannot be an accurate description of the field, as the amount of professional philosophy done would not thereby be accounted for by the economic demand for it. Thoughts?

Accepted:
December 29, 2011

Comments

No, my not replying was not tacit agreement with Gordon's assessment of professional philosophy, and I suspect some other panelists also disagree. We're philosophers--you'll always find differences of opinion. But, looking back at his answer, he simply said there are some people who enjoy the puzzle-solving aspect of philosophy, not that all or most of professional philosophy works that way. I suspect that many or most professional philosophers enjoy both the puzzle solving and the engagement with the big questions about the meaning of life, morality, what we are, etc., and many probably like the intersection of the puzzles with the big questions. But trying to find a single accurate description of philosophy or philosophers or even academic philosophy is like trying to find a single accurate description of the meaning of life. Ain't gonna happen.

Having said all this, I am sometimes disappointed at the rarity of professional philosophers who are able to connect their academic research to the philosophical questions that most ordinary people think about and find engaging (or did when they were kids!). But we can't all be Socrates.

Readers might be interested in some of the attempts by philosophers to explain their work, their problems, their philosophical passions to a non-professional audience that have appeared in The New York Times blog "The Stone": http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-stone/.