The ethics of argumentative scepticism
One may need, for example, to confess, “I don’t know,” “I may be wrong,” or “I lack sufficient knowledge to draw a conclusion.” Where combat is our style and “seeming smart” is extoled, such can amount to baring one’s neck before the blade.[7] Where a skeptical, critical consciousness is esteemed as primary, exercising these quieter skills may read like failure. After all, to open-mindedly entertain the novel or to defer to the earned authority of the expert entails keeping skepticism in abeyance, holding one’s critical fire. Thus it is not simply that these values are more difficult to discern in others, but that overemphasis on a skeptical, critical consciousness ill fits us for enacting or displaying them.
https://departmentofdeviance.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/degenerate-skepticism-and-thieves-of.html
The above is taken from a complaint from a scholar of Chinese philosophy, to the monoculture of Western philosophy departments. It's worth a read. I don't know if there is anything to discuss, or if just a little personal reflection will suffice, but the image I have of Western philosophy is of an architectural college run by demolition experts. I particularly like the judo move at the end where the author becomes his own enemy.
I think we are all too inclined to be village worthies, and so to learn nothing and build nothing. One of the interesting things about Chinese philosophy is the way the mystical tradition of Taoism interweaves with the socio-political tradition of Confucianism without the destructive antagonism characteristic of the material/spiritual divide we are used to.
In the light of the latest of a string of such scandals, this time involving John Searle, one might suggest that philosophy is out of balance; too much Yang, and not enough Yin. Another antagonism that has been amply displayed at a forum near you.
Comments (6)
The laws of nature require that joke. I'm not responsible for it.
That was my favorite quote. It hits home, and also points the way to fight against what is not a worthwhile tendency by pointing out how skepticism should be used.
What is the point of rising to the top of one's department (Professor Emeritus) and field (famous philosopher) if one can't even use the income and prestige to leverage a little sex before one's career is intercepted by the grim reaper or an investigation and prosecution, whichever comes first?
Suppose Ms. Ong had calculated that bedding Prof. Searle might have professional advantages for herself, and suppose it did. Lots of people have advanced their careers between bed sheets as well as between proof sheets of their scholarly articles. Is that so terrible? Leveraging power, sex, money, and other assets to get ahead is SOP. Such approaches fly in the face of Equal Employment Opportunity law, of course. My guess it is still a workable approach, EEO not withstanding.
Suppose Ms. Ong had decided to inquire of Professor Searles, "Precisely what are you going to do for my career, Johnny, in exchange for us becoming lovers? I want it in writing, and I want some substantial cash in advance as surety that you will deliver on the stated benefits."
Not all academic screwing is the same, of course. Coach Jerry Sandusky's screwing adolescents in the showers of Penn State was more exploitative and involved more 'straight forward' coercion and exploitation, probably. It's difficult for a 15 year old to calculate or negotiate long term advantages from getting screwed in the showers.
The tutor justifies this approach perfectly reasonably - it's the dialectic, it's learning rational argument. But in a system it will end up with a small number of people with ideas, feeling beleaguered, amid crowds of not always well-informed sceptics.
The blog also reminds me of one moment in my recent studies when I felt ashamed of myh ignorance. In a class on Heidegger the Chinese student next to me was able to engage in a discussion of the relative merits of the two English translations of 'Being and Time' when I had found one enough of a struggle!
In a system where it is hammered into everybody's head almost from the moment of their birth that they have two choices, earn a college degree and prosper or don't earn a college degree and live in poverty, and where the demand for and supply of professors are therefore inflated, is it really a surprise that a lot of people in academia spend their careers that way?
There are only so many new, constructive, original ideas that can be produced. Is it any surprise, therefore, that in an industry where it is "publish or perish" the output is a lot of "learn nothing and build nothing"?