Is It Time for Philosophy to Be Rewarded Better?

I'm not so sure any of these prizes are all that meaningful. After all, every year, there are numerous people who could have justifiably won a Nobel prize in physics, butt they didn't win. Now, many people then think that their achievements are lesser than the people who did manage to win. Is that true? Hardly. Only one person or one team of three can win each year, and it's a close judgment call on who wins. In the field of philosophy there is even less ability to judge whose work is better than another's.

I think prizes for the actual solution of a specific problem are the way to go. The winner is the first person to solve the problem, so we have a clear standard on judging the winner, and, by solving the problem, we also have an advancement in knowledge. So, if someone wanted to award a prize to the philosopher who could actually "solve" a specific question in philosophy, that would be fine by me, except I doubt there would be any winners. This is because philosophical problems are by their very nature the types of problems that cannot be answered by looking at empirical evidence, scientific experiments, proofs in logic or mathematics, so I'm not sure what good would really be accomplished by giving philosophers awards for achievements in the field.

Yes, there have been times when due acknowledgment and rewards were not given to the deserving people. At times society can’t judge the true potential of great talents thus we have only one Tesla and one Einstein. Unfortunately, we couldn’t recognize many other people having the same potential as these celebrated achievers. Not that achievements of those people are of no use or they felt inferior when not acknowledged. But the point is, acknowledgment and appreciation can save a subject from vanishing. More you celebrate achievers, more aspirants come to the forefront. A philosopher of high regards won’t bother about any award or acknowledgment in the first place. He is wise enough to know the importance of his contribution and unimportance of rewards. However, the aspirants, the budding philosophers, the students who have the potential to contribute can get initial motivation from the available rewards. It is less about acknowledging the old achiever and more about motivating the young to delve into the subject.

Philosophy is the mother of all disciplines. We can’t afford to demean this subject which is needed either for the conception of any subject/thought/ideology or for giving closure to it. It is a dire need to make it a mainstream subject which can be pursued by people having potential.

I'm always open to the idea of being given more money.

A medal for modesty, worn with pride.

Reply to Toby Joseph iff you're a despicable cunt like Jordan Peterson then it's quite possible to be richly rewarded.

What reward that society can offer could possibly interest a philosopher?

Quoting Toby Joseph

Philosophy is the mother of all disciplines.

But mother became senile centuries ago and just keeps repeating herself. Physics is a well-rewarded son of philosophy, but hasn't needed mother dear for a long time. Ditto chemistry, medicine, the arts...

There is one rewarded child -- Economics -- who didn't suckle long enough. Too late now--poor old mother philosophy's tits are pretty much dried up. Economics needs to be adopted by a surrogate young lady with bulging breasts who can improve the functioning of that scrawny over-rated brat.

I would say that Philosophy should remain a pure art and not be corrupted with money.

Philosophers are normally professors or teachers or mathematicians or something else by profession, and Philosophy is their adjunct profession. That's how it has always been for thousands of years since ancient Greece.

Reply to Bitter Crank All the subjects that you have mentioned, needed a philosophical approach at some stage. The biggest discoveries of science are the result of small philosophical questions popped-up in the heads of people who later become profound scientists. Even technology at this point needs philosophy to decide the way ahead for AI. Furthermore, economics without philosophy is just impractical statistics- what purpose will it serve?

Some of the children might not need their mother very often, but when they are lost, tangled in their own complexities, they cry for their mother to show them the way ahead.

Chemistry did fine without philosophy for the most part. But when this child gave nuclear bombs to the humankind, philosophy was brought into play to decide whether it was right or not? Whether to use those bombs or not? Are such developments really needed? Has chemistry become a con for humankind?

This mother may have become senile, but she will always have more to offer than needed.

Reply to hks Following the same logic- politics shouldn’t be corrupted with money, it should remain a social service as it was in ancient times. Medical science shouldn’t be corrupted with money, it should serve humanity without any expectation as it did in ancient times. Education should not be corrupted with money, wisdom and knowledge should be free of cost as it was in ancient times. What say?

Reply to Toby Joseph Philosophy should not be corrupted by money.

Philosophy grads are normally double-majors including another more practical lucrative field.