The Future of Philosophy
Where do you see the field of philosophy headed towards?
My personal take on the matter is that given the propensity of mental health disorders present in the general population, that people will seek out self-help and personal development in the guise of a mixture of philosophy and psychology.
This brings up two or more alternatives, being the engagement in existential thought and modern-day Stoicism.
But, what I, personally, would really like to see happen, would be a revival in feminist ethics, which has, for the most part, existed on the outskirts of philosophy.
What do you think?
My personal take on the matter is that given the propensity of mental health disorders present in the general population, that people will seek out self-help and personal development in the guise of a mixture of philosophy and psychology.
This brings up two or more alternatives, being the engagement in existential thought and modern-day Stoicism.
But, what I, personally, would really like to see happen, would be a revival in feminist ethics, which has, for the most part, existed on the outskirts of philosophy.
What do you think?
Comments (66)
A revival. What ethics do you mean? Do you mean something that has drifted or got lost along the way?
Well, yes. It's no surprise that the field of philosophy has been dominated by males for the past X millenia. That's not to say that females are discriminated against; but, I've been watching from the sidelines of virtue ethics applied to females, such as ethics of care.
Quoting Wallows
By ‘applied’ do you mean what’s expected of them, or who they are?
I wouldn't say what's expected from them. That sounds a bit fishy. As to who they are, it isn't a prescriptive norm that should be imposed on females. That sounds doubly fishy.
So’ virtual ethics’ applied to females; can you clarify?
Well, there's a sort of issue with that, in that it sounds like it were exclusive to females only. But, feminist ethics, is primarily concerned with the characteristics that denote what constitutes a female. With respect to males, I am not concerned about, although feminists rightly so have a lot to say about that.
I hope that makes better sense.
Quoting Wallows
“The characteristics that denote what constitutes a female”, who’s defining these characteristics and are they saying the characteristics are imposed or a constitutional part of being female?
Carol Gilligan, Nel Noddings, and other virtue ethicists? Just off the top of my head.
True, just following the topics on this forum, there's an incredible amount of care towards the environment and climate change. Those topics can go on in perpetuity.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yeah, the issue is still that no plausible alternative has been suggested as of yet. And, given that people are by nature, rather driven by self-interest, I don't think we'll see a slow-down in regards to consumption.
In fact, just the fact that today is Black Friday, we celebrate consumption. Isn't that rather scary?
Quoting Brett
I relate to this distinction, but my concern is that a philosophy such as my own, which may very well fall into this category, can be labelled and subsequently marginalised as ‘feminist ethics’, effectively distancing its impact on and capacity to revise any mainstream study of ethics. So I don’t think the labelling of moral voices as ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ is a useful one in philosophy, except in an historical sense.
An effective ethics or philosophy would aim to eliminate the need for a distinction, in my view. I personally don’t see the focus on interpersonal relationship as a distinctly feminine perspective, but a more universal one that positions a logical perspective, for instance, as one part of a system of limited and interrelated value structures.
It's an inherent flaw in capitalism. Mind you, communism sucks, I have never been drawn to it. There needs to be some alternative to capitalism that isn't communism. No idea what it would be, though. :worry:
Quoting Possibility
No, nor do I. But it’s a problem dealing with people who still insist it’s true. I’m not referring to Gilligan, but to people who insist that one sex is incapable of what the other possesses.
Agreed - which is why the label ‘feminist ethics’ is a problematic one for me, and one I make every effort to shake.
I’m still trying to figure out what this has to do with the future of philosophy.
Was I getting off track?
Quoting Brett
Having said that it occurs to me that though both sexes may have similar or equal capabilities, it doesn’t then follow that they apply them the same way.
Quoting Possibility
No. I was really referring back to Wallows OP on his mix of philosophy and psychology.
Yeah, what do you think about that? It's my impression that people like Jordan Peterson enjoy their fame due to this sort of backdrop of personal improvement or self-help.
I agree, although it cannot be assumed that just because someone is female or ‘feminine’ in some respects, that we would expect her to apply them in a particular way, either. In a reality where masculine/feminine is no longer a binary distinction, how do we define and structure these concepts in relation to an ethical ‘voice’? Is @Wallows’ advocating feminist ethics to bring the ‘feminine voice’ alongside, in opposition to, or above the ‘masculine’ voice?
So, this is a troublesome issue. As far as I know most virtue ethicists such as Noddings or Gilligan have no imperative for their voice to be heard over that of males. In fact, I suppose that such a thing would be detrimental to their cause.
Anyone more knowledgeable about female virtue ethicists care to comment on this?
Quoting Wallows
I don’t see him in that light at all. Can you give me more?
More of what? It's no secret that Peterson portrays males in some sort of decline with respect to their engendered archetypes of the past not self realizing.
Quoting Possibility
Yes, you’re right. But the feminist ethics Wallows refers to, “the feminine voice places more emphasis on protecting interpersonal relationships and taking care of other people. This voice focuses on the "care perspective,"[11] which means focusing on the needs of the individual in order to make an ethical decision.[/quote]
There does seem to be a leaning towards this as a solution, or correction, to our developing problems. Personally I don’t agree with it. Though it’s not difficult to imagine that the masculine voice, logical and individualistic",[10] meaning that the emphasis in moral decisions is protecting the rights of people and making sure justice is upheld, has dominated in a negative way and resulted in inflexible institutions and laws.
Quoting Wallows
Maybe not decline so much as under assault.
I hope your being facetious. Under assault from who or what?
Quoting Wallows
It’s quite clear who he thinks it is. I may not think so, but he’s quite clear about who it is.
Well, then you can't treat his philosophy seriously?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.
This:
Quoting Brett
Assult from who? Females?
I just don’t think he’s portraying males in some sort of decline. But if you can give me some evidence I don’t mind considering it.
I haven't really read much of Peterson, so I digress. But, here's a video that can elucidate the issue:
I watched that to see your evidence of decline. None. Why waste my time.
He specifically mentions the opposite effect of imposing egalitarian laws or policies towards an equal outcome in the Scandinavian countries, which can be used as an argument towards saying that the status quo is fine. As I said, I'm no expert on Peterson; but, I believe he portrays the psychological issues that men experience, as being exacerbated by denying them gender roles where they would be happy and productive.
[quote="Wallows;357473"]It's no secret that Peterson portrays males in some sort of decline with respect to their engendered archetypes of the past not self realizing.[/quote
Okay. So we’ve moved away from this idea, then.
I guess it was a poorly made comment. Apologies.
:up:
You might find this interesting:
There does seem to be a leaning towards this as a solution, or correction, to our developing problems. Personally I don’t agree with it. Though it’s not difficult to imagine that the masculine voice, logical and individualistic",[10] meaning that the emphasis in moral decisions is protecting the rights of people and making sure justice is upheld, has dominated in a negative way and resulted in inflexible institutions and laws.[/quote]
I think a lot of this may come down to difficulties in approaching a shared meaning - although I’ll admit that I have only a cursory knowledge of feminist ethics, care or relational ethics, etc. It certainly wasn’t a topic I had explored in developing my own philosophy. So this is only my initial impression of it, at a glance.
The ‘care’ perspective, as I see it, is portrayed in a way that leans towards only one of two general definitions of ‘care’: “the provision of what is necessary for the health, welfare, maintenance, and protection of someone or something”, which would position ‘care’ in opposition to the more traditional ‘justice perspective’ of ethics in many respects. A second general definition of ‘care’ - “serious attention or consideration applied to doing something correctly or to avoid damage or risk” - enables a focus on ‘care’ to be inclusive and even critical of traditional ethics, without positioning the care/justice perspectives at odds. It’s a definition that I would personally lean towards more in relating an ethics of care to mainstream or traditional ethics (being more aligned to my own philosophy), but I will probably need to read more to comment at a deeper level.
Quoting Wallows
I don’t agree with this interpretation, but I’m far from being knowledgeable on the topic. From the Wikipedia entry: “Feminist ethicists believe there is an obligation for women's differing points of view to be heard and then to fashion an inclusive consensus view from them.” Whether this is what they’re achieving, I can’t be sure at this stage - from your interpretation of Noddings and Gilligan, I would say they’re not.
I'm only familiar with Noddings to a larger extent and her emphasis on education. In her, Education and Happiness, she often takes the presupposition of a liberal education to be inclusive and open to all, a very egalitarian presumption. Lock's tabula rasa is a central theme for feminists, do you think so?
Quoting Wallows
We might consider the distinction between what the future holds for the 'field of philosophy' in academic settings and how the general population might derive benefit from it.
This includes thinking of the function and aims of philosophy; theoretical and practical.
I haven't looked closely at this before but others have. A few sources I quickly scanned through and don't have time to discuss right now:
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContJung.htm
http://dailynous.com/2015/03/26/the-distant-future-of-philosophy/
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-33717-3_5
Not sure how you’re correlating Locke’s tabula rasa with a liberal education, or with feminism as such.
I got the impression that the focus of Nodding’s relational ethics approach to education was about the relationship between the teacher and student, with the aim to develop the ‘whole child’. I would think Roosevelt’s ‘People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care’ is more appropriate. I would agree with this, but I’m dubious of her reference to ‘happiness’ in the book title: the idea that an aim of education is ‘happiness’ sets an unreasonable expectation for teachers and schools, in my opinion. But I think I see where she might be coming from:
“We will not find the solution to problems of violence, alienation, ignorance, and unhappiness in increasing our security, imposing more tests, punishing schools for their failure to produce 100 percent proficiency, or demanding that teachers be knowledgeable in the subjects they teach. Instead, we must allow teachers and students to interact as whole persons, and we must develop policies that treat the school as a whole community.”
This preference of Nodding is certainly a focus of the private school my own children attend, and largely endorsed by my teacher husband (except for the knowledgeability of teachers - but he does teach maths).
As far as I'm aware, analytic philosophy bears no fruits to the hoi polloi, contrary to the first link you provided, and that in-of-itself is a huge issue for academic philosophy nowadays.
Quoting Amity
Yeah, the issue is nuanced. [Personal opinion] I believe that philosophy will encounter a revival as technology leads to saturations in productivity increases, meaning that eventually at some point down the road people will become redundant in many fields that will be taken care of by ever more intelligent machines. Now, I do know that when this will happen is contested; but, when, and not if, this happens will be when philosophy becomes the sort of work that people won't even consider work again. [/Personal opinion]
Yeah, I suppose I will omit that part. But, I think Lock's conception of a clean slate is implied that education is a driving force to the attainment of happiness. This is where Noddings talks about aims talk and more holistic education that will suit not only the market or economy but the individual too. Rorty comes to my mind when talking about aims talk in his highlighting of the difference that children face when undergoing individualization and socialization. Noddings seems to even go further and talk about the criteria by which we evaluate performance, or even do away with it.
Quoting Possibility
Yes, and this is where she differs from other feminist thinkers, as far as I'm aware. Her version of collectivism imposes an undue burden on the already aggravated teacher and empathy depleted teacher to care for her or his students more than required. But, of course, I suppose, that once we do away with grades, and evaluations of performance, that the role of the teacher fundamentally is different than what we see nowadays.
Yes. And not only that. Personal development comes in all shapes and sizes.
Just posted through my door: HF Holidays brochure with Special Interest breaks.
Get the grey matter working...let creative juices flow...learn and improve skills.
Includes exploring nature, mind and body, music, dance, art, bridge...
Mind and body: tai chi and walking, pilates, yoga and walking.
Of philosophy itself barely a mention...apart from 'Words by the Water' - a glittering line up of thinkers, writers and commentators share ideas on history, philosophy, politics and comedy.
And yet, if philosophers were keen to promote their subject, why could it not be an exciting part of a European Discovery tour ? Italy would be the place I would start.
Food for Thought - the Spaghetti Monster a speciality :cool:
Buon appetito !
I think the most noted point for me is in the arts and how this seems to reflect the exploration of ‘coming of age’ - the same thing interests me in regards to men too (whose ‘passage of rites’ into maturity is also being re-realised in some ways).
Given past reproductive trends it seems to me greater freedoms across the board (for men and women) have revealed men’s loss of ‘coming of age’ alongside extended juvenile periods - for both sexes - and new, or more intricate, stages in overall maturity (psychological maturity). Women’s changes are quite explicit in biological terms and the ‘arrival’ of aging makes itself felt more readily than for men. That said one loss or gain (or, as I’m suggesting, extension) may show us what has remained hidden.
Anyway, just riffing. Interested to hear your thoughts on these loose ideas.
Thanks
What do you mean by "coming of age" and "psychological maturity"?
What makes you think that the already status quo in the field of philosophy is enriched or saturated with already liberal thinkers will allow this to happen?
For girls their bodies tell them when they’re ‘women’, and for men this is less obvious. Even so. I’d say for both sexes such transitions have become more and more severed from the public eye. Today there is graduation and such events, but there doesn’t seem to be an institutional force behind them that emphasizes these changes.
The ‘rituals’ today (leaving home or finishing school) are either actively avoided or given no psychological significance in communities at large. Graduation is ‘celebrated’ but there doesn’t appear to be any thought about this ceremony as ‘preparation’ for struggles to come. It is almost treated as an ‘achievement’ above all else with no regard for sacrifice.
It is as if society has instilled the idea that fighting with foam swords is some kind of passage into psychological maturity. I think women are certainly playing with breaking open their potential right now - it’s a great thing. There are dangers and their should be. What bothers me is men have fallen back and resisted danger due to this to some extent. The juvenile period has been extended a huge amount which certainly plays into women's hands more than men’s because men lack urgency and did to be driven by a sense of urgency, whilst women are naturally inclined to a sense of urgency so extended juvenile periods leads to women being in a situation where they can mature more thoroughly.
By the social extension of juvenile periods - a recent occurrence in terms of human history - older rites have fallen away and nothing new has been developed to replace this yet. My thinking is that due to huge shifts in human society hidden ‘transitions’ (buried by necessity of survival) have been given light to flourish in. We’re still trying to figure out what aesthetic appeals to this ‘passage of rites’ as it’s immature itself.
I don’t know much at all about ‘feminist ethics’. At a glance there is certainly something to be said for ritual regarding the ‘feminine’ and the ‘masculine’ that may be being mistaken - over rather given too much import - for ‘female’ and ‘male’.
The modern ‘peacocking’ world - instagram and twitter - is a reflection of this search for psychological meaning in the absence of societal rites of passage. Cultural admixtures have probably been problematic/beneficial too in some ways.
I think at its essence this is a ‘meaning’/‘value’ problem. The lines appear muddled and lack of direction has freed upon women to impose themselves more in society, yet this is being done blindly. Men on the other hand are do the same inwardly, equally as blinded.
In the past I’ve seen so-called ‘strong’ female role models come through, but they are merely mimicking ‘masculine’ tropes more than ‘feminine’ tropes. More recently, in the arts, I’ve seen powerful ‘feminine’ expression from women - recently noted something of this to a friend if mine in terms of women expressing in a more dominant manner what Jung referred to as ‘Kore’; which can either be a desire to cling to innocence or to move beyond it. I think we’re just about seeing the beginning of women ‘moving beyond’ in a manner that is ‘feminine’ rather than a mock shoulder-padded ‘masculine’ pantomime of feminine psychological maturity.
Maybe my current questions and thoughts are more telling if the transition I’n going through? I just say it as I see it as best I can, and keep trying.
Following this up to the point, as to why this bothers you?
And, yes, women are more mature than males on average.
Essentially what is ‘feminine’ cannot survive without what is ‘masculine’. Men cannot live without women and women cannot live without men - if they could then humanity is no longer ‘humanity’. I see the psychological ‘division’ between men and women to be manifest in society yet the real psychological ‘division’ is merely a convenient way to express a vibrant cauldron of humanity. I think that analogy works well enough expressing what I am looking at here?
It sounds like nostalgia from the '60s. It seems to me that women are better leaders, in terms of ensuring survival of a company or work. Mind you, I think there's even a bias towards nowadays towards hiring women, due to the fact that they are simply as reliable as men, if not more so.
I guess I don't entirely understand how advancements are made possible without an appeal to some metric of exchange.
I don’t agree that women are better leaders than men or men necessarily make better leaders than women. It also depends on what you mean by ‘leader’ too - my own view on what ‘leader’ means is likely more fluid than what you meant.
Yes, and none of what I have said should imply otherwise. My point, at least in terms of menial jobs with which I had experience was that women are more valuable as a worker than a male counterpart.
Quoting I like sushi
Yeah, you're going to have to spell it out for me, as I'm having a hard time understanding what is psychological maturity.
I’d love to hear more about what you see as important regarding ‘feminist ethics’ in greater detail if you’d care share.
Thanks
I don't know enough about 'feminist ethics' or its history to comment on any 'revival'.
I have never been comfortable with the word 'feminist'. What does it mean to be a feminist ?
What comes to mind when you think of a male, female or another as being 'feminist' ?
Should probably read this for some light on the subject ?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-moralpsych/
Why would you think so ? I don't have inside knowledge of what is happening in academia. However, there is a sense that philosophy is not seen as valuable. If anything I would think the future will bring the opposite to what you suggest. Philosophy departments are having to fight to survive. Example:
http://dailynous.com/2018/12/19/philosophy-hull-threatened-heads-39-uk-philosophy-departments-object/
Quoting Hanover
Yes, even academia as a little intellectual bubble in an ivory tower will be affected by political and economic changes. Any benefits or value of education in society is under constant review. Philosophy is no exception.
Quoting Hanover
I don't think that is a correct interpretation of the comments. Where do you see this ?
Quoting Hanover
Well, you never can tell what the future will bring. Surprises around every corner...
Quoting Hanover
What kind of a 'truth' would that be ?
And how 'true' is an 'adversarial process' - what and who are you thinking about as part of this process ?
Stupidity is part and parcel of humanity. No need for a specific path, intellectual or otherwise.
Well, I believe that contrary to most outdated definitions, in a sense more "rational", by which I mean, more in alignment with realizing long-term goals, and cooperative behavior, which are hallmarks of economic success along with educational achievement.
Is this something you would perhaps be interested in commenting?
I will speak to two threads:
The effect of the evolution or future of philosophy in regard to academia versus society in general.
The notion that a revival or increase of feminine ethics within philosophical discourse could have the efficacy of balancing its perspective in light of the field being traditionally dominated by males.
I believe the impact of philosophy's diversity of thought will always be more profound in the academic community and within those who follow its progress independently than in the public at large. Certain aspects slowly and eventually seep into society, although in modernity it seems such sentiments are often conveyed via pithy memes and tweets rather than with any particular nuance. I agree with the OP's sentiment that perhaps more people with mental illness will seek out help or insight into their conditions themselves, being that more and more of such information is becoming available online. I do not necessarily think that it will more times than not be in the guise of a pseudo-psychological/philosophical hybrid as I do not see an effort to conceal the nature of such resources. Regardless of accuracy or quality, most resources seem to exist within the scope of good intentions, this very forum included.
This second thread is an interesting observation of an aspect of social construction of reality. I find it to be at least adjacent to certain phenomena within the political and ideological zeitgeist, specifically the relegation of debates to black and white fallacies. It sometimes seems intuitive to treat metaphysical problems with physical solutions. In this case, I'm speaking to the notion of the thinking that in order to counter disparity, an equal and opposite reaction or force must be applied. I've observed what I consider to be a ramp-up in such thinking over the course of the last decade or two, wherein the nuance of many debates is stripped down to something akin to good vs. evil. I am not saying that this exactly reflects the OP's sentiment, rather simply likening it to what I see as perhaps social phenomena having an effect on philosophical discourse rather than the inverse as spoken to in the first thread. The thinking that extremism can only be met with diametric extremism seems to be a motif of modern politics and policy, especially in rhetoric, though a measure of it can be observed in attempts at pragmatism as well. I can give an example of this in modern politics within the scope of how it seems to be at odds with "modern stoicism". Rather than operating with pragmatism, elected officials such as AOC and Bernie Sanders seem to use unbridled idealism to counter the regressive policies of their counterparts on the right. Neither side could be said to be employing any long term strategy here, rather they seem to be playing to the sentiments held by the most extreme within their constituencies. In summary, I do not seek to mitigate the efficacy of a potential increase in the inclusion of feminine ethics within modern philosophical discourse, rather I contend that diversity of thought itself, in its entirety, should be held in higher regard than specific ancillary components of it.
b. Hasn't speculating on possible futures always been, or perennially engendered, a future for philosophy?
c. Will philosophers of the future speculate on their possible pasts (e.g. current philosophies)?
d. Does (any) future have/need a philosophy?
e-z. ???
My candidate du jure: machine ethics.
Quoting Brett
This 'gendered' distinction corresponds to the normative ethics ("feminine voice") and applied ethics ("masculine voice") distinction, which I deploy as a (local-global, personal-public) parallax. Here's a brief schematic sketch.