Who is to do philosophy?
This question is largely whether philosophy is a personal activity, or an institutional one. Given that I have just opined in an earlier thread that the faculty needed to conduct philosophy is literally personhood itself, it should come as no surprise that I think that philosophy is for each and every person to do, to the best of their ability to do so. Nevertheless, institutions are made of people, and I do value the cooperation and collaboration that has arisen within philosophy in the contemporary era, so I don't mean at all to besmirch professional philosophy and the specialization that has come with it. I merely don't think that the specialized, professional philosophers warrant a monopoly on the discipline.
It is good that there be people whose job it is to know philosophy better than laypeople, and that some of those people specialize even more deeply in particular subfields of philosophy. But it is important that laypeople continue to philosophize as well, and that the discourse of philosophy as a whole be continuous between those laypeople and the professionals, without a sharp divide into mutually exclusive castes of professional philosophers and non-philosophers. And it is also important that some philosophers keep abreast of the progress in all of those specialties and continue to integrate their findings together into more generalized philosophical systems.
It is good that there be people whose job it is to know philosophy better than laypeople, and that some of those people specialize even more deeply in particular subfields of philosophy. But it is important that laypeople continue to philosophize as well, and that the discourse of philosophy as a whole be continuous between those laypeople and the professionals, without a sharp divide into mutually exclusive castes of professional philosophers and non-philosophers. And it is also important that some philosophers keep abreast of the progress in all of those specialties and continue to integrate their findings together into more generalized philosophical systems.
Comments (7)
Everyone seriously attempting to answer existential questions is moving within the realm of philosophy.
As a non-academic I'm partial to Hadot's prescription of philosophy as a way of life (via "spiritual exercises" - or in these terms - via aporetics; hermeneutics-genealogics; dialectics; critiques-problematiques; apophatics) and not in any significant, or profound sense, a professional - professorial - career.
Quoting 180 Proof
These seem like different questions, one asking if it’s necessary, the other asking if it’s sufficient. I think it’s necessary but not sufficient: you need to do philosophy to attain eudaimonia, but just doing philosophy isn’t enough.
Quoting unenlightened
I do really like the political analogy, and I would enjoy suggestions for how philosophy can be made more participatory in the sense of participatory democracy. I support a political regime where there is not a clear divide between the rulers and the ruled, but not one where there are no well-trained people in leadership positions and just a lowest-common-denominator rabble calling the shots. There need to be professionals, but they need to be in constant dialogue with non-professionals, and there has to be a way to rise gradually from non-professional to professional, or to one’s optimal place in the continuous spectrum between them, through excelling in that dialogue.
I think that is currently lacking both in the political sphere and more generally in the philosophical sphere. I myself feel rather awkward in that regard in the philosophical sphere. I have some professional education, but not enough that I would feel comfortable trying to engage in the professional dialogue of journals etc. (At least, not inserting myself into there; if someone else thought I was worthy and invited me, I’d be comfortable with that.) But the kind of dialogue I want to be engaging in, like in my writing, seems too professionally focused to be of much interest to most laypeople.
There is a spectrum enough downward, where I can talk to laypeople about their philosophical interests and bring in my philosophical education to the discussion and in doing so bring them up closer to my level. But there doesn’t seem to be any upward spectrum: there doesn’t seem to be a way to engage less-than-fully-professionally with the true professionals, and in doing so become more professionally adept myself, without just fully committing to becoming a full-fledged professional philosopher myself. There’s a discontinuity in the philosophical dialogue there.
Such is my take.
Social philosophy is, ab initio, aware that by being professional it, in an important sense, artificially disconnects itself from its true subject matter. To the point where some investigations are pursued both scientifically and also, in parallel, with a conscious disregard for the professional viewpoint, i.e. naively or naturally. (read that in Habermas a few months back). I'd say the same applies to philosophy in general.
edit: Doesn't it really all boil down to vocabulary? If we share a vocabulary then to that extent we are conscious of participating in a relevant discourse. If you extrapolate a concept and our vocabularies continue to overlap then that is a mutually reinforcing dialogue....