The Conflict Between the Academic and Non-Academic Worlds

Quoting kudos

Should there be a line drawn between common (practical, particular) and academic (universal) philosophical thought?

I'd definitely say yes to this question. Being paid for philosophy means bought philosophy.

Reply to kudos
Obviously the further we go back in time, the less of the population is even able to read or receive an education, the less likely an academic will win the minds of the common citizen. Profound thinkers do influence the world we live in but rarely by convincing someone who is uneducated and disinterested but that's to be expected.

Reply to Judaka If we believe that an academic should act primarily among other academic-minded individuals, then in most senses wouldn't it mean not to search for truth at all, but rather to concern oneself only with actions and immediate consequences? Thus we'd have a type of action or career-centered education system, training women's rights writers to be women's rights writers and not to explore women's rights as a subject existing in itself and with other subjects. Adhering to the dogma of the subject would be more beneficial both in terms of individual interest and social interest than learning it and rendering oneself unable to act.

I want to say that it reaches beyond the question of whether an uneducated audience would understand or agree, but if the academic has the right to impose their ideology onto the non-academic. It seems like this unquestionably happens in daily life, but I don't know of any analysis or compendium on the subject to determine if it is being correctly applied. But there do seem to be cases, take this example (only the first 1.5 minutes) from the recent US impeachment case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqmhfyH09jM

Aside from the controversial content of the case, you can clearly see Prof. Dershowitz outlining his academic views of impeachment that could not be followed as a common rule without err. But he speaks of the principles of impeachment themselves, their origins, which would present a disastrous meeting of the academic and non-academic worlds if the content of his speech were treated as objective reality. Yet he presents it as a sort of necessity, as if some line had been crossed and academia needed to step in, but where is this line?

Reply to kudos
I don't really understand your question of whether academics have the "right" to impose their ideology onto the non-academic". Where do they have the opportunity to directly impose their ideology as academics? In the example you've given, we have a lawyer who is talking about that which can only be talked about with an understanding of the law. So, it's unsurprising if the average citizen is not able to or is uninterested in being able to understand and form opinions on what he says.

Often there is a far stronger connection between academics and politicians, we've seen that throughout history and those politicians or rulers who listen to the academics will bring their ideas into the world. Writers, directors, actors, journalists and other forms of soft power are often more influenced by academics, acting as intermediaries for their ideas, connecting them to the people.

Politicians are going to listen to specialists on matters where they themselves know nothing yet they still dismiss or ignore specialists when it suits them. The specific kind of thinker who actually has applicable advice for the average employee will sell books or give lectures but it's not an imposition but rather a commodification of their ideas.

Reply to Judaka

I don't really understand your question of whether academics have the "right" to impose their ideology onto the non-academic". Where do they have the opportunity to directly impose their ideology as academics?

Take the first film example from IANYN. Mr Weiss explains to James Baldwin that we should avoid excessive cataloguing by race. His background being one where he himself had never been separated, he explains bluntly what would not sound at all out of place to another academic of similar background. But because he explains it to Baldwin, he does more than simply explain his universal viewpoint, but instead presents a kind of offered reality to Baldwin. Baldwin did not have a choice to separate by colour because it was central to his reality and his mode of understanding the world.

If Baldwin said to himself, 'I'm not going to separate people based on colour' and someone separated him by race, he would be sacrificing his very power to question race at all. My point is that to some extent the same thing happens whenever specialist academics interact outside their specialization, and there ought to be some type of reasonable basis for when they should be representatives of their knowledge and when they should remain silent; both these extremes seem to be problematic. If they were forced to never represent their specialization it would no longer make sense to pursue it.

Reply to kudos
Academics themselves often strongly disagree and rebuke each other and as it should be. We can't guarantee that academics will always have the best answers but we should allow them to be heard and have their ideas be subject to scrutiny. If the result is that some ideas are demonstrated to be weak and problematic then isn't that a kind of progress?

Reply to Judaka Your response sounds reasonable that there exist 'filters' through which academic thought passes to become culturally disseminated: the arts, media, technology, social relationships, etc. If these institutions were to become unconcerned with academic thought and focus inwardly on money or notoriety then instead you'd have an essentially impotent set of dogma that would have really no reason to exist at all besides immediate actions like matching individuals with certain careers and such. Perhaps this is the reason why you see these interventions, as a type of expression of frustration when these dissemination medium aren't seen as effective enough.

Quoting kudos

Academic thought seems rarely to be comfortable with presenting it's own views to a non-academic audience, and thus influencing their behaviour.

Universities do not operate as missions of enlightenment to the proletariat. One thing universities do is train people (including some proles) to reach ascending levels of knowledge and expertise. BAs make up the base of the educated, the professoriat fills in the peak. Another thing universities do is provide services to the corporate, governmental, and NGO elite. Whether it's electrical engineering, public policy, investment strategies, medicine, business administration, mathematics, geology, chemistry, and numerous other departments the university produces useful knowledge. It transmits this knowledge through specialized events, networks, publishing, consultation, and so forth.

The people influenced by the university are in a position to influence the rank and file. University geology professors don't drill for oil. Their students and the beneficiaries of university expertise do the drilling. Some corporations have research arms, but the local state university (Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota...) share (or increasingly, license) discovered technology. A lot of drugs have their beginnings in University labs. The internet began in a DOD/Academic partnership,

Some departments -- Classics, Philosophy, English Literature, etc. don't produce knowledge with as ready a market as mechanical engineering, The humanities are taught as part of "the reproduction of society" and as such are important. If university philosophers come up with ideas that find a market, then the knowledge will be transmitted, and will affect others.

One thing, the humanities are supposed to directly influence the students most of all. I hesitate to bet on the net benefit of the humanities, even though I was an English major a long time ago. (I would definitely do it over.)

Reply to Bitter Crank Taking your English education as an example. You must run into writing that is full of defects all the time. But if it were common to step in and act, then you'd expect to see a sort of dogmatic strictness applied to ordinary language that would be very foreign to it. But if you didn't know the subject as well it would be more acceptable, because you would be closer to the same 'level.' So someone who knows less about the subject should have more ability to alter reality than someone who studied the content of their subject.

Maybe it depends somewhat on the faith societies have in the content of those subjects; we expect a certain fear of rebuke that keeps those who do not have academic knowledge of certain subjects from burdening others with it's content. Social media groups come to mind. But an environmentalist group that spreads a sort of enviro-propaganda can actually do good things for the environment, and similarly a zombified feminist group can protect subjugated women. However, I feel there needs to be a source of fear that makes us are aware that we are only actors and not in full command of modulating the concepts behind these actions.

Quoting kudos

However, I feel there needs to be a source of fear that makes us are aware that we are only actors and not in full command of modulating the concepts behind these actions.

Being aware of one's own station in society and of one's own level of knowledge of a topic is often enough for a person to self-moderate what they say on a topic.

As a simple example, a while back, the local road in my neighborhood was being redone, new asphalt, new sidewalks etc. On my way home, I once met an older lady who also lives in the neighborhood. We chatted a bit about the roadblock, the new road, etc. She said the road is now even narrower as it was before, and added "Oh my, I have a lot to say, and I don't even drive!" It was interesting to hear this bit of self-censorship.

Of course, not everyone is like that, and some people have very definitive opinions about the new road, even though at least some of them don't know what legal, practical, etc. restrictions the planners and the workers had to work with.


Quoting kudos

I want to say that it reaches beyond the question of whether an uneducated audience would understand or agree, but if the academic has the right to impose their ideology onto the non-academic.

And conversely, whether the non-academic have the duty to internalize said ideology.

It's an important question, esp. in the time of this pandemic and issues of vaccination.

Quoting Heiko

I'd definitely say yes to this question. Being paid for philosophy means bought philosophy.

And being paid to do painting means bought painting .... wut? No, you get paid for something because you have a certain skill or trait that people pay money for. People pay to hear an educated philosopher lecture because they think they learn more from him or her. And lo and behold, they are probably right, because the man or woman in question has been dedicating her or his time to the subject. That is what academic education provies you with: time, a structure in which you are educated and educators that have obtained distinctions making it creible to think they are fit for their jobs and know what they talk about.

Quoting kudos

I want to say that it reaches beyond the question of whether an uneducated audience would understand or agree, but if the academic has the right to impose their ideology onto the non-academic. It seems like this unquestionably happens in daily life, but I don't know of any analysis or compendium on the subject to determine if it is being correctly applied. But there do seem to be cases, take this example (only the first 1.5 minutes) from the recent US impeachment case.

There are many assumptions in your post that an academically trained philoopher or a self educated one skilled at the discipline spots. A. You assume there is some 'ideology' which apparrently the acaemically trained share. This is not true. B. you seem to think that everyting must be equally understandable for everyone. That unfortunately is not the case. If I am at a conference on cancer treatment I will not understand it because my knowledge of biology is insufficient. Now I am a lawyer and what Dershowitz says in the fiirst 1.5 minutes makes perfect sense to me. your posts further display an assumption C. and that is that somehow there are different truths which can be imposed by different people, but there is also one tuth to rule them all to which you sometimes allude. It is hard to make out because you are not clear on what you mean by truth, but you seem to assume somehow the academics have some sort of conpiracy among themsleves to corrupt hte untrained, but also uncorrupted soul of the non academic.

Quoting kudos

?Bitter Crank Taking your English education as an example. You must run into writing that is full of defects all the time. But if it were common to step in and act, then you'd expect to see a sort of dogmatic strictness applied to ordinary language that would be very foreign to it. But if you didn't know the subject as well it would be more acceptable, because you would be closer to the same 'level.' So someone who knows less about the subject should have more ability to alter reality than someone who studied the content of their subject.

You also seem to unerestimate academics. Why would they just apply dogmatic strictness? you think that scholars of the field of linguistics are so dim that they do not understand language is a living instrument? Of course they do. Their vision is not somehow clouded by 'academic' reasoning and thinking as you seem to suggest, it is expanded by it. So they know everything the layman knows and more. Take the last sentence of the quote above: "So someone who knows less about the subject should have more ability to alter reality than someone who studied the content of their subject." What do you mean by ; 'alter reality'? Non-academics and academics alike have the same ability to 'alter reality'. Go and pour a cup of tea or crack open a beer, move your fingers over the keys of a keyboard and presto reality is altered. The argument is totally mudled by the sloppy use of terms and language. The difference between non-academic and academic writing and argumentation is that academic writing and argument has standards of rigour, rigour which the sentence quoted above and the argument at large in original post so sorely lacks.

On a less ascerbic note, I gebuinely wonder what you mean to illustrate with showing Gershowitz first one and a half minutes. I thought he was clear as day for everyone. There is not a word of legalese in there... He does not say anything 'academic', he speaks as a lawyer. A lawyer knows the law just like an architect knows architecture. so why would this be a desastrous meeting? When you need an expert you call one. They needed an expert on constitutional law so they called him..

Reply to Tobias

Their vision is not somehow clouded by 'academic' reasoning and thinking as you seem to suggest, it is expanded by it. So they know everything the layman knows and more.

The academic may know a lot, but they don't know how to truly behave like a layman. They can never know how to not know what they know, and that is a weakness. The academic is likely to encounter the traditional way of life with a critical eye perhaps because of what they believe they know; sure they know things, but do they know better so as to decide for someone else? What gives them that right over others when the basis of their study precedes them just as much as their subject?

Quoting kudos

The academic may know a lot, but they don't know how to truly behave like a layman.

Before I became a lawyer I was a layman at law. An interested person. So, have I forgotten the questions that intereste me then, but which I could not solve? No why would that be?

Quoting kudos

They can never know how to not know what they know, and that is a weakness.

I teach and so I see all kinds of people who do not know what I know, but who will know in the future. Why do you think I have mysteriously forgotten how it is to be a student?

Quoting kudos

The academic is likely to encounter the traditional way of life with a critical eye perhaps because of what they believe they know; sure they know things, but do they know better so as to decide for someone else?

Yes of course they do. Say you have a broken car. Then you take it to the mechanic. If you have a problem with your skin, you go to a dermatologist and when you have a legal question you go to a lawyer. Try taing your skin problem to the garage and your car to a lawyer and see whether your problems are solved or not. Academics are just specialised in some field or other and therefore they know more about that subject.

And well, acadmeics do not decide for you. Policy makers do. They decide what behaviour you may perform and what not. they could also use conviction or nudging. But all of that is perfectly straight forward no? I do think you agree that society needs laws and policy.

Quoting kudos

What gives them that right over others when the basis of their study precedes them just as much as their subject?

What gives them (or anyone for that matter) rights is a legal question. Mostly they do not have more rights than anyone else. I have the right to judge my students' exams because the university thinks I can do it well. I have the right to write Ph.D. after my name if I so want. Those are some rights I have. Sometimes academics inflruence policy making, such as in the case of the pandemic. However, I did not know academics had more rights than other people. They are more well respected socially maybe. That is logical. They know more about the subject at hand. It is that simple.

Reply to Tobias :up:

I can add little to nothing. You have expressed your point of view - to which I agree - admirably.

Thanks! :) @jgill

Quoting kudos

So then, are academics bound to impotence except in their own - now highly monetized - spheres of thought?

Unanswerable. There are good and bad academics and some university departments are subject to fads and agendas. Sometimes work transcends the universities, especially if it is useful. Most of human organised behaviour provides examples of this, from selling pet food to selling Plato. Does it matter?

Reply to Tobias No offense, but being a lawyer is not exactly what I meant by ‘academic.’ Yes, when you have a civil problem you go to a specialist in that field. But when you are being sexually harassed do you go to a women’s studies professor? The academic in my experience usually deals primarily in the universality of the subject, where the specialist in the particulars. We are talking about a similar difference between the mathematician and the physicist. Physics being concerned more with the particulars of the real world at hand, where events aren’t as much idealized in the way they are in the universal form of mathematics.

If you attempted to apply the idealized structure of mathematics to physics problems you’d encounter unexpected results because the real world doesn’t always deal in easily determined discrete quantities. Similarly, those who deal in the analysis of universal categories of law might still fail in persuading a jury of an argument because that is so heavily influenced by particulars.

But what I’m getting at is that if you really well understood those idealities, and attempted to work in them as they were in practical terms, then wouldn’t you to a certain extent be applying a force to those events themselves to be more like your idealizations? That is particularizing the universal and ultimately vise versa: you may run the risk of those particular actions coming to represent universal concepts, and individualizing them to suit whatever aims happen to be popular that day.

Quoting kudos

If you attempted to apply the idealized structure of mathematics to physics problems you’d encounter unexpected results because the real world doesn’t always deal in easily determined discrete quantities

In a sense calculus has an "idealized" structure and physics cannot do without it, but you must be referring to set theory and foundations, and the axiom of choice, and the physics I am barely acquainted with does not require the latter.

Quoting kudos

The academic may know a lot, but they don't know how to truly behave like a layman. They can never know how to not know what they know, and that is a weakness

This sounds like an argument an anti-vaccine layman might make. Pity the poor virologist who toils in the lab.

Quoting kudos

No offense, but being a lawyer is not exactly what I meant by ‘academic.’

No offense, but I am a sociel scientist as well as a lawyer and I publsh on a regular basis in academic journals (although less than I wish because of other pressing academic duties such as teaching classes). Law can also be performed in academia next to practice. No offense, but I am beginning to feel more and more you have no idea what you are talking about and that you jump to conclusions too easily.

Quoting kudos

But when you are being sexually harassed do you go to a women’s studies professor?

No, but when you want to know something about the cultural origins of sexual harassment you do.

Quoting kudos

The academic in my experience usually deals primarily in the universality of the subject, where the specialist in the particulars. We are talking about a similar difference between the mathematician and the physicist. Physics being concerned more with the particulars of the real world at hand, where events aren’t as much idealized in the way they are in the universal form of mathematics.

Sure, but what is the point? When you want to know someting about a practical legal case you go to a lawyer. When you want to know something about the legal culture of a country you consult a sociologist of law and when you want to know someting about the pivotal nature of the right to property in today's legal systems you go to a scholar of jurisprudence. Sometimes you want to know something particular sometimes something universal.

Quoting kudos

If you attempted to apply the idealized structure of mathematics to physics problems you’d encounter unexpected results because the real world doesn’t always deal in easily determined discrete quantities. Similarly, those who deal in the analysis of universal categories of law might still fail in persuading a jury of an argument because that is so heavily influenced by particulars.

Of course. The only problem is that hidden in your argument is the assumption that academics are such silly people who do not know this. However they do. Ask me a practical question on taxes or traffic law and I have no clue. However I know I have no clue. that is the difference between someone academicaaly trained and someone who is not. Actually the exact oposit of your point is true. Academics know the limits to their competence because they know how to delineate their field. The non-academic makes all kinds of assumptions wandering into a field of knowledge blissfully unaware of his or her limitations.

Quoting kudos

But what I’m getting at is that if you really well understood those idealities, and attempted to work in them as they were in practical terms, then wouldn’t you to a certain extent be applying a force to those events themselves to be more like your idealizations? That is particularizing the universal and ultimately vise versa: you may run the risk of those particular actions coming to represent universal concepts, and individualizing them to suit whatever aims happen to be popular that day.

If you are unaware of the limitiations to your field of study then that problem might arise. However as I have explaine above, the whole point of academic studies is to get a grip on your field of knowledge and also what its imitations are. Therefore I think an academic is more trained to spot this problem than the non-academic. Moreover, there are of course relationships between the universal and the particular and one of the tasks of the academic is to study their interrelationships. A sociologist of law for instance studies how universal categories of law influence the behaviour of certain people in certain ways in practice.

Reply to Tobias (y) Well said (err written)

Reply to kudos It's a rather simple matter: We haven't found the answers yet. For certain then ideas/theories won't match reality on the ground. Odd that ideas about reality should be complete strangers to each other.

Quoting kudos

By really learning - not just learning how to be something like a lawyer or a dentist - do we agree by contract to concede action and certainty?

If you learned how to be a lawyer, you'd know that one doesn't "agree by contract" to anything by "really learning."

So much for "really learning."

Reply to Tobias

No offense, but I am a social scientist as well as a lawyer and I publish on a regular basis in academic journals (although less than I wish because of other pressing academic duties such as teaching classes).

Wow, then you're the perfect person to ask this question. Thanks for replying. I seem to have rubbed you the wrong way but that wasn't my intention. I suppose the first question I would ask you is to what extent does your academic involvement — and I'm regretting using the word 'academic' already — mix with your work in law. Imagine, that you were a judge instead of a lawyer, do you think that your exposure to certain ideas about social relationships as a scientist would affect your work to any extent? The judge being an impartial third party, do you see any conflict of interest? What if instead this person had some money invested in an non-profit, would it then become a conflict? Surely the judge who knows must self-regulate their actions in accordance with the knowledge of their own limitations, but this is exactly what I mean: then according to you they are more inclined to restraint than someone who has one-dimensional ideas that draw them to immediate action.

Keep in mind, I'm not approaching this under any assumption that either response is a true or false.

If you are unaware of the limitations to your field of study then that problem might arise. However as I have explained above, the whole point of academic studies is to get a grip on your field of knowledge and also what its limitations are.

I'm so glad you said this, because now we are getting into the real content of the question. So what is this process of knowing ones self and their limitation? Where is the limitation? Is it common sense, is it negation of the knowledge (or 'denial'), is it drawing the line in a strict manner according to some unwritten rule?

This is not an attack on you personally, please try to see it otherwise. If my ignorance is offending you, please feel free to correct me because I certainly don't consider myself an expert on social science or the law. But we I hope you understand that we can't only ask questions here that pertain to only one field of study completely.

Quoting kudos

Wow, then you're the perfect person to ask this question. Thanks for replying. I seem to have rubbed you the wrong way but that wasn't my intention. I suppose the first question I would ask you is to what extent does your academic involvement — and I'm regretting using the word 'academic' already — mix with your work in law. Imagine, that you were a judge instead of a lawyer, do you think that your exposure to certain ideas about social relationships as a scientist would affect your work to any extent? The judge being an impartial third party, do you see any conflict of interest? What if instead this person had some money invested in an non-profit, would it then become a conflict? Surely the judge who knows must self-regulate their actions in accordance with the knowledge of their own limitations, but this is exactly what I mean: then according to you they are more inclined to restraint than someone who has one-dimensional ideas that draw them to immediate action.

Those are good questions. Well, my work in practice is informed by my work in theory, but not determined by it. To some extent they are different ball games. My research into legal mobilization for instance has no bearing on the way that a legal case is solved in practice, Practice and theory sometimes pose different questions. However, I do bring what I know of theory to bare on a case in practice. I think my knowledge of criminology and philosophy of law informs my judgment and makes it more kaleidoscopic. I however do not see a conflict of interest, the two are not opposed, but related. Law is a profession and the law has to be applied to a case according to some sort of procedure, that is what a lawyer or judge does. However when doing so, I think your judgment is enriched by more knowledge of theory of law. Maybe that is the assumption you have, that somehow there is a struggle between the two, but I fail to see why that should be so. In fact if that was the case it would be very alarming, it would mean our theories of the world are wholly unrelated to the world itself.

The question of having some money invested in a non profit I do not really understand. Why would that influence the merits of a case either from a scientific or legal point of view? It might in some circumstances weigh in on judgment, the character of a defendent is not unimportant, but what it exactly does, depends on the facts at hand. What it actually means is dictated by the laws of the practice. I do not know whether a man of theory or practice is more easily swayed by this knowledge. A lot depends on the 'rules' of the practice and what a judge is 'supposed' to do with such knowledge.

the scientist might have more restraint, but law in practice is about jugdment, so you cannot show restraint... You know that when you get into legal practice. It has to do also with the role one plays. I think I can separate these roles, also because I know soething about the legal profession and legal ethics. I do not think I would judge slower, but I hope sharper because of my training in the asking of questions. However I find that my colleagues are generally sharper than I am, because of their training in practice maybe. However I know I am good at legal argumentaton and knowlegdable in the principles begind certain rules. therefore I bring other skills that the table that I feel increase fair and even handed judgment, at least I hope they do.

Quoting kudos

I'm so glad you said this, because now we are getting into the real content of the question. So what is this process of knowing ones self and their limitation? Where is the limitation? Is it common sense, is it negation of the knowledge (or 'denial'), is it drawing the line in a strict manner according to some unwritten rule?

Well, it is more akin to a 'discipline' which one has to learn. As a student you are very mmuch inclined to ask all kinds of questions and try to solve each and everyone. Than a prof comes along and shows you that you basically do not have the knowledge to answer this question. Many law students for instance like asking the question whether this or that law is 'effective'. However, effective in what sense and from what perspective? Can they perform for instance an economic analysis of a certain law to see whether it increases wellfare? They can not. They do not realise that as yet, but they learn it when it is pointed out to them. In the process of writing my PhD I have time and again be told to limit my question and not forray into areas I lack knowledge of. At some point you get a feel for it and the more you work 'acadmemically', the more you train and discipline yourself to realise these limitations of your field.

Quoting kudos

This is not an attack on you personally, please try to see it otherwise. If my ignorance is offending you, please feel free to correct me because I certainly don't consider myself an expert on social science or the law. But we I hope you understand that we can't only ask questions here that pertain to only one field of study completely.

I do not take this as such, not in the least. There was nothing in your post here I thought of as offensive or jumping to unwarranted conclusions and so neither is this response meant to include any barbs. It is means as just an exchange of ideas and an explanation of where I come from.

Reply to Tobias

However when doing so, I think your judgment is enriched by more knowledge of theory of law. Maybe that is the assumption you have, that somehow there is a struggle between the two, but I fail to see why that should be so.

I would agree about the enriching, and this I think is my (known) assumption: That knowledge does 'enrich' us with a certain authority; a certain power. And the more of this power one gets it seems reasonable to think that it would become more difficult to use it effectively. Not that the intention to do good weren't there, but that the more your actions affect a greater number, the more the possibility comes that this could manifest in unpredictability and do damage to some. Especially because a great deal of this knowledge concerns the validity of the very apparatus of judgement itself.

To cite one controversial example of how knowledge itself is not always the path toward good, take the Communist Manifesto. Marx and Engels had the intention of spreading what they knew about economics, social science, and political science. These days there aren't many who don't point the finger of blame towards that action for the cruelty carried out in its name, though in my view their work rests on perfectly sound knowledge of the world. What they saw, as far as I'm concerned was the truth, but when they attempted to particularize and individualize it those universals collapsed, free will clashed with the ideal axioms of the academic world and all sorts of unpredictability resulted.

This isn't intended to be some sort of allegory of why we should never use the knowledge taught in universities and colleges, but it does go to show one example where the good it can do can easily turn foul. And this can be worse in some cases because it associates the interest within the particularities as if it were part of the universal, allowing the worst types of violence and harm done in the name of progress.

Quoting kudos

Academic thought seems rarely to be comfortable with presenting it's own views to a non-academic audience, and thus influencing their behaviour. This differs from the old approach of knowledge and truth being a way to attain a greater public good as it takes form in works such as Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

Cause as in everything the root is the Ego! Academics(not all of course) snob the common people. Thinking themselves too intellectual to deal with common people. And acting superior towards them.

I get sick when I hear philosophers interviews and they talk with terms so sophisticated and complex for really really simple things! It seems really ridiculous to my eyes.
I always wondered "do they actually care to be understood from everyone and actually help even a bit in people's intellectual growth or they care as to show off? Make others see how great they are?"

And particularly in philosophy which "owns" to everyone! It's the only science (well if we can call it science of course) that everyone takes part!And has the "right" to do so! It comes with the human package itself! Philosophy is what people do since the appearance of our kind. So they aren't entitled to look so snobbish about the rest common people.

The one who is higher needs to low down if he actually wants to help the other who stands lower! The opposite is impossible.

Reply to dimosthenis9 I feel your pain. The university system to me seems to be instilling a sense of class separation and control through just the same phenomena; the proposed oligarchy of the intelligentsia. As if we haven't seen that mentality utterly fail over and over again throughout history.

Quoting kudos

As if we haven't seen that mentality utterly fail over and over again throughout history.

And it will go on failing.

Quoting kudos

I would agree about the enriching, and this I think is my (known) assumption: That knowledge does 'enrich' us with a certain authority; a certain power. And the more of this power one gets it seems reasonable to think that it would become more difficult to use it effectively. Not that the intention to do good weren't there, but that the more your actions affect a greater number, the more the possibility comes that this could manifest in unpredictability and do damage to some. Especially because a great deal of this knowledge concerns the validity of the very apparatus of judgement itself.

Here you make the same mistake. The enrichment I speak of is not power or authority, but it is the repertoire of arguments, the depth of knowledge and the acumen in applying tried and tested methodology that enriches. Because they know certain things and can use certain methodologies they wield power and authority. You think it is just blind coincidence they get these desirable goods, but that is not the case.

Quoting kudos

To cite one controversial example of how knowledge itself is not always the path toward good, take the Communist Manifesto. Marx and Engels had the intention of spreading what they knew about economics, social science, and political science. These days there aren't many who don't point the finger of blame towards that action for the cruelty carried out in its name, though in my view their work rests on perfectly sound knowledge of the world. What they saw, as far as I'm concerned was the truth, but when they attempted to particularize and individualize it those universals collapsed, free will clashed with the ideal axioms of the academic world and all sorts of unpredictability resulted.

Well there can be many things wrong with Marxist economics... or with dialectical materialism. However what regimes do with knowledge is something else than what academics discover. Following your line of thought we might blame physicists for the existence of the atom bomb, hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Quoting kudos

This isn't intended to be some sort of allegory of why we should never use the knowledge taught in universities and colleges, but it does go to show one example where the good it can do can easily turn foul. And this can be worse in some cases because it associates the interest within the particularities as if it were part of the universal, allowing the worst types of violence and harm done in the name of progress.

What is the alternative? No knowledge. The human life span on average was 30 years old in those days. You had no idea if you survived another winter due to poor harvest and things like romantic love, freedom, reading and writing were anathema and perhaps only available for the upper class. Sure knowledge might have adverse consequences, so has all human endeavour. Your view is in last instance romantic. It comes down to ignorance is bliss. I dout that very much when we ook at history.

Quoting kudos

?dimosthenis9 I feel your pain. The university system to me seems to be instilling a sense of class separation and control through just the same phenomena; the proposed oligarchy of the intelligentsia. As if we haven't seen that mentality utterly fail over and over again throughout history.

Actually we did not. what we saw was populism reposnible for countless atrocities. Perhaps the Pinochet regime in Chile is a counter example, but nowhere have academics put their ideas in practice. Their ideas might have inforrmed policy, but the decisions have been taken elsewhere. Take the great dictators in history. They were not academics, again with some exceptions, Mugabe in Zimbabwe for instance, but he hardly ranks as the worst of the bunch. .

Quoting Tobias

And being paid to do painting means bought painting .... wut?

Yes - someone pays to to paint something, and that is what you do.

Quoting Tobias

No, you get paid for something because you have a certain skill or trait that people pay money for.

That is a necessary condition but ability is no reason to do anything.

Quoting Tobias

People pay to hear an educated philosopher lecture because they think they learn more from him or her. And lo and behold, they are probably right, because the man or woman in question has been dedicating her or his time to the subject. That is what academic education provies you with: time, a structure in which you are educated and educators that have obtained distinctions making it creible to think they are fit for their jobs and know what they talk about.

Well, as a chinese professor said to guest student who wanted to write a thesis about human rights in China: "That is too boring." Skill in painting often means you can paint anything and get a good result. Why should that differ from philosophy? Why would you tell something that people wanted to hear? "Pleasant", "useful" philosophy? "Enlightening"? "Meaningful"?

Reply to Tobias

What is the alternative? No knowledge.

It would be sort of hypocritical to start to make prescriptions. But it makes me personally feel dead inside when the educated elite talk about human beings like they are children who need to be guided around by the adults who know better. That is because I see it as an abuse of authority. However, those who take the opposite extreme reach the same conclusion. We’re now talking in the language of wrathful extremes, which gets everyone nowhere.

I’m not suggesting by this we run around and grab the pitchforks for a good ol’ fashioned witch-hunt, but surely we should give the common person some respect for choosing his/her destiny even if it doesn’t fit in with the value system of professors and (private) educational institutions. My reading of Kant’s ‘kingdom of ends,’ inspires me to say a valuable structure in power and politics can’t be found without the consent to some degree of all the people within it as moral equals.

Quoting kudos

But it makes me personally feel dead inside when the educated elite talk about human beings like they are children who need to be guided around by the adults who know better.

By all means, I can relate to that.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

? C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock

That is because I see it as an abuse of authority.

I think, rather, that this is an expression of authority, not an abuse of authority.

How else is the exercise of authority supposed to look like, if not in telling people what to do, who they are, what is really are, and so on?

I’m not suggesting by this we run around and grab the pitchforks for a good ol’ fashioned witch-hunt, but surely we should give the common person some respect for choosing his/her destiny even if it doesn’t fit in with the value system of professors and (private) educational institutions.

That's Thatcherian!

Do you really think that all the people who don't pursue academic achievement do so as a matter of their own choice?

My reading of Kant’s ‘kingdom of ends,’ inspires me to say a valuable structure in power and politics can’t be found without the consent to some degree of all the people within it as moral equals.

Or perhaps there is nothing deliberate about it, no consent, just "the flow of things".

Quoting Tobias

I teach and so I see all kinds of people who do not know what I know, but who will know in the future. Why do you think I have mysteriously forgotten how it is to be a student?

It's a cognitive bias:

[i]The curse of knowledge is a cognitive bias that occurs when an individual, who is communicating with other individuals, assumes they have the background knowledge to understand.[1] This bias is also called by some authors the curse of expertise.[2]

For example, in a classroom setting, teachers have difficulty because they cannot put themselves in the position of the student. A knowledgeable professor might no longer remember the difficulties that a young student encounters when learning a new subject. This curse of knowledge also explains the danger behind thinking about student learning based on what appears best to faculty members, as opposed to what has been verified with students.[3]
/.../
The term "curse of knowledge" was coined in a 1989 Journal of Political Economy article by economists Colin Camerer, George Loewenstein, and Martin Weber. The aim of their research was to counter the "conventional assumptions in such (economic) analyses of asymmetric information in that better-informed agents can accurately anticipate the judgement of less-informed agents".[4][/i]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge

As a better-informed agent, you are unable to correctly anticipate the judgement of less-informed agents; in short, you cannot relate to them. Now, in a teacher-student setting, this can be irrelevant, because the only thing that matters are the teacher's expectations and standards. But outside of such a setting, it can be of vital importance. See, for example, the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns. Simply calling people stupid, irrational, and such doesn't help much.

The academic is likely to encounter the traditional way of life with a critical eye perhaps because of what they believe they know; sure they know things, but do they know better so as to decide for someone else?
— kudos

Yes of course they do. Say you have a broken car. Then you take it to the mechanic. If you have a problem with your skin, you go to a dermatologist and when you have a legal question you go to a lawyer. Try taing your skin problem to the garage and your car to a lawyer and see whether your problems are solved or not. Academics are just specialised in some field or other and therefore they know more about that subject.

And well, acadmeics do not decide for you. Policy makers do. They decide what behaviour you may perform and what not. they could also use conviction or nudging. But all of that is perfectly straight forward no? I do think you agree that society needs laws and policy.

Do you think this applies to all spheres of human effort, including questions of the meaning of life?
Is it up to academics to decide what the meaning of life is, in general and in particular?

However, I did not know academics had more rights than other people. They are more well respected socially maybe. That is logical. They know more about the subject at hand. It is that simple.

Maybe in the New World, but perhaps not even there consistently. In the Old World, having an advanced degree is mostly about status. For all practical intents and purposes, having an advanced degree (mostly regardless of the specialty) raises the person to the level of nobility, or at least aristocracy. If I would find myself in a situation where I would be expected to bow my head before someone with a Ph.D., I wouldn't be surprised. Even in informal settings these people expect to be treated with special reverence (others must greet them first, even if the person with the advanced degree is visibly younger; they get to sit down first, eat first, etc.).

Quoting Tobias

You assume there is some 'ideology' which apparrently the acaemically trained share. This is not true.

Do the academically trained not believe something like "We are better humans than the average Joe"? I believe they do. Also, society at large seems to believe this about them.

You also seem to unerestimate academics. Why would they just apply dogmatic strictness? you think that scholars of the field of linguistics are so dim that they do not understand language is a living instrument? Of course they do. Their vision is not somehow clouded by 'academic' reasoning and thinking as you seem to suggest, it is expanded by it.

Fachidiot. Do you know what this German term means?

The difference between non-academic and academic writing and argumentation is that academic writing and argument has standards of rigour

Rigour which is relevant only to academics.

Quoting jgill

The academic may know a lot, but they don't know how to truly behave like a layman. They can never know how to not know what they know, and that is a weakness
— kudos

This sounds like an argument an anti-vaccine layman might make. Pity the poor virologist who toils in the lab.

Should actual lay people, Tom, Jane, Mary, Henry, be convinced to get vaccinated by the arguments given by the virologists? Do they have such an obligation to the specialists?

Quoting kudos

The university system to me seems to be instilling a sense of class separation and control

Fair is fair, the system of higher education was devised for precisely this purpose. It's why the elites protested at the prospect of commoners being allowed into this system.

(Just like the police force was established to protect the upper classes from the lower classes, and not to "uphold the law".)



Quoting dimosthenis9

And it will go on failing.

On the contrary.

Quoting baker

On the contrary

So for you everything works fine then and it doesn't need any change? Or that it will stop happening some day soon? I m not sure I got where you stand on this.

Quoting kudos

The university system to me seems to be instilling a sense of class separation and control through just the same phenomena; the proposed oligarchy of the intelligentsia. As if we haven't seen that mentality utterly fail over and over again throughout history.

I think you ascribe too much significance to the university system. I think the majority of students forget, or perhaps simply ignore, their university education after graduation. They find it has little to do with their lives unless they choose to join the closed, self-involved, self-regarding community of academics. They may benefit from contacts they make, but I doubt they consider themselves an elite or superior merely by virtue of the fact that they have a college education. There is no "oligarchy of the intelligentsia" here in God's favorite country, at least.

Quoting Ciceronianus

I think the majority of students forget, or perhaps simply ignore, their university education after graduation

Doesn't that say something? Universities seem to care more as to create useful workers for the markets and less to create useful people for the societies in general.

Quoting Ciceronianus

but I doubt they consider themselves an elite or superior merely by virtue of the fact that they have a college education.

I think he mostly means about academics attitude towards students and common people and not so much about students themselves.

Quoting kudos

I’m not suggesting by this we run around and grab the pitchforks for a good ol’ fashioned witch-hunt, but surely we should give the common person some respect for choosing his/her destiny even if it doesn’t fit in with the value system of professors and (private) educational institutions. My reading of Kant’s ‘kingdom of ends,’ inspires me to say a valuable structure in power and politics can’t be found without the consent to some degree of all the people within it as moral equals.

Yes, I agree. Where do you see the academic class blocking the life path of what you call 'common people'? I agree that our current ' diploma democracy' as we say in Dutch is flawed. Our policy makers should represent the people and curently the balance between academically educated and non-aacademically educated is off. I do not think though the academic education is the problem per se, but the academically educated seem to be privoleged in other ways as well. I do not think we are that far off actually.

Quoting baker

It's a cognitive bias:

Yes, there might be a bias, however the question is how severe it is. Education would be impossible if the educator and the educatee would inhabit different worlds.

Quoting baker

As a better-informed agent, you are unable to correctly anticipate the judgement of less-informed agents; in short, you cannot relate to them. Now, in a teacher-student setting, this can be irrelevant, because the only thing that matters are the teacher's expectations and standards. But outside of such a setting, it can be of vital importance. See, for example, the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns. Simply calling people stupid, irrational, and such doesn't help much.

Sure there might be miss-matches. The funny thing is when policy makers see the ineffectiveness of the vaccination campaign they hire academics or commercial consultants to divise a way of communication that does reach the people.

Quoting baker

Do you think this applies to all spheres of human effort, including questions of the meaning of life?

Is it up to academics to decide what the meaning of life is, in general and in particular?

No, and there would not be an academic worth his'her salt who would state that he knows the meaning of life and that he should have the authority to tell others what it is.

Quoting baker

In the Old World, having an advanced degree is mostly about status. For all practical intents and purposes, having an advanced degree (mostly regardless of the specialty) raises the person to the level of nobility, or at least aristocracy. If I would find myself in a situation where I would be expected to bow my head before someone with a Ph.D., I wouldn't be surprised. Even in informal settings these people expect to be treated with special reverence (others must greet them first, even if the person with the advanced degree is visibly younger; they get to sit down first, eat first, etc.).

Well I come from the old world. I have obtained a Ph.D. Nowhere is there anyone bowing for me. Nor do I expect such a thing. I do not know which country you describe but it is not the Netherlands... Perhaps 50 years ago this might have been different, I do not know. May I ask you if there are any job openings in this country for plodding legal scholars?

Quoting baker

Do the academically trained not believe something like "We are better humans than the average Joe"? I believe they do. Also, society at large seems to believe this about them.

There might be snob-like academics, but I have encountered that sentiment more often in people who just made a fortune in business. And there are all kinds of peope just bshing academics and bluntly proclaiming that their knowledge is all bollocks. I do not think we feel better. I know it is sometimes tiring to discuss a complex subject of which you happen to know something with someone who does not, but still thinks he does. That does lead to me thinking "I am better", but does sometimes lead to a feeling of annoyance especially because some people think the subject is easy or 'common sense' whereas if it was I would not have spent years studying it. But no... better... that would be a very silly thing to feel. I cannot speak for all academics though.

Quoting baker

Fachidiot. Do you know what this German term means?

Yes. 'Of course', I might add, but you will probably accuse me of academic arrogance. ;)

Quoting baker

Rigour which is relevant only to academics.

No, it is relevant to each of us. Science and academia have made our lives a lot better. I in any case choose evidence based practices over the hunch or intuition of some kind of person with a peculiar opinion.

Quoting baker

Should actual lay people, Tom, Jane, Mary, Henry, be convinced to get vaccinated by the arguments given by the virologists? Do they have such an obligation to the specialists?

No, not at all. The state should be covinced that it is in the public interest to raise vaccination rates, because believe it or not people are actually dying and I belief, based on the opinions of experts, that vaccines stop people from dying. There are a number of ways to do that of co urse and I hope they consult lawyers among other people to discuss the pro's and cons.

Reply to Tobias

Yes, I agree. Where do you see the academic class blocking the life path of what you call 'common people'? I agree that our current ' diploma democracy' as we say in Dutch is flawed. Our policy makers should represent the people and currently the balance between academically educated and non-academically educated is off. I do not think though the academic education is the problem per se, but the academically educated seem to be privileged in other ways as well.

In Europe perhaps less so because tuition fees are not as high as they are in North America. Here the technology gap has greatly increased the requirement for extended education to reach high-paying jobs. In addition, there's the sheer attendance factor in these institutions. You can't have fifty percent of the population going into debt investing their entire life savings and youth on something and then "Sorry we've got nothing for you."

The influence these disciplines have is also now more far-reaching. Data scientists, programmers, engineers, journalists, are in a greater sense more a part of our lives and the roles they play have increased in complexity and influence on the behaviour of the ordinary person. In 1951 they didn't need to ask themselves, "Will x news headline cause anxiety and depression?" because maybe only thirty percent of people in the neighbourhood even read the newspaper on a daily basis.

You have a large section of the population who have invested heavily in something: something that grants them certain powers and privileges. I'm not saying they're blocking anyone from happiness, or there's anything wrong with universities teaching kids to succeed in their field. But there is a system in place that poses a potential for a class divide and an ideological crisis. That's all, no blame or anything on anyone, just plain old crass cynicism.

Quoting kudos

You have a large section of the population who have invested heavily in something: something that grants them certain powers and privileges. I'm not saying they're blocking anyone from happiness, or there's anything wrong with universities teaching kids to succeed in their field. But there is a system in place that poses a potential for a class divide and an ideological crisis. That's all, no blame or anything on anyone, just plain old crass cynicism.

Agree. Is there a clear alternative? Isn't it necessarily the case that higher skilled expertise will likely be more useful and better paid than an unskilled role? It might be good if minimum wages and conditions for less skilled workers were much higher, but that's a separate matter.

In a larger sense, is a meritocracy unfair?

Reply to Tom Storm I got the feeling after “laymen have a perspective on things that the more educated classes do not know,” that it was almost laughable. This is common sense. If I were to start somewhere it might be wondering about that.

Quoting kudos

In 1951 they didn't need to ask themselves, "Will x news headline cause anxiety and depression?" because maybe only thirty percent of people in the neighbourhood even read the newspaper on a daily basis.

Long before that defense pundits and military planners carefully manipulated news media to support the war effort. And perhaps not everyone read a newspaper, but almost all listened to the radio.

Reply to jgill Fair enough. percentage-wise, the technology affected roughly the same demographic, but it would reach more individuals and see more frequent usage. The U.S. population now is recorded at approximately 333 Million. In 1940 the census recorded approximately 132 Million. So while the approximate 90 percent figure is similar, that percentage represents significantly more people. Plus those people are able to carry this device with them all the time and perform more actions with it in addition to all the functionality of television and radio combined.

Quoting kudos

it was almost laughable. This is common sense. If I were to start somewhere it might be wondering about that.

Oh do tell. Which bit was common sense and which bit was laughable or were they the same bit?

Quoting jgill

In a larger sense, is a meritocracy unfair?

That question is floating in the air for me. Why do you ask it? I can't say that I have ever seen a meritocracy in action anywhere. It sounds idealistic.

Reply to Tom Storm The same. When someone professes to have some all-encompassing ability to understand another's life experience it starts looking a lot like they are fixing their gaze on them with the intent of using them as a means.

Quoting Tom Storm

That question is floating in the air for me. Why do you ask it?

If there is conflict between academia and the non-academic world, there is assuredly meritocracy in the former within disciplines, leading to personality if not funding squabbles. Sometimes those involved might assuage their feelings by displaying a touch of arrogance towards the less educated. This is unfortunate, but occurs occasionally. It's not pretty. On the other hand, higher education itself does not lead to meritocracy in a more general population since standards vary significantly across the globe. Just a few random thoughts.

Reply to jgill I got ya. I agree completely. As an occasional advisor to a various departments over the years, I've seen precisely this.

Quoting kudos

The university system to me seems to be instilling a sense of class separation and control through just the same phenomena; the proposed oligarchy of the intelligentsia. As if we haven't seen that mentality utterly fail over and over again throughout history.

But where did it fail? I can't think of any examples.

The problem with academia is that it's pompous. Men are idolized and academics live vicariously through them.

It's doomed to be a world apart from simple truth. It's a matter of taste and not pure fact.

Arrogance is the root of popular thought, a defense mechanism.

In my opinion it should be assumed everyone must be completely wrong, if not partially right.

In the end we're left with the sum totality of our lives and relationships, and none of it was meted out by books, and how well you understood everything had nothing to do with the richness of your experience. Much as academics would love to make pretense otherwise.

A slice of humble pie is not in our future, though; we're too impressed with ourselves.

Men without original thought memorize the complexity of dead minds, speak in maths, and hold human genius (an arbitrary popularity contest) up as a monolith. Lost in the details, we forget to believe that it's our time to shine, the living.

You can't write the equation that states anyone has to indulge in any of it and yet still can't learn the lesson they need to learn.

I'm not against the free proliferation of profound thought, but it needs to be put into perspective. It's a toy.

Quoting theRiddler

Men without original thought memorize the complexity of dead minds, speak in maths, and hold human genius (an arbitrary popularity contest) up as a monolith. Lost in the details, we forget to believe that it's our time to shine, the living.

I agree with the sentiment but all that we do rests on the shoulders of luminaries who came before us. Everything from the germ theory of disease to vacuum cleaners. Do we turn out back on what the greats have contributed to our culture? Living in the present is never possible since the past is what makes us. Unless you want to do a Pol Pot...

Quoting theRiddler

It's a toy.

Tell us how it's a toy - what do you have in mind.

Reply to Tom Storm

I'm against the idea that there are "greats."

Einstein wasn't concerned with being "great." That's folly.

What concerns me deeply is our attitude towards our knowledge base, and how we're limiting exploration and imagination.

It's such a slippery slope, and so easy a trap to fall into, the notion that humans, by consensus, are an authority on what can and cannot be. That anyone is an expert on what is.

And that our scope is narrowing the more information we acquire.

We desperately need to take everything with a grain of salt; that's why I say it's a toy.

Question everything, ruthlessly dissect our statements for accuracy.

Conformity and acceptance of the forms that be is deadly.

Because to truly understand the complexity of nature is to understand weirdness that is unlikely to ever cross anyone's mind.

Academia isn't complete. There are arenas of thought we lack the perspective to grasp, as of yet.

When it comes to the universe, the more "unrealistic" the imagination the better.

Mad science, in other words, is the future.

Reply to theRiddler Yes, universities don't stifle enough people.

Reply to baker

I don't necessarily blame the universities, but we all know ambition and ego poison the well.

Don't ascribe any limits to reality, is a good suggestion, in my opinion. We have to experiment with out-of-the-box hunches. There is more here than meets the eye.

Space is not the only frontier.

Quoting theRiddler

Einstein wasn't concerned with being "great." That's folly.

Greats are never concerned about their own greatness - that's what makes them great. And it is interesting you raise him as this suggests his intrinsic significance before we even explore his work. :wink:

Quoting theRiddler

Mad science, in other words, is the future.

Then that just becomes another criterion of value and elevation. What's the difference?

Quoting theRiddler

What concerns me deeply is our attitude towards our knowledge base, and how we're limiting exploration and imagination.

Can you provide an example?

Quoting theRiddler

What concerns me deeply is our attitude towards our knowledge base, and how we're limiting exploration and imagination

Let's see, about 140 articles on mathematics research sent to ArXiv.org daily. The lack of imagination is astounding.

Quoting theRiddler

I don't necessarily blame the universities, but we all know ambition and ego poison the well.

I was referring to something Flannery O'Connor said:

Everywhere I go, I'm asked if I think the universities stifle writers. My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them. There's many a bestseller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.

Similarly, becoming an academic or a person with an advanced degree is too easy these days.

Reply to jgill

All limited to the scope of preconceived "laws of thought." And the ego's crippling desire to be inerrant.

"You talk about day...I'm talking about nighttime."

Nevermind, carry on, truth will out.

Quoting baker

Similarly, becoming an academic or a person with an advanced degree is too easy these days.

Really? Just your opinion?

Reply to jgill A doctor philosophiae is supposed to be someone who can teach others the love of wisdom. How many people with a Ph.D. do you know who qualify as people who can teach others the love of wisdom?

Quoting baker

Similarly, becoming an academic or a person with an advanced degree is too easy these days.

Quoting baker

A doctor philosophiae is supposed to be someone who can teach others the love of wisdom

An admirable skill for a modern PhD, but has little to do with the degree. As a mathematician I taught the subject in a way I hoped would spark an ongoing interest, but the love of wisdom? I might have been purely a researcher seeking knowledge with the degree.

And in math a PhD is not a trivial undertaking.

Quoting jgill

An admirable skill for a modern PhD, but has little to do with the degree.

It shouldn't have only little to do with the degree. If someone gets to prance around demanding to be reffered to as Dr. So And So, then they better deliver accordingly.

Quoting baker

If someone gets to prance around demanding to be reffered to as Dr. So And So, then they better deliver accordingly.

I've actually never known a fellow math PhD who pranced or insisted on the Dr. title. My students called me by my first name or Mr. Gill or professor. It would be fun, however, to witness the prancing. Let me know about it if you see it.

Your previous comment about the ease of acquiring a degree has some merit. There are some "disciplines" where it's a lot easier than math. Sociology, perhaps.

Reply to jgill It is more interesting about how this discussion inevitable turns into a conflict for power between one who sees this long standing institution of the university from a higher moral ground and another with an equally extreme materialist mindset. My criticism of the system is that it is currently tending to produce an unbalanced number of materialist thinkers, in my view, paralleling the dualism between its organization in pre/post enlightenment culture to its current form where it is actively stripping itself of these morals and values; what will we have left other than some type of extreme materialism?

Is there any room for free will and a type of transcendence of the learning self in the materialist schema? Whenever anyone explains it to me it usually just comes off as some kind of individual-driven fixation of curiosity and/or semi-religious symbolism of the knowledge as a type of higher spiritual power.

Quoting kudos

?jgill
It is more interesting about how this discussion inevitable turns into a conflict for power between one who sees this long standing institution of the university from a higher moral ground and another with an equally extreme materialist mindset.

Is that what's happened here? Am I arguing from a "higher moral ground"? Thanks for telling me.

I only taught math (and was a college administrator for a short time). Here in the USA, not the USSR.

Reply to jgill I’m trying not to label or define anyone, though when we hold this discussion we gravitate into certain roles and this conversation is a long standing one. Actually I interpreted your position as closer to the opposite camp, with all this talk about spreading love of wisdom you seem describe the system more like a self-regulating machine. You responded to baker’s traditionalism-rich musing about prancing about and showing off as humorous.

There is visible business-oriented knowledge to be exploited in the average academic learned person, a growing price tag, harder competition, and a greater role in social and political life. This narrative is validated by those who appeal to the intellectual progress of an elite for whom they are expendable. For examples look to the many techno-fear narratives in the arts and in the media. Like the backlash against Facebook and Twitter and the techno-apocalypse and dystopia narratives being told in the arts. They reflect the fears of individuals who see this progress as assertion of power that threatens to compromise fundamental rights and liberties. A fear of a type of material deterministic world where their freedom will be reduced and their happiness in the present transformed into a debt to the future.

Does the working class really want learned AI techs to replace the drudgery of their work lives? Probably not if they have any sense…. Will it still happen? Almost certainly. The system of exchange of goods for access is symbolic of an inevitable progress, a peg in a larger movement in time and is a cultural gesture towards its completion.

Quoting kudos

You responded to baker’s traditionalism-rich musing about prancing about and showing off as humorous.

Indeed it is. Somewhere on the downhill spectrum between love of wisdom and love of money. I fear I just enjoyed math and the lifestyle provided by academia. :cool: