The Void of Intellectualism: Broadening the reach of modern academia.
Philosophy: An obsolete field; relevant prior to the advent of modern science; relegated to the privileged elite — commenting on the life of man from high, far beyond man’s reach. This, is the present definition of philosophy in the minds of many amongst the Populus.
If I handed some passerby of average intellect Sartre’s book ‘Being and Nothingness’ or Kierkegaard’s book ‘The Concept of Anxiety’, the task of simply parsing out the meaning of individual sentences would be far too great. One would have to turn to a search engine for the definition of each word, taking note of the context it was used in as well as the author him/herself: the meanings of words are not congruent across texts. Beyond the slog of fogged and feigned intellect found within the verbose musings of modern philosophers, is a general trend of poor writing. The sentences do not flow from one to the next and the clunky style perverts any attempt the mind may muster towards momentum. These studies, those of philosophy, regard man’s life: his/her place in it, the meaning, and the understanding of all other things. One of the most noted philosophers was documented as saying: an unexamined life is not worth living — Socrates.
As collaboration breeds new understanding, and no individual can contemplate the burden of the universe from all perspectives — only the one is afforded — creating a barrier to entry — one that requires deep and prolonged contemplation and context in the history of some individual whose life may be without note, but whose ideas are relevant; philosophers are hindering the development of the field and the progress of mankind in gatekeeping the practice through the continued use of poor writing and anti-ubiquity.
The ancients and some contemporaries have overcome this tendency. However, far too often is it the case that philosophers of poor style are revered for their taxing work as those — such as Huemer — who have developed a proper writing style are deemed as ‘easy’ (at times being referred to as intellectually inferior to their unrefined counterparts). This conceptualization hinders not only the progression of the field, it hinders the philosopher him/herself. The trademark of understanding is the ability to convey that understanding to others — many intricacies are discovered in plotting the exact course, sparing no lowly assumed detail. Socrates, in Plato’s dialogues, utilized slaves, merchants, and women (who were thought of as inferior at the time) to develop a philosophy. Plato’s dialogues are written as plays, where the reader may take on the role of the individual being questioned by Socrates, a ‘hands on’ approach to developing an understanding of the intricacies of life and living. Aquinas, Camus, Descartes, John Stuart Mill, and Nietzsche are all aptly noted in the literature and can be understood by most when approaching their original texts. It would be ill-advised to deem all of the aforementioned philosophers as intellectually inferior as they have dawned many advancements in the field.
The field of philosophy is not dying due to a lack of interest: on that accord there is much. Music, television, podcasts, and books all are successful, or not, based on how well they relate to the experience of life. Many of the most successful forms of entertainment are those that aptly convey a message in some profound way — think Game of Thrones or South Park. These creators are not often schooled in the art of logic and thought, yet they stumble upon a mining point for the consumer. Beyond the baseline of the desire for the conveyance of shared human experience, is the fact that individuals do flock toward philosophical thought during times of distress — e.g., the Covid-19 virus and the BLM movement. The demand for this work is out there, but through our general assertion of superiority through rough diesis type philosophy, we are failing to cater to it. This failure is not just limiting the growth and development of the field, but it is also harming the financial opportunities of those already within it.
[Noting the continually called upon and elementary economic concept of supply and demand; where there is an increase in demand for philosophical writings the response must eventually be an increase in supply as the pool of potential profits grows].
Perhaps the conception of prior ‘philosophers’ who have sought to cater to the masses for financial gains — namely the Sophists — has provoked the subsequent philosophers to run in the opposite direction.
[In order to avoid hypocrisy, I shall describe the general view of Sophists: a movement of moral (and otherwise in some descriptions) relativists active in Athens while Socrates and Plato were living; well to do individuals would hire these self-proclaimed dialecticians to aid in their pursuit of a prosperous and successful life. Generally, this movement is looked down upon as it relied on the skill of argumentation without the utilization of logic; their goal is often noted as being profit seeking rather than truth seeking].
However, this is not the proper response. The general population has displayed a continued desire — from the Sophists to the modern musicians — for direction and descriptions of and for life; if we fail to respond to the requests, lesser minds will take advantage of the field: creating new and unnecessary problems along with degradation of the funds which may be used for real and continued research.
Philosophers must begin to expect more from their peers in both style and communication. Not only is it unethical to continue along the present path to obscurity and the enlarged sense of narcissistic superiority, but it is also illogical as it hampers our personal prospects for development and opportunity (through the limits imposed on grants, etc.). In assessing a peer’s work, we should not only inquire to the logic and the counterarguments posed, but we should, likewise, consider the quality of writing beyond the bulleted lines of logic. Beyond changing the criteria upon which we assess the work, we should also focus on the criteria upon which we judge ourselves: many philosophers cannot be bothered to converse with individuals who do not spend their days questioning the value and meaning of the days themselves; philosophers need to actively take more of a business oriented approach — or at least outsource it to those who could be bothered — to marketing said research, allowing the public to see the discourse of presently obscure debates.
If you would like to read more on this topic or discover the views of others with its regard, I suggest you check out the following articles:
