They're running out of ways to get it wrong

[Rhett]

.

I wrote this report and commentary nearing the end of 2004.


Academic Philosophers

I think academic philosophy has reached a crisis point. They've been getting it wrong for so long now they're running out of ways to get it wrong.

I recently spent some time at a university workshop on 'Mental Causation'. At the beginning of the program almost immediately after everyone had taken their seats the first speaker got up and plunged straight into a dense monologue, using all manner of obscure terms. I listened to her as much as i could for the first minute or so in order to see if she made any points worth challenging (during the proposed later discussion), but it was all fluff. She wasn't really making any points. She was presenting the appearance of (merely) contrasting and critiquing various (arcane) established opinions, but did little more than prattle-on for about an hour being as careful as possible to avoid saying anything of substance. Whenever she kind-of made a point her voice quickened and became rather shrill, so the experience wasn't pleasant for more reasons than one. She was a thoroughly confused mess, no closer to the Truth than a person picked off the street.

After that beating a commentator then spoke briefly about what she had said. He largely agreed with her and also neglected to make any coherent philosophical points. However he did offer an opinion that would astound many, giving full insight into the paradym that operates within the circles of academic philosophy. To quote: "I think it will be a long time before these problems are solved. I don't think we're in any danger of these problems being solved in the near future."

The group then moved into the "discussion" phase. People started putting their hands up in order that they could be selected, so i put my own hand up and became about fourth in line. Those that were selected before me used their turns to pose question-come-critiques that were so long-winded and obtuse that no-one really knew what they were on about. The speaker then formed her interpretation of what they said and gave a response that was equally unfathomable. It was a complete waste of time. By the time my turn arrived i'd decided to say, "I think it's an obvious logical point that any 'thing' is caused by everything that it is not" - since she'd made utterances about various 'categories' of causes. She made a reply to that that was so poor i honestly can't remember. I then went on to say, "Whilst we might say that a baby is born from it's mother, it also requires atmospheric gases, the planet Earth, etc, for it to be as it is. Even a far away planet or whatever you care to name is obviously being conducive to the arisal of the baby in that moment. So any limited distinctions are purely of a practical nature". The host then butted in, asking me whether i was "posing a question or . . ", to which i replied that "I was making a point that falsified a number of points that she has made". She then started rambling on about "absent causes", becoming rattled now, and as soon as she'd finished the host interjected and motioned to the next questioner, killing-off any chance of resolution.

A couple of questioners down the line we then came across a man of honesty. During his little monologue he said: "I don't really care about the truth . . . i just find the way you've put that quite interesting."

Soon thereafter a tea-break was declared, and i decided to leave despite the program being scheduled to run into the late afternoon. Incidently, i happened to have a brief chat to a young fellow on the way out, but soon found that even though he agreed with my discussion point, he was more keen on getting to the toilet than speaking to me. So i didn't bother hanging around.

So it's clearly the case that the workshop was structured so as to minimise the danger of truth. Genuine dialectic was frowned upon . . . Truth was the No.1 enemy. They treated philosophy as if it were a game of aesthetics, of creating pleasing models. Given another chance i would cut straight to the throat.

.

[DHodges]

"I think it will be a long time before these problems are solved. I don't think we're in any danger of these problems being solved in the near future."

This strongly reminded me of my weekly "status report" meeting. The point of this meeting is clearly not to review what has been done, but to state what remains to be done. You must have something to say you will be doing... even if it is what you said you would be doing last week. There must be something that needs to be done by someone with my particular skills.

I felt a little bad about it this week, since I had so little that I'm working on at the moment. I was thinking about offering to help someone else who clearly was actually very busy, but my boss looked at me and said, "Well, I guess we all have plenty to keep us busy..." and sent us out.

[Rhett]

.

"I think it will be a long time before these problems are solved. I don't think we're in any danger of these problems being solved in the near future."

Just a reminder that i was quoting someone else, an academic philosopher.

.

[Rhett]

.

Surely one day a university dean or CEO will walk in on a philosophy workshop and realise they've been funding a bunch of children to create a wad of jargon that no-one else can be bothered to learn because its clearly useless, and that's how the children want it. The children just want to play fantasies and get paid for it.

I say academic philosophers are "running out of ways to get it wrong" because i don't see them lasting much longer, being so removed from sanity and common language as they are. I predict their funding will dry up and they'll get chucked out.

Unless of course the human race degenerates to their level, which i by no means rule-out.


Seeing another tack, lets have another look at this. I have actually come across a lot of the phrases common to the postmodernists during conversations with regular folk. I do see their annihilation of logic permeating society, satisfying it's need for protection from reality. The aforementioned children are indeed at the forefront of social change, but it is a regression.

I see the work that scientists do as pumping up the ego, with all their mapping and division, and the postmodernists are the relief. I guess televisions are as good as a padded room.

.

[Kevin Solway]

I say academic philosophers are "running out of ways to get it wrong" because i don't see them lasting much longer, being so removed from sanity and common language as they are. I predict their funding will dry up and they'll get chucked out.

Unless of course the human race degenerates to their level, which i by no means rule-out.

It's possible that the administration knows that academic philosophy is a load of rubbish, but real thinking would never be allowed in a University - it would be a politically incorrect minefield. Therefore they allow something to exist with the name "philosophy" because they think that's better than nothing.

Perhaps there is something inside them that would feel ashamed to be working at a University that didn't have any association whatsoever with the name "philosophy" - one reason being that Phd means "Doctor of philosophy". It would be a pretty damning situation to giving out "doctor of philosophy" qualifications, when there is nothing that goes by the name of philosophy anywhere in the University, and the people who are earning these "Doctor of philosophy" qualifications have never heard of "philosophy" before.