[MD] Academic philosophy

[david]

John quoting Auxier (I think): 

"The fact that they are philosophizing poorly, dogmatically, even sociopathically, is not a fine testament to the quality of their Princeton educations.  The content of their personally held ethic is that philosophy should be practiced impersonally.  Their objection to James is that he took philosophy to be something practiced impersonally [sic].  ...enforcing the norm is something that requires a plan of action to remediate, should it slip (which obviously it has, if an interview committee could seriously  ask about teaching James, who, in spite of the judgment of these sociopaths, is quite possibly the best philosopher America ever produced). ...Professional philosophy has become a scam and must not be discovered as such, and its current practice entails a paradoxical pose, the "lone wolf, profound, inscrutable interpreter of science" which is now so often imitated that the swindlers themselves no longer realize they participate in a great confidence game." -- Auxier, Time, Will and Purpose pg 322



dmb says:

I'm pretty sure that I can see what's going on here. 


It may be hard to see through all the slander and insults (against those who "are philosophizing poorly, dogmatically, even sociopathically," and "these sociopaths" who are running a "scam," and "the swindlers" who "participate in a great confidence game") but Auxier is really just complaining about analytic philosophers. 


Analytic philosophy is (or was) the dominant style of philosophy in English-speaking countries in the 20th century. It was born as a reaction against the kind of Hegelian Idealists like Bradley and Royce. It effectively killed idealism early in the century, which probably explains why Auxier has an axe to grind and why John would enjoy Auxier's grinding noises. 


The idea "that philosophy should be practiced impersonally" is more or less the same as the "attitudes of objectivity" that Pirsig complains about. The analytic philosophers generally see themselves and partners with science and they tend to be physicalists and realists who treasure formal rigor above all. In fact, most of the key founders were mathematicians or logicians. 


But of course this style of philosophy is just one major kind of academic philosophy. Usually analytic philosophy is CONTRASTED with a very different style, which is somewhat misleadingly named "continental philosophy", referring to the non-English speaking nations of Europe. Pragmatism is a homegrown, English-speaking style of philosophy that is neither analytic nor continental. Even further, analytic philosophy has been taking some fairly serious hits from pragmatists for about 35 years. Richard Rorty gave a speech to the American Philosophical Association in 1979 and it's still a bit of a scandal. Lots of those analytic types hate Rorty with a deep passion. The James-basing anecdotal conversation speaks to the hostility analytic types have toward pragmatism and its resurgence. I'm sure it's fun for them to mock it because they know - on some level - that it threatens their most basic views.


But you know what all these types of philosophers agree on? They all agree that the misuse of words and concepts is a demonstration of incompetence and that it's totally unacceptable. It's not even a philosophical issue but a fact that's obvious to anyone who can read or think.