Jason Samuel e-mails:
. . . I wanted to ask you about philosophical education. A friend once told me of [well-known philosopher] who was one of his undergraduate professors, that [well-known philosopher] thought anything beyond a masters level education in philosophy was useless. Whether this is an accurate piece of advice . . .I can't say for sure. But does it have any merit?
I ask this for several reasons. But what gives me the initiative to ask you, now, is the latest edition of The Philosophers' Magazine. This quarter's edition features pieces entitled: "A Woman's Place: Gillian Howie argues that for female philosophers, plus ca change...," "The Write Stuff: Al Martinich on the importance of good writing," "Humility: David Cooper argues that hubris is the enemy of philosophy," and "Shaking Shibboleths: John Kekes argues that there can be no sacred cows in philosophy."I cannot help but believe that all the philosophical talent expended in this edition could've been used for topics to which we have few or contested answers. It seems that much of philosophy these days is about uncontested topics or topics for which we have adequate answers.
TPM is a popular magazine, not a professional publication. There are things of value in it along with a sizeable admixture of tripe. Don't take it too seriously, or spend too much time with it. Apparently, their aim is to popularize philosophy which may explain why insufficient attention is paid to "topics to which we have few or uncontested answers."
. . . as a conservative philosopher, do you believe a student with similar persuasions can be benefited in philosophical departments in the US or UK, which are notoriously liberal or, in the least, hostile to the conservative world-view? I believe [well-known philosopher's] criticism of higher education rests, in part, on institutional prejudices and the tendency of disciplines to define-out certain topics and expression. The result is educational institutions that betray the proper ends of higher education.
Well, it depends on the philosophical subdiscipline in which you intend to work. Suppose a department is dominated by libs and lefties. That will be a problem if you are working in ethics or political philosophy, but less of a problem if you are working in logic, epistemology, or metaphysics. In any case, an academic program merely provides a framework in which the individual either educates himself or fails to educate himself. There are always opportunities for independent studies and taking courses at other institutions where the atmosphere of political correctness may be less oppressive.
I should remind you of the prospective from which I write. I graduated with a degree in sociology. As a result I am fascinated by--and inquisitive about--how philosophy (or any academic discipline for that matter) defines itself by what it takes as acceptable or noteworthy scholarship. [. . .]
The sociology of knowledge is fascinating, and in particular the sociology of philosophical knowledge. There are fashions and trends and ridiculous ideas are sometimes taken seriously for no good reason, while solid thinkers are ignored. Why do people read a near-charlatan like Derrida when they could be reading Butchvarov and actually learning something? Butch who?
My attitude is: pursue what seems to you to be meaningful and important and let the chips fall where they may. But if you are thinking of an academic career in philosophy, realize that the competition for jobs is ferocious and that securing a tenure-track position at a university where there is a good chance of getting tenure is a long shot.
For me, philosophy is the highest vocation there is. My attitude was and is: I am going to be a philosopher come hell, high water, both, or neither. That's who I am, either that or nothing. If I get a teaching job, fine; if I don't, then I'll fill my belly some other way and do philosophy without institutional support, as I am doing now. I got lucky and secured a tenure-track job that led to tenure at a good school. There is no denying the role of Lady Luck: 100 people applied for the job I got; ten got the preliminary interview at the national meeting; four were flown out for a one day interview on campus. If I had not got a teaching job, I would have latched onto one of the many modern-day equivalents of lense-grinding — to put it Spinozistically.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.