The dreary dryness of academic philosophy

[Wild Reiver]

I the April/May 2025 edition of the magazine, academic philosopher Artur Szutta at the University of Gdansk reviews Inner Space Philosophy by another academic philosopher, James Tartaglia at the University of Keele.

The latter, the reviewer writes, bemoans the detailed and highly technical tone of much professional philosophy in work that is read, if at all, by very few. Instead, there is a call for philosophy to be life-enhancing, rich in imaginative expression, stimulating, and of wide appeal to non-specialist readers and their deep desire to think - and feel - about the major topics which impact on our lives.

This encounter between two academic philosophers seems to me to be one more example in a wide debate involving academics themselves, and we 'amateurs'. It may boil down to questions such as: What is philosophy? Or,. what is philosophy for?

While we have 'headings such as philosophy of mind/religion/history/aesthetics etc. perhaps there is another one: the philosophy of philosophy (though this to some extent is covered in 'the history of philosophy')

More immediately, I think all of this can be ignored. People don't need to have read a single word of 'proper philosophy' to engage with life's' 'Big Questions'.

[Maia]

I fully agree with this. I chose philosophy as one of my A-level subjects at school, and it was all pretty dry.

There's a very similar argument made about the difference between academic history and popular history, and, indeed, with archaeology too. I'm sure it must be the case with pretty much any other subject one could name.

[FlashDangerpants]

I fully agree with this. I chose philosophy as one of my A-level subjects at school, and it was all pretty dry.

There's a very similar argument made about the difference between academic history and popular history, and, indeed, with archaeology too. I'm sure it must be the case with pretty much any other subject one could name.

I know a fun example of that. These dudes in America have put an amateur doctor in charge of all the country's medical infrastructure and he's just promised to identify the causes of autism by September.

Some would say that in spite of a little academic dryness, it's possible that the academic version of medicine is more useful than the conspiracy theorist and carnival barker versions if the outcomes targeted are something to do with keeping people alive and healthy. I feel like perhaps academic history might be better in important regards than jingoistic populist historical revisionism popular with those who wish to repeat historical mistakes rather than learn from them.

And the truth is that those self-elected "lover of wisdom" philosophers who consider themselves too good for academic philosophy, instead insisting that they need only a vague notion of something that Plato might once have said about substances (looking at you Jacobi) to use as their springboard to great thoughts are overwhelmingly nothing but a bunch of psychotic window-licking fucknuts.

[Maia]

I fully agree with this. I chose philosophy as one of my A-level subjects at school, and it was all pretty dry.

There's a very similar argument made about the difference between academic history and popular history, and, indeed, with archaeology too. I'm sure it must be the case with pretty much any other subject one could name.

I know a fun example of that. These dudes in America have put an amateur doctor in charge of all the country's medical infrastructure and he's just promised to identify the causes of autism by September.

Some would say that in spite of a little academic dryness, it's possible that the academic version of medicine is more useful than the conspiracy theorist and carnival barker versions if the outcomes targeted are something to do with keeping people alive and healthy. I feel like perhaps academic history might be better in important regards than jingoistic populist historical revisionism popular with those who wish to repeat historical mistakes rather than learn from them.

And the truth is that those self-elected "lover of wisdom" philosophers who consider themselves too good for academic philosophy, instead insisting that they need only a vague notion of something that Plato might once have said about substances (looking at you Jacobi) to use as their springboard to great thoughts are overwhelmingly nothing but a bunch of psychotic window-licking fucknuts.

I think there's a difference between the sciences, such as medicine, engineering, and so on, and the humanities, such as history and philosophy, which are, at the end of the day, just interpretations and opinions. The historical consensus among academics goes in phases, and is often influenced by politics. History is not, in other words, a dry recounting of everything that happened in the past, as that would be impossible.

I do like a good conspiracy theory though, the more convoluted and amusing the better.

[Wild Reiver]

I fully agree with this. I chose philosophy as one of my A-level subjects at school, and it was all pretty dry.

There's a very similar argument made about the difference between academic history and popular history, and, indeed, with archaeology too. I'm sure it must be the case with pretty much any other subject one could name.

I know a fun example of that. These dudes in America have put an amateur doctor in charge of all the country's medical infrastructure and he's just promised to identify the causes of autism by September.

Some would say that in spite of a little academic dryness, it's possible that the academic version of medicine is more useful than the conspiracy theorist and carnival barker versions if the outcomes targeted are something to do with keeping people alive and healthy. I feel like perhaps academic history might be better in important regards than jingoistic populist historical revisionism popular with those who wish to repeat historical mistakes rather than learn from them.

And the truth is that those self-elected "lover of wisdom" philosophers who consider themselves too good for academic philosophy, instead insisting that they need only a vague notion of something that Plato might once have said about substances (looking at you Jacobi) to use as their springboard to great thoughts are overwhelmingly nothing but a bunch of psychotic window-licking fucknuts.

I think it is important to keep in mind that this thread begins with an academic philosopher's interrogation of what he sees as some collegiate approaches. Personally, I found the review of the book and its reviewer to be reasonable. As a non-academic amateur myself I welcomed the extremely accessible review. Because I am an amateur perhaps some would categorise me as a 'psychotic window-licking fuckwit'. So it goes.

[FlashDangerpants]

I fully agree with this. I chose philosophy as one of my A-level subjects at school, and it was all pretty dry.

There's a very similar argument made about the difference between academic history and popular history, and, indeed, with archaeology too. I'm sure it must be the case with pretty much any other subject one could name.

I know a fun example of that. These dudes in America have put an amateur doctor in charge of all the country's medical infrastructure and he's just promised to identify the causes of autism by September.

Some would say that in spite of a little academic dryness, it's possible that the academic version of medicine is more useful than the conspiracy theorist and carnival barker versions if the outcomes targeted are something to do with keeping people alive and healthy. I feel like perhaps academic history might be better in important regards than jingoistic populist historical revisionism popular with those who wish to repeat historical mistakes rather than learn from them.

And the truth is that those self-elected "lover of wisdom" philosophers who consider themselves too good for academic philosophy, instead insisting that they need only a vague notion of something that Plato might once have said about substances (looking at you Jacobi) to use as their springboard to great thoughts are overwhelmingly nothing but a bunch of psychotic window-licking fucknuts.

I think it is important to keep in mind that this thread begins with an academic philosopher's interrogation of what he sees as some collegiate approaches. Personally, I found the review of the book and its reviewer to be reasonable. As a non-academic amateur myself I welcomed the extremely accessible review. Because I am an amateur perhaps some would categorise me as a 'psychotic window-licking fuckwit'. So it goes.

I definitely didn't accuse all amateurs of being being window lickers, I am not a pro either so that would be very silly of me.

But if you participate in internet discussions of philosophy rather than hanging around ivory towers, you are going to encounter many people who have never engaged with the academic field of philosophy whatsoever (many on this site have never even read the magazine), but consider themselves fully equipped to answer the great questions therein. Many of them outright reject academic philosophy as inadequate for their greatness, these people are windowlicking fucknuts, and I will happily introduce you to a few of them if you have doubts on that matter.

In this book review, if the guy is suggesting some easily digestible subset of philosophy for the entertainment and enlightenment of the masses, one might hope he would also suggest some sort of relevant questions for this non-academic philosophy to address. Sadly I looked at the review and was unsurprised to see "meaning of life" pop up in pole position, so I will not be buying that book. Your mileage may vary of course - which is the point of the review but also a commentary on the solipsism inherent in that whole inner space deal which the author might evade by handwaving about dry academia, but wouldn't be able to avoid.

[Wild Reiver]

Points taken.

Thanks for the offer of introductions but I feel this would only add to my suffering.

[Impenitent]

the aesthetics of exploding water balloons quench the dreary dryness...

perspective is fun

-Imp

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I trust dry and dreary. It's a hallmark of all disciplines, back room. It then takes writers in the field to communicate with plebs like me. PN does exactly that.

[Wild Reiver]

Brings to mind Montaigne's 'small back room' but perhaps his writing was insufficiently technical to have him considered a philosopher?