There’s a discussion going on at the moment about Analytic Philosophy, which is perceived as being in crisis for various reasons. I think there may be some substance to the crisis, but I also think philosophy may be the kind of discipline that enjoys thinking of itself as in crisis, so who knows?
Lots of good meat on these bones! I appreciate Chris’s and Jerden’s comments.
Another assumption worth examining: aiming to “Maximize the chance of doing something really great in the intellectual sphere.”
I think 21st century “elite” culture has a scalability fetish. It’s not enough to do good on a human, interpersonal level-- it has to be scalable. This is a huge part of academia’s appeal: I could write the paper that makes a huge difference! I really could make it big! I think the lottery is a great metaphor. But like the lottery, I think the expected value of participating is probably net negative: low pay, high stress, and-- in all likelihood-- relatively little impact.
What’s the alternative for a deep thinker? To extend the metaphor, what’s the equivalent of investing in a sensible portfolio of mutual funds and retiring comfortably? In my experience, the non-academic world desperately needs people who can conceptualize and problem solve in a systematic way. you could do this as a consultant (the prestigious version), but also as a participant.
Personally, I went from a BA in philosophy and Econ and an aborted PhD in Econ into teaching math and music at a small rural school. I help people learn to think more clearly every day. I’m also learning to grasp the fundamental dynamics of the education system and move my school in a healthier direction.
Is this going to get my name in the history books? Probably not. (Though I’ll admit to still harboring delusions of grandeur for when my bestselling book revolutionizes the education system). My impact is harder to quantify, but it is no less visible. Frankly, seeing it played out in personal relationships is far more fulfilling than any validation I experienced in academia. Perhaps seeing hundreds of citations of my papers would provide the same deep satisfaction, but I doubt it.
(Side note: I have also identified as lazy with respect to empirics at points in my life. How can one distinguish between empirical laziness and fear of getting one’s hands dirty? Food for thought.)
I would say another difference between philosophy and natural science is that science seems much more incremental and applied - even if you don't become one of the great figures (through some lack of talent, commitment or luck) it's reasonable to expect to make a small contribution to the overall body of knowledge. If Science is a building, with great geniuses laying out the the foundations for entire new wings of discovery, there's no shame in being a mere bricklayer that helps build it up. The main thing to avoid is shoddy work that'll have to be redone later, that undermines anything built on top of it. I feel like this applies to fields like history and economics as well - there's utility to small additions, even if they don't redefine the whole field.
Maybe this is an outside perspective, but philosophy seems to have the unique difficulty among academic fields that it's very focused on the biggest ideas - obviously there are niches, but it doesn't seem quite as valued as research into a specific biological molecule or historical period would be in the more incremental fields.
Reading about philosophers expecting to be the next Hume, Descartes or Kant feels weird to me as a biochemist, in my field we don't really expect to be the next Watson, Crick or Franklin - the structure of DNA has already been discovered! I think, in the heights of our hubris, the most we hope for is that after a long and distinguished career we might be awarded the 20XX Nobel Prize in Chemistry/Medicine, probably for something we didn't understand the significance of at the time, and with the implicit understanding that it's a little absurd to single out one or two individuals from a large team of contributors.
Is it the question of how the philosopher should view the project of their life, or how they should view their project purely *as philosophers*? Already built into that question is the implication that part of what it is to be a philosopher is an inability to separate your philosophy from your life as a whole (even if the professional role of philosopher can be easily separated for many). Not unlike being an artist, or parent, or a few other things. So maybe it's not only whether you dare to be great, but whether you dare to bring your own life fully to it and bring it fully to your life. How much does it matter if the philosophy you do will be remembered or not? That partly depends on how much you care about being remembered, period. Does it make your life matter any less if your philosophy wasn't great, and does it make great philosophy matter any less if your life isn't remembered?
Also your side note: "I’m a philosopher, and therefore empirically lazy." This seems significant somehow, if only for the observation we can be doing valuable inquiry without "proving" empirically that it's valuable, having to justify philosophy according to that kind of audit culture. This could make it easier to dare to be great, even if it doesn't make it easier to be great (or to know you're great).
Lots of good meat on these bones! I appreciate Chris’s and Jerden’s comments.
Another assumption worth examining: aiming to “Maximize the chance of doing something really great in the intellectual sphere.”
I think 21st century “elite” culture has a scalability fetish. It’s not enough to do good on a human, interpersonal level-- it has to be scalable. This is a huge part of academia’s appeal: I could write the paper that makes a huge difference! I really could make it big! I think the lottery is a great metaphor. But like the lottery, I think the expected value of participating is probably net negative: low pay, high stress, and-- in all likelihood-- relatively little impact.
What’s the alternative for a deep thinker? To extend the metaphor, what’s the equivalent of investing in a sensible portfolio of mutual funds and retiring comfortably? In my experience, the non-academic world desperately needs people who can conceptualize and problem solve in a systematic way. you could do this as a consultant (the prestigious version), but also as a participant.
Personally, I went from a BA in philosophy and Econ and an aborted PhD in Econ into teaching math and music at a small rural school. I help people learn to think more clearly every day. I’m also learning to grasp the fundamental dynamics of the education system and move my school in a healthier direction.
Is this going to get my name in the history books? Probably not. (Though I’ll admit to still harboring delusions of grandeur for when my bestselling book revolutionizes the education system). My impact is harder to quantify, but it is no less visible. Frankly, seeing it played out in personal relationships is far more fulfilling than any validation I experienced in academia. Perhaps seeing hundreds of citations of my papers would provide the same deep satisfaction, but I doubt it.
(Side note: I have also identified as lazy with respect to empirics at points in my life. How can one distinguish between empirical laziness and fear of getting one’s hands dirty? Food for thought.)
I would say another difference between philosophy and natural science is that science seems much more incremental and applied - even if you don't become one of the great figures (through some lack of talent, commitment or luck) it's reasonable to expect to make a small contribution to the overall body of knowledge. If Science is a building, with great geniuses laying out the the foundations for entire new wings of discovery, there's no shame in being a mere bricklayer that helps build it up. The main thing to avoid is shoddy work that'll have to be redone later, that undermines anything built on top of it. I feel like this applies to fields like history and economics as well - there's utility to small additions, even if they don't redefine the whole field.
Maybe this is an outside perspective, but philosophy seems to have the unique difficulty among academic fields that it's very focused on the biggest ideas - obviously there are niches, but it doesn't seem quite as valued as research into a specific biological molecule or historical period would be in the more incremental fields.
Reading about philosophers expecting to be the next Hume, Descartes or Kant feels weird to me as a biochemist, in my field we don't really expect to be the next Watson, Crick or Franklin - the structure of DNA has already been discovered! I think, in the heights of our hubris, the most we hope for is that after a long and distinguished career we might be awarded the 20XX Nobel Prize in Chemistry/Medicine, probably for something we didn't understand the significance of at the time, and with the implicit understanding that it's a little absurd to single out one or two individuals from a large team of contributors.
Is it the question of how the philosopher should view the project of their life, or how they should view their project purely *as philosophers*? Already built into that question is the implication that part of what it is to be a philosopher is an inability to separate your philosophy from your life as a whole (even if the professional role of philosopher can be easily separated for many). Not unlike being an artist, or parent, or a few other things. So maybe it's not only whether you dare to be great, but whether you dare to bring your own life fully to it and bring it fully to your life. How much does it matter if the philosophy you do will be remembered or not? That partly depends on how much you care about being remembered, period. Does it make your life matter any less if your philosophy wasn't great, and does it make great philosophy matter any less if your life isn't remembered?
Also your side note: "I’m a philosopher, and therefore empirically lazy." This seems significant somehow, if only for the observation we can be doing valuable inquiry without "proving" empirically that it's valuable, having to justify philosophy according to that kind of audit culture. This could make it easier to dare to be great, even if it doesn't make it easier to be great (or to know you're great).