"Academic" Philosophy and Stanley Fish
01/03/11 16:27
Stanley Fish argues for the value of academic philosophy by citing the example of a conference on originalism in law. His argument makes perfect sense if you value academic philosophy. The problem is, academic philosophy is mere sophistry. It has nothing to do with the real immediate concerns of everyday human beings in their every day discussions. This is why someone like Alasdair MacIntyre attacks and condemns philosophy as practiced in the universities today. Like other academic disciplines, philosophy has been co-opted by the market system. All that matters is producing students who can write papers that have little meaning and will be read by a handful of others. That is not the origins of philosophy.
Philosophy, rather, begins with discussions of the good at the every day level. The more that the university corrupts the true spirit of philosophy, the more it comes under attack as not attending to the bottom-line, and rightly so. Philosophy, by its very nature, cannot attend to the bottom-line. Philosophy concerns, not making money or adding to the bottom line, but living the good life. This argument does not entail that those who are philosophically trained cannot earn money or run profitable businesses. Just the opposite. Ask CEO’s and they will tell you they want philosophers who think logically in management positions.
Yet, philosophy always comes into conflict when it begins to ask about the good. What is the good of this product? What is the good of this move? These are the sorts of questions that we need to ask at the local and national level. Insofar as philosophers practice academic philosophy, however, they undermine the ability to ask those questions.
Philosophy, rather, begins with discussions of the good at the every day level. The more that the university corrupts the true spirit of philosophy, the more it comes under attack as not attending to the bottom-line, and rightly so. Philosophy, by its very nature, cannot attend to the bottom-line. Philosophy concerns, not making money or adding to the bottom line, but living the good life. This argument does not entail that those who are philosophically trained cannot earn money or run profitable businesses. Just the opposite. Ask CEO’s and they will tell you they want philosophers who think logically in management positions.
Yet, philosophy always comes into conflict when it begins to ask about the good. What is the good of this product? What is the good of this move? These are the sorts of questions that we need to ask at the local and national level. Insofar as philosophers practice academic philosophy, however, they undermine the ability to ask those questions.
Comments
5 Rules for Education: Maybe
24/02/11 12:58
In an article for Time online, Rotherman offers five changes for fixing education which have nothing to do with collective bargaining. These five changes are
While some of these changes might be useful, none of them address real issues of practice and “quality.” (Quality is a funny word that deserves its own post at some point.)
When I speak of practice, I refer, first off, to that notion I’ve already discussed in this blog: a goal-oriented activity with goods that can only be gained from practicing the activity and whose practice extends human potentiality. Whether teaching is a practice I’ll leave to the side for the moment. What is clearly a practice are those things that teachers are responsible for training the young in:
Each of these activities have their own goals, whether that might be to produce something beautiful, or to learn more about biological life, for instance. Further, the practice of these activities entails goods that we cannot get otherwise: learning how to blow a flute to produce an “F#” or communicating one’s thoughts clearly in one’s own voice. Finally, by engaging in these practices, we extend our own potentials as human beings: we learn how to listen to music more carefully or learn to recognize quality of art, etc.
Yet, we see that many students, once they’ve graduated from high school cannot read, cannot write, know little of biology, or can’t even balance a checkbook. This is often -- and I want to be careful to emphasize this point -- this is often NOT the fault of teachers in over-crowded schools with the lack of resources, nor is it the fault of labor unions, or, more generally, of collective bargaining. Many things can change about education in America.
The first thing, though, if we really want to educate our children to lead fulfilling lives -- and by this I do not mean the lives of acquisition which is mere slavishness -- then we have to address our whole approach to education in this society. Having discussions about this is a first step, one which local communities can have regardless of what happens at the level of the nation, the state, or the union.
I would encourage everyone to begin this discussion sooner rather than later.
- Fixing tenure
- More evaluations of teachers
- Removing last in, first out rules to also include quality of teachers
- Inflexible salary schedules
- Getting rid of forced transfers and bumpings.
While some of these changes might be useful, none of them address real issues of practice and “quality.” (Quality is a funny word that deserves its own post at some point.)
When I speak of practice, I refer, first off, to that notion I’ve already discussed in this blog: a goal-oriented activity with goods that can only be gained from practicing the activity and whose practice extends human potentiality. Whether teaching is a practice I’ll leave to the side for the moment. What is clearly a practice are those things that teachers are responsible for training the young in:
- music
- art
- mathematics
- reading
- writing
- science
- sports
Each of these activities have their own goals, whether that might be to produce something beautiful, or to learn more about biological life, for instance. Further, the practice of these activities entails goods that we cannot get otherwise: learning how to blow a flute to produce an “F#” or communicating one’s thoughts clearly in one’s own voice. Finally, by engaging in these practices, we extend our own potentials as human beings: we learn how to listen to music more carefully or learn to recognize quality of art, etc.
Yet, we see that many students, once they’ve graduated from high school cannot read, cannot write, know little of biology, or can’t even balance a checkbook. This is often -- and I want to be careful to emphasize this point -- this is often NOT the fault of teachers in over-crowded schools with the lack of resources, nor is it the fault of labor unions, or, more generally, of collective bargaining. Many things can change about education in America.
The first thing, though, if we really want to educate our children to lead fulfilling lives -- and by this I do not mean the lives of acquisition which is mere slavishness -- then we have to address our whole approach to education in this society. Having discussions about this is a first step, one which local communities can have regardless of what happens at the level of the nation, the state, or the union.
I would encourage everyone to begin this discussion sooner rather than later.