June 08, 2003

scoring points' is routine practice

I can only agree with the descriptions here of the normal practices of seminar in academic philosophy. It was all about 'going for the jugular'. It is all about a combat.

It is not suprising. Academic philosophy is predominately a masculine culture. My own experience was that intellectual thuggery was normal everyday practice. Being 'outrageously hostile' about the work of others is standard. The aim is to destroy. And a philosophy education does produce many smart alecks who have no significant ability to listen.

The article offers little explantion for why there is there is this deeply embedded destructive tendency in academic philosophy. For me it was the extreme masculinity that produced the big cock who lorded it over the over cocks. The cocks fancied themselves as master thinkers.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at June 8, 2003 10:00 PM | TrackBack
Comments

I couldn't help but notice that B. Williams has something going on with Rorty, and Searle has a reputation himself.

As an undergrad who decided to major in philosophy in his fourth year, and thus came relatively late to the party, I also couldn't help but notice what superficial snobs a lot of phil majors are. Took me by surprise. I'd always considered philosophers to be people who bore the burden of justifying themselves to a greater degree than others, implying to me a greater sense of humbleness.

But I guess one could see philosophy as little more than an occasion to prove one's cleverness, as well. After all, there's a great many more occasions to prove one's cleverness in philosophy than there are occasions to prove something absolutely. Or rather, I guess, there are far more occasions to definitively prove someone is wrong, than to prove your own theory is right.

Well, that's my sketchy theory about it all, anyway.

Posted by: Walter on June 9, 2003 04:29 AM
Post a comment