Philosophy, academics, abstraction
If one grants that the proper function of philosophy (or even ‘a’ possible function) is to treat disparate fields with a greater degree of abstraction, of what benefit is academic training to this end and, ultimately, is it possible to be both an academic and philosopher in this sense? The question turns on the idea of thinking, not only what calls for thinking but what is thinking? In other words, an assumed essence, or function of an autonomous mind. If one does not share this assumption (as may be the case with most academic philosophers) one might ask whether or not their task might be better accomplished in another field. Either they are listing facts according to some received schema (e.g. chronologically) or describing mental processes (perhaps better accomplished in cognitive or computer science). In this sense, Heidegger represents the death of philosophy. He is only able to ask the first question, and “thinking” requires a minimalist metaphysics. The remainder is pragmatism, the little we can process within the context of our received schemas, both epistemic (five senses) and ethical (societal mores at the current state).
The way out may or may not involve going in — the current struggle as I try to decide whether to pursue my PhD. In other news, a T.S. Eliot afternoon.
