I think your initial response (similar to mine) is elitism, which is just to say good taste. But kids don't like black coffee, and people who are only literate in the average way can't (yet) enjoy the better stuff. So for them it's dense obscure and useless.

Is there a place for the weak stuff, the coffee drowned in sugar and nondairy creamer ? I think there 'must' be, for this stuff 'is' the who of everyday beingthere. It's the generic or default 'softwhere' or identity of a generation. If a bot didn't write that article, a bot could have. Proximally and for the most part, we are bots. Kant quotes Leibniz on this in his anthropology. We are disturbed by others' repetition of themselves and failure to learn because they begin to seem mechanical and inhuman to us. My programming is a nightmare from which I, a bot, am trying to awake.

Can it be done better ? That seems like a great goal for introductions to thinkers. I adore philosophical novelists like Kundera and Hesse. That's one approach.

Is there not a place for articles like this, and pop philosophy in general?
Sure. Why not? You can find good ideas anywhere, even in a fortune cookie.

Are they helpful or do they do more harm than good?
Both probably, as quality of articles may vary.

Was my initial reaction just an instance of snobbery, a kind of intellectual elitism?
If you were evaluating the source, rather than the ideas themselves, then maybe yes.

Can it even be done better than the philosophers and spiritual leaders from which it derives?
Absolutely. Not everyone understands "eschew obfuscation" but most people understand "strive to speak and write clearly".

Is there not a place for articles like this, and pop philosophy in general?
Are they helpful or do they do more harm than good?
Was my initial reaction just an instance of snobbery, a kind of intellectual elitism?
Can it even be done better than the philosophers and spiritual leaders from which it derives? — Mikie

Some thinking and refection is better than none. I am bombarded by these sorts of articles every week - mainly by HR companies and my own HR and strategy team. Mindfulness comes up a lot, as does stoicism. I have yet to read anything I personally can use. Some of the management team enjoy these pieces, but they are people who do not read much and are not natural thinkers. Is snobbery or elitism always bad?

I recall a quote from Australian art critic Robert Hughes, a man of modernist, old-school inclinations.

“I am completely an elitist in the cultural but emphatically not the social sense. I prefer the good to the bad, the articulate to the mumbling, the aesthetically developed to the merely primitive, and full to partial consciousness. I love the spectacle of skill, whether it's an expert gardener at work or a good carpenter chopping dovetails. I don't think stupid or ill-read people are as good to be with as wise and fully literate ones. I would rather watch a great tennis player than a mediocre one, unless the latter is a friend or a relative

Excellent quote.

It's a delicate issue. I think there are pop tv-series, movies and maybe even games, that certainly have quite interesting philosophical concepts and art is often the most direct way to expose complex ideas pertaining to mood, insight, looking at persons thinking process and so on.

Suppose someone finds an interesting character in a TV show. They want to find out more about what makes this character "tick". These "... and Philosophy" books can be good to expand on certain themes in a show.

But then there's a bit of a dilemma: do you use the show as an excuse to introduce people to Plato, Augustine, Descartes? Or do you directly expand on the character itself, without pushing the classics on the reader?

I think there's room for both, but my general feeling is that they tend to opt with the second option, that of introducing Aristotle or Sartre or whoever. Which is fine, but then many of these books end up looking similar.

It's more honest to expand on what the person finds interesting in the show, than forcing Aristotle (or whoever) on to the reader.

Of course, there must be some authors who can combine the show with a historical figure and do a good job with it, but it often feels contrived. Perhaps a reference or two to some classics would do a better job than introducing Bentham for the 50th time. Might be a personal thing...

I like the coffee analogy.

Mindfulness comes up a lot, as does stoicism. — Tom Storm

Yeah I definitely see mindfulness going "mainstream" the last decade or so. Even prior to that, in the 90s, I remember reading the top selling books of the week for nonfiction and it was usually "Who Moved my Cheese" and "Don't Sweat the Small Stuff" and the like. (I remember like the latter when I read it -- but it's really a re-wording of a lot of buddhist principles.) Things haven't changed too much from then. Now it's a lot of stuff about habits and time management.

A lot of it coincides with pop psychology, of course.

Robert Hughes — Tom Storm

Nice.

Is snobbery or elitism always bad? — Tom Storm

It's a good question. Having good taste isn't bad -- but probably being a snob is.

It's a delicate issue. I think there are pop tv-series, movies and maybe even games, that certainly have quite interesting philosophical concepts and art is often the most direct way to expose complex ideas pertaining to mood, insight, looking at persons thinking process and so on. — Manuel

Yeah, I mean one thing that comes to mind is The Matrix. That's had a lasting impact. All along it's just the brain in the vat thought experiment, itself an iteration of Descartes. A lot of fun -- but more worthwhile than actually reading Descartes? I'm inclined to say no.

Was my initial reaction just an instance of snobbery, a kind of intellectual elitism? — Mikie

Is snobbery or elitism always bad? — Tom Storm

Having good taste isn't bad -- but probably being a snob is. — Mikie

Elitism judges the things, snobbery judges the person. Elitism holds up the best for everyone to see and appreciate if they can or want to, but snobbery merely holds up certain credentials as evidence of your superior status and the inferior status of everyone who is not in that class or in-group. Snobbery is always bad, but elitism isn’t.

In this case @Mikie, because you say, “I'd prefer my nephew (and anyone, really) read direct sources,” you’re an elitist but not a snob. You think the primary sources are the best and that your nephew has the potential to read and appreciate them.

On the other hand, Aristotle can be a chore to read, so there’s nothing wrong with making things more digestible. That’s why we read introductions and secondary literature. I think the crucial difference is that pop philosophy, unlike secondary literature, is often dumbed down, written to please people or to catch the attention or to sell books, not to enlighten or teach.

Australian art critic Robert Hughes, a man of modernist, old-school inclinations. — Tom Storm

:clap: Brilliant quote. (I miss his work and interviews.)

Is there not a place for articles like this, and pop philosophy in general? — Mikie

It's the same place where e.g. Musak, juice bars and horoscopes belong.

Are they helpful or do they do more harm than good?

Same as sugar.

Was my initial reaction just an instance of snobbery, a kind of intellectual elitism?

Elitism. :up:

Can it even be done better than the philosophers and spiritual leaders from which it derives?

'Cheap knock-offs' are just that: cheap.

That specific example can be easily carried to past philosophers. But some of the stuff, say PKD writes, or Pynchon or even a character like Hannibal Lecter, these don't fit neatly into a specific philosophical lineage.

Or at least, it seems to me it could lead the conversation to the philosopher, instead of the character.

But yes, The Matrix can be used as an example for Descartes, Berkeley or Kant or Schopenhauer, Putnam, Bostrom, Baudrillard, etc.

Will some people get more out of reading Descartes and Kant? Depends on the person. They do have a larger wealth of ideas than film (in my opinon), but, there are aspects of the film which don't fit neatly with any philosopher. All I'm saying is that there can be interesting philosophical/psychological and ethical matters that could be discussed absent specific figure X.

But your point is quite valid.

On the other hand, Aristotle can be a chore to read, so there’s nothing wrong with making things more digestible. That’s why we read introductions and secondary literature. I think the crucial difference is that pop philosophy, unlike secondary literature, is often dumbed down, written to please people or to catch the attention or to sell books, not to enlighten or teach. — Jamal

Yes. And I believe there's more of an emphasis on making claims and associations in pop philosophy/psychology than in philosophy. Unfortunately the thing which distinguishes philosophy from self help and infotainment; argument and systems; is also something which makes philosophy unbearably dry.

Unfortunately the thing which distinguishes philosophy from self help and infotainment; argument and systems; is also something which makes philosophy unbearably dry. — fdrake

Isn’t philosophy, at its best, distinguished from self-help by its deep and original insights, rather than, or as well as, by its arguments? Self-help often strikes me as dishonest, manipulative, boring, and essentially individualistic, whereas good philosophy follows the ideas and respects the reader enough to think they can follow too.

My point here is that this actually makes it more exciting. Also, important philosophy is always critical and radical—again, exciting rather than dry.

Having said that, I guess there’s usually a barrier of dryness in presentation.

Isn’t philosophy, at its best, distinguished from self-help by its deep and original insights, rather than, or as well as, by its arguments? — Jamal

Partial agreement. Largely because, I think, following the arguments changes how you think, and you get to internalise the ideas and their nuances and flaws. In something closer to its raw form.

Example: self help transcendental aesthetic - "How you judge what's happening depends on inherent parts of people's minds and contingent things about you".
Philosophy transcendental aesthetic - amazing methodology developments, which lets you see the above as a trite aphorism in the light of the original text.

How the Transcendental Doctrine of Elements Can Change Your Life.

Well, I am also in partial agreement.

How the Transcendental Doctrine of Elements Can Change Your Life. — Jamal

Lol. This could be a wellspring of nerd jokes. Title: "Become Whole Again", subtitle: "The Transcendental Unity Of Apperception".

:lol: :up:

Embrace Your Contradictions: How Hegel’s Science of Logic Can Help You Achieve Wholeness by Owning Your Inner Conflicts

Embrace Your Contradictions: How Hegel’s Science of Logic Can Help You Achieve Wholeness by Owning Your Inner Conflicts — Jamal

:up:

That would sell.

Is there not a place for articles like this, and pop philosophy in general? — Mikie

Pop philosophy is about self-improvement. Real philosophy is about self-examination.

Title: "Become Whole Again", subtitle: "The Transcendental Unity Of Apperception". — fdrake

This one is great for insiders. I never cared much about that unity to I read some Brandom, and the joke works perfectly in that context. I got to go patch up a contradiction in the claims I am responsible for yet again.

:lol:

This one is great for insiders. I never cared much about that unity to I read some Brandom, and the joke works perfectly in that context. I got to go patch up a contradiction in the claims I am responsible fon yet again. — green flag

Would love to hear about that. But I don't think it's on topic here and it's detailed. Make a thread? Pretty please?

Edit: to be clear this isn't a request as a mod, it's a request as someone who wants to see it.

Be Happy By Being Average - The Secret Is Temperance

I see a comparison between "pop philosophy" and "pop science", although authors of the latter generally have more impressive credentials. Nevertheless, I cringe when I see the image of the Earth resting in a basketball net in space. Or read quantum woo attempting to describe the indescribable. Victor Toth commented on Quora at some point that the subject was virtually all mathematics and attempting to uncover analogies from the macro world, simply a bit of nonsense.

Both pop philosophy and pop science have their places, however, in sparking curiosity and reflection. And you do have to be a real philosophy buff to appreciate the finer differences of thought between two intellectuals who lived centuries, even millennia ago.

Pop philosophy is about self-improvement. Real philosophy is about self-examination. — T Clark

This. :up: A pithy distinction (à la sophistry / dialectics) that better illuminates for me a seemingly intractable family dispute.

Why examine oneself if not to improve oneself?

Why examine oneself if not to improve oneself? — Noble Dust

As I see it, though the former implies the latter, the latter neither presupposes nor implies the former.

because you say, “I'd prefer my nephew (and anyone, really) read direct sources,” you’re an elitist but not a snob. — Jamal

It’s a fine line to walk, let me tell you.

I think the crucial difference is that pop philosophy, unlike secondary literature, is often dumbed down, written to please people or to catch the attention or to sell books, not to enlighten or teach. — Jamal

Agreed. But when it’s done well, it can pique a person’s interest.

In my own experience, pop philosophy/psychology books were very helpful as a kid and made me curious about the direct sources. I see articles like the one in the OP similarly— the difference being I’m more “elitist” now, do I have to counter the instinct to look down my nose.

It's the same place where e.g. Musak, juice bars and horoscopes belong. — 180 Proof

Eh, I wouldn’t go that far.

Same as sugar. — 180 Proof

Better. :up:

All I'm saying is that there can be interesting philosophical/psychological and ethical matters that could be discussed absent specific figure X. — Manuel

Surely— and often are. In the specific case of the Matrix, the source was obvious. But if you take, say, a Kurosawa film, the influences may be there (Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Balzac) but are not that obvious.

Pop philosophy is about self-improvement. Real philosophy is about self-examination. — T Clark

Nah. But if true, then fuck “real” philosophy anyway.



:up:

Give me a guy who reads nothing but pop philosophy books and who is healthy, happy, creative and productive over one who has spent his time reading the complete works of Kant and endlessly examining his life any day.

Most people probably shouldn’t question things, and are better off in not doing so. Of those who do, let their actions speak for its value. (In my experience, usually very little.)

let their actions speak for its value — Mikie

Does that go for Heidegger too?

Absolutely. A fine example.

I don't see the harm. There is, after all, a line of cosmetics called Philosophy. Admittedly I was upset to learn that after years of difficult study I could purchase Philosophy for $29.99, but as I say in my forthcoming pop-philosophy book, life is not always fair.

Why examine oneself if not to improve oneself? — Noble Dust

You previously were surprised to hear I spent time on Reddit. One of the reasons I go there is that they have some good discussions on their r/Taoism page. One very common kind of post from people who are new to Taoism is "How can I use Taoism to solve my problems." The answer is, of course, you can't. Taoism, philosophy in general, can help open your eyes so you can see your life more clearly. That may lead to problem solutions you wouldn't have found otherwise, but practicing Taoism to do so is a very un-Taoist thing to do. A very unphilosophical thing to do. And, in my experience, it doesn't work well.