I think the truth is the truth, and one of the goals of philosophy should be to ascertain truth. At the very least, any academic or intellectual discipline ought at its core to have truth as one of its values. — RepThatMerch22

How do you know if a bit of philosophy is good? — Purple Pond

Sorry, and this is not intended as a dig, this forum shows, if it wasn't obvious already, that some people do think better than others. — T Clark

I would have added orthodoxy, but not enough characters are allowed in a thread title.

Isn't it ironic--if not funny--how some philosophers say that there is no "scientific method", that obsession with demarcating science and pseudoscience is a symptom of scientism, etc., yet here one finds--as a recent pattern, at least--insistence on philosophy being done the right way; being done the way of the more intelligent, logical minds in the population; etc.?

I don't know the sociology of the intellectual world very well. There are organizations like the American Philosophical Association, the American Anthropological Association, the National Academy of Sciences, etc. They probably set guidelines for doing work in academic life. The allocation of things like research grant funds is probably based on such guidelines that they probably set. Then there's accrediting bodies that give institutions the authority to award degrees. The sociology of the formal intellectual world is probably even more structured and deeper than that, and I have probably barely scratched the surface. But, good grief, I doubt that any sociological investigation of any organized intellectual activity of people who want to be taken seriously will find any insistence on anything being done only one way: the right way. I doubt that such an investigation will find any interest in recognizing and publicizing hierarchies of who is bad, good, better, etc.

Has philosophy become a cult? Either follow the script or don't even bother trying to make a contribution? Has philosophy become some exclusive, elite club? Only the best should bother to apply?

Maybe I am a lone wolf, but living in a culture where the overwhelming majority of my interactions seem to be with people who do not think for themselves; do not ask questions; do not examine/investigate much of anything, including their own lives; etc., when I do interact with somebody who does some or all of those things I think that he/she should be encouraged. I could not care less if he/she is not as intelligent (whatever that means) as others, does not follow the rules of formal logic regularly and to a T, does not follow the mainstream practices of an established academic discipline, etc.

The personal, subjective experience of one person is not evidence for much, but I must say that thinkers who I am unequivocally told are "wrong"; who do not fit into mainstream established intellectual culture; etc. are often the ones I learn the most from and am and inspired by the most. Ken Wilber is a good example.

I say this with all due respect: I suspect that what I am dealing with is ethnocentrism. Things like Western philosophy, modern science, etc. are only relatively recent creations. Probably only a tiny percentage of humans past and present have viewed the world for even one minute through those creations. But that does not mean that they did not / do not function intellectually. I have no reason to believe that Western philosophy, modern science, etc. will survive. Nonetheless, people will continue to have questions, search for answers, etc.

If we are being completely honest, a strong case could probably be made that people who have not had the opportunity to view the world through Western philosophy and modern science for even one minute have done better with what they had to work with. Sure, Western philosophy and modern science have given us things like human rights and visiting a dentist rather than dying from a toothache. But they have also given us, it is my understanding, unprecedented global inequality, unprecedented destruction of habitats/ecosystems, etc. Is that what people with superior intelligence, logic skills, etc. do? Destroy their habitat? Flirt with ending all life on Earth? Helplessly indulge in excess luxuries while the overwhelming majority of the human population barely has what they need to survive? Is that what people with superior intelligence, logic skills, etc. do?

I have read that philosopher literally means "seeker of wisdom". Well, apparently one will have no problem finding people who claim that they know exactly what philosophy is; they know exactly the right way to do philosophy; and that they possess superior skills--especially in formal logic--for doing philosophy. But, with all due respect, I think that it is safe to say that finding people who are wise is a case of few and far between.

I believe that all people should be encouraged to pursue their intellectual interests and voice their concerns whatever way they can. I see absolutely no good resulting from calling anything "bad philosophy" or creating hierarchies in intellectual life. But, then again, maybe I am the least wise of all.