I think a big part of the problem is that philosophy is no longer connected with culture. After all, Greek philosophy, which you yourself are very well versed in, prizes virtues and qualities of character that are quite out of keeping with today's materialist and technologically-driven society. The nihilism you speak of was foretold by Neitszche and also by Heidegger. We no longer have a place in the cosmos - science tells us (or at least so it is thought) that life originated by a fluke combination of chemicals clustered around geo-thermal vents and then evolved by chance rather than design (and no, I'm not promoting ID theory, but the sense of life as essentially a product of chance, with no purpose other than survival and procreation, is one of the characteristics of nihilism.)

In Eastern culture, whilst it too is also becoming overwhelmed with modern consumerism, there is still a connection between philosophy and culture preserved in (for example) Buddhism in China and Japan (notwithstanding the official atheism of the Chinese Communist party) and the various forms of indigenous spirituality which continue to animate culture in India.

There are however some really interesting counter-cultural currents bubbling up in the West. I've been watching the odd panel discussion by a UK organisation called the IAI, Institute of Art and Ideas, which regularly hosts debates between leading public intellectuals, scientists, and philosophers. Bernardo Kastrup, Raymond Tallis, and Sabine Hossenfelder regularly appear in them, along with many others. There is a ferment of philosophically-oriented channels on YouTube, of varying quality, but some are very good (John Vervaeke is an interesting example). People are searching, asking deep questions, and the interconnected nature of today's world facilitates that. Notably absent from many of those debates are academic philosophers, for the reasons I noted above. But philosophy, as I think Etienne Gilson observed, has previously been declared dead, only to 'bury its undertakers'.

Beautifully written OP and interesting that this is your perspective as someone with expertise in the field.

Everything can and will be called into question and this is mistakenly taken to be a great and wise philosophical accomplishment. In truth, it is nihilism, an impotent gasp that consoles itself for being novel. But there is nothing novel about it. — Fooloso4

I've often held that I am a reluctant post-modernist - perhaps an untheorized post-modernist. We absorb this material by osmosis (it's the era) and though other disciplines like social theory. I can't help but hold the view that reality is an act of constructionism - we can't identify absolute truth (which is likely a remnant of Greek philosophy and Christianity) and philosophical positions we might hold appear to be culturally located. This does not feel especially wise or clever to me.

I think we can still create tentative notions of 'the good' based on secular mechanisms (themselves derivatives of older philosophy) - do no harm, prevent suffering, human flourishing, etc. But epistemology and metaphysics seem to go on endlessly, with no bottom in sight, unless you decide upon a foundational position. This can be an act of defiance or faith depending upon your viewpoint.

As a non philosopher I must confess that much of what I've attempted to read in primary texts is dull and I am frequently left with the urge to compose shopping lists rather than continue. I can't be the only modern reader who finds most of the material punishing.

I've been watching the odd panel discussion by a UK organisation called the IAI, Institute of Art and Ideas, which regularly hosts debates between leading public intellectuals, scientists, and philosophers — Wayfarer

Me too. There's no question that there is a thirst for making meaning or contextualizing ourselves - even if this is desire for more theorized forms of nihilism or relativism, such as the IAI's Hilary Lawson's work on Closure (he would probably resent that description).

Here, my 2 cents. I think philosophy got hijacked by the universities. It should be it's own thing, not beholden to something else. Philosophy as a handmaiden to another discipline, ideal or institute makes it biased. This makes actual philosophy for actual philosophers harder, because they will be judged through the lens of the currently ruling paradigm. But eh, who cares. Not my problem.

I believe there have always been competing traditions in philosophy, including the insular-academic and the opposite. However people represent a huge variety of backgrounds and motivations, which is why there is and needs to be a spectrum of both an accepted mainstream and alternative approaches. Something for everyone. The very philosopher you think typifies the worst may be meaningful and valuable to someone else.

Philosophy is not an end in itself, it is a tool. In fact, philosophies we dislike have much to teach us, about ourselves, if nothing else. I find a few things genuinely unreadable. But most things, even if they rub me the wrong way, I manage to muddle through. Usually there is something rewarding in there somewhere.

Philosophy needs a marketing department for sure but there’s a lack of funding

We no longer have a place in the cosmos - science tells us (or at least so it is thought) that life originated by a fluke combination of chemicals clustered around geo-thermal vents and then evolved by chance rather than design (and no, I'm not promoting ID theory, but the sense of life as essentially a product of chance, with no purpose other than survival and procreation, is one of the characteristics of nihilism.) — Wayfarer

There was no place in the cosmos staked out by Plato or Aristotle. In Plato's
Timaeus there is something he calls the "chora". It is said to be the third kind in addition to the Forms and sensible things. It can be translated as place. Rather than discuss it here I linked to it. For Aristotle there is the fifth or accidental cause. The implication is that the cosmos cannot be understood simply as teleological. The world is not as it is because it acts to fulfill some end. Because there are accidental causes, the world is indeterminate and does not yield a final account If you would like to discuss it I started a thread a while back on Aristotle's Metaphysics In both texts chance plays a role.

Brilliant OP. I would expect nothing less. :clap:

Thanks Tom.

I can't help but hold the view that reality is an act of constructionism - we can't identify absolute truth (which is likely a remnant of Greek philosophy and Christianity) and philosophical positions we might hold appear to be culturally located. — Tom Storm

Plato begins to look very different once we separate Plato and Platonism. A couple of quick points: in the Phaedo the Forms are identified as hypotheses. This is not a break with, but rather a continuation of what is said about hypothesis in the Republic and Parmenides. In the Timaeus the arche or origin and ordering of the cosmos is a "likely story". Here the Forms are criticized for being stable and unchanging and thus inadequate as a causal explanation.

Also important is the activity of the imagination. The term 'constuctivism' is not used but poiesis meaning to make is.

I think we can still create tentative notions of 'the good' based on secular mechanisms — Tom Storm

I agree. This is the antidote to nihilism.

Philosophy is not an end in itself, it is a tool. — Pantagruel

That is one view on the spectrum you mention. One that I do not agree with.

Thanks jgill.

:clap: Yes, it seems the sophists have won, taking over the academy (pace Plato et al). Old story though, at least since the scholastics.

I hear you :up:

I’d have to put Kant as the last great philosopher although pretty much all the Age of Enlightenment philosophers are great too including Rousseau.

The Ancient Greeks of course gave us Plato and Aristotle too equally good then we had the Christians such as St Augustine after the introduction of Monotheistic religion as well as Aquinas.

The most interesting thing about this is that they’re still talked about, Plato remains as popular today as he was back then if not more so even despite huge changes in society.

No matter how technologically advanced we become or even decadent the Greek philosophers will always remain relevant

Indeterminacy is as old as philosophy itself, but it seems as though some today think it is their job to create indeterminacy. As if trying to navigate a ship on stormy seas so as not to run ashore will be benefited by making the landmarks indistinguishable.

Philosophy has become in large part insular and self-referential. Written by philosophers for philosophers. With a specialized language designed only for the initiated, a cramped style of writing intended to ward off attack, overburdened by its own theory laden stranglehold on thinking and seeing, enamored by its linguistic prowess and the production of problems that only arise within this hermetically sealed sterile environment. It either laments the fact that it is regarded as irrelevant or takes this to be the sign of its superiority. — Fooloso4

Let’s name names. Who in particular do you have in mind? Here’s a starter list of philosophers, half of whom are actively writing, who I don’t associate with your characterization:

Derrida, Eugene Gendlin, Ken Gergen, Shaun Gallagher, Matthew Ratcliffe, Evan Thompson, Foucault, Deleuze, Rorty, Davidson, Joseph Rouse, Dan Zahavi,

Indeterminacy is as old as philosophy itself, but it seems as though some today think it is their job to create indeterminacy. As if trying to navigate a ship on stormy seas so as not to run ashore will be benefited by making the landmarks indistinguishable. — Fooloso4

Agreed. I'm also not a fan of either dada-like compostmoderns or analysis-for-analysis-sake "specialists".

ROBERT BRANDOM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGyuCt18aPM

A great systematic philosopher working today...making deeper sense of Kant and Hegel...helping us know ourselves as rational beings....clear as rainwater for those with the patience to extend their vocabulary a little bit...

So, "the breads gone stale", you would say. You view modern philosophy as akin to a terminally ill patient whose caretakers have long left the building, now forced to perform self-care in vain. Would you label that assessment as accurate?

Too many chefs spoil the stew I suppose.

“A corpse is meat gone bad. Well and what's cheese? Corpse of milk. ”
― James Joyce

I really like the start of that lecture, I'll find the time for it later.

There was no place in the cosmos staked out by Plato or Aristotle. — Fooloso4

There was at least a conception of 'the cosmos'

really like the start of that lecture, I'll find the time for it later. — Wayfarer

:up: .

I can't help but hold the view that reality is an act of constructionism - we can't identify absolute truth (which is likely a remnant of Greek philosophy and Christianity) and philosophical positions we might hold appear to be culturally located. This does not feel especially wise or clever to me. — Tom Storm

:up:

This does indeed seem to be much of what folks find offensive, a simple recognition of our 'historicity.'

philosophies we dislike have much to teach us, about ourselves, — Pantagruel

:up:

That was an interesting video. I'm not usually excited by the recitation of a series of big cheese names and the ascription of -isms. But I like the way he is generous and respectful to everyone he mentions, and even-handed in his criticisms. I also find much resonance in the project to integrate ethics into the understanding of language, something I have been incoherently banging on about for some time. The idea of the language game - the use of it, must be to communicate the truth and not to deceive, in the sense that though the business of a stick insect is to project "I am a stick", the business of the predator is not at all to understand, but to see through the visual claim.

But in relation to the topic of this thread, it is evidence that philosophy has not at least gone more wrong than usual. "Naturalism" to my understanding is a position that denies the meaning of its name, in the sense that the claim his that everything is natural and there is nothing unnatural or supernatural. This reflects the sad fact that one needs ones' enemies to maintain one's identity.

And hence, every philosopher who wishes to say something, must begin with "where philosophy went wrong". My own position is that the rise of patriarchy was where it all went wrong, about 10,000 years ago. :blush:

I also find much resonance in the project to integrate ethics into the understanding of language, something I have been incoherently banging on about for some time. — unenlightened

He puts responsibility, entitlement, and authority--which is to say our sociality--at the very heart of rationality and meaning. We live and move and have our being in normativity.

The idea of the language game - the use of it, must be to communicate the truth and not to deceive, in the sense that though the business of a stick insect is to project "I am a stick", the business of the predator is not at all to understand, but to see through the visual claim. — unenlightened

Right. So, shifting to an analogous conceptual context, the (nonironic) declarative sentence becomes the basis. To abuse the messaging system is to only pretend to be in or with the community (or to be in it linguistically but not affectively.) Languagelinked communities have something like a shared mind.

"Naturalism" to my understanding is a position that denies the meaning of its name, in the sense that the claim his that everything is natural and there is nothing unnatural or supernatural. This reflects the sad fact that one needs ones' enemies to maintain one's identity. — unenlightened

The enemy as boundary of the self also fascinates me. The concept of the supernatural (excepting obvious cases) strikes me as blurry. I think we all model the world according to personal experience. If something extraordinary happens, we update that model. This makes 'supernatural' seem like a synonym of 'very surprising.' Of course we have Voltaire and Luther in our rearview, there are definition associations with this or that style of reported or expect surprise.

For me a key point here is that discursive normativity is irreducible. The scientific image is a mere part of an encompassing lifeworld of people living into scientific norms for instance. That we evolved from simpler organisms to be able to perform our discursive selves doesn't diminish the dignity or rationality of those selves.

compostmoderns — 180 Proof

Nice burn ! Even if I like some of 'em.

↪Fooloso4 :clap: Yes, it seems the sophists have won, taking over the academy (pace Plato et al). Old story though, at least since the scholastics. — 180 Proof

Interesting choice of example since the sophists were considered among the best teachers of the ancient world. Especially given the tenor of the op, which is generalized and critical, but without providing or offering a balance. Provocative but perhaps sophistical?

Let’s name names. Who in particular do you have in mind? Here’s a starter list of philosophers, half of whom are actively writing, who I don’t associate with your characterization: — Joshs

Exactly. Criticism is only valid if it is balanced.

Perhaps ... but I'm not teaching this stuff for money, so maybe not.

Yeah, I like a few of them too.

I think philosophy got hijacked by the universities. — Ying

I agree. The demand is that philosophy be productive, AKA publish or perish. The proliferation of journals and university publishers arose in order for there to be somewhere to store all this unread work product. The pretense of originality results in more and more being said about less and less. Teaching is in many cases no longer the primary reason for the academic profession. It is often regarded as secondary, a burden to be avoided if possible.

If all your fellow author are merely writing random tracts of text from obscure frameworks of ideas from institutional acedemic discourse it is no wonder that what is being practiced has zero utility in the participation of reality amongst it's members. It seems that much is lacking in our number on the application of practical philosophy to engineer solutions to modern problems. And its error has been through sophistry to engineer modern problems that are not born of reality. The extinguishment of toolsets and process philosophy leads only back to a pre civilization barbarism. If one could see that psychology posits many assertion on lived reality then the art of refined discourse and deliberation ought yield fruits. It seems uncommon for members to labour in a participatory fashion and in doing so failing to charitably mark the territory with the desired product outcome of their project. It would seem both social and intellectual commitment is necessary all focused, nurturing and indwelling without consigning philosophy to fleeting moments of insight outside a cultural canon of purposeful movement to ends proven to exhibit the achievement of logos.