I think the question you are asking is about being an independent thinker rather than group think but even an independent thinker would need some sort of education to learn the terminology and ideas employed by the current field of academics he wishes to present his ideas to otherwise it would seem like he was talking in a different language.

In order to have truly revolutionary ideas does not necessarily mean being a hermit from the rest of academia as existing ideas have to be understood first in order to overcome them, and have one’s own ideas adopted if they match or model reality correctly or have predictive prowess that science looks for from its theories (if it’s a scientific field).

The pace would depend on the amount of good ideas being produced and being accepted by the academic community at large.

So, if people like this emerge and write about it, would we even be aware they exist, would we even consider their work? Or are we stuck with slow changes? And by slow changes, I mean derivations from the main method that don't challenge it to the core. — Skalidris

Everyone is working with whatever set of intuitions that they have, but people are diverse. Wouldn't we expect some to catch on more quickly than others, due to some people having intuitions more compatible with recognizing the merit of the new idea?

I think the situation you described has already been happening in nature since the world existed. What you have described doesn’t apply to philosophy only, it applies to everything in nature. The natural selection of living beings happens exactly this way. We can take some general thoughts from what we can observe both in nature and in philosophy.

One thing that happens is that nature, including the world of philosophers, doesn’t care about immense wasting of resources, ideas, possibilities, anything. I think I don’t need to find detailed evidence to say that, if an extraordinary animal (or a philosopher) has just the bad luck of being born in an unfavourable environment, it doesn’t matter how marvellous it was. Nature doesn’t care about destroying whatever is not favoured, either by their own characteristics or by their bad luck about the environment where they were born. The world famous violinist Salvatore Accardo said in an interview that he had some chances of having very good talented pupils, but they had just the misfortune of being born in a family that didn’t favour at all their talent. The history of science is full of examples of brilliant minds who struggled before being appreciated as geniuses.

Another thing, that we can notice as a general consequence, is that almost everything is based, to a great extent, on power. Power can be considered another way of expressing the luck I have described. If you don’t have enough power, either in yourself or provided by your environment, you will die. This is what happens not only to living beings in nature, but to ideas as well. This means that a lot of ideas that we follow today because we think they are true, or better, actually they have survived just because for some reason they have got power. Certain religions, including their heritage of concepts and mentalities, have been successful because, to a great extent, they have been imposed thanks to political power. This means that today, when we think, for example, that philosophy should follow this or that method, we are, to a great extent, just passively reflecting the mechanisms of power that have shaped the history of ideas of the centuries before us and still shape our minds. In other world, an idea is not true because it is true, but because some kind of power has been able to impose it. We can think in these terms even about scientific evidence; even all the Maths and Geometry theorems, that we are able to prove in so clever and irresistible ways, can be considered just another way how power is able to impose itself as the fundamental law, fundamental rule, in nature, in ideas, in everything.

existing ideas have to be understood first in order to overcome them — simplyG

This is undoubtedly a good method, the best method, but history of culture shows that a lot of brilliant ideas have been discovered by ignorant people, probably because, thanks to their ignorance, they were less conditioned by traditional mentalities. This does not mean, of course, that ignorance is the best method for progress. It just happens sometimes, in all fields, and even in nature: some discoveries, or even important changes in the evolution of living beings in nature, have happened thanks to mistakes, wrong solutions, distortions, that in theory should just have been unproductive failures.

Philosophy is a special field in all of this situation, because it tries to be aware of it at the highest and deepest level. Now a crucial question arises: isn’t a lot of philosophical research aimed at gaining more and more control and power on what we do, what we think? Isn’t the search for awareness and knowledge equivalent to a search for power, at least to a great extent? Shouldn’t philosophy expose to criticism all of these things? How?

That’s why I think that today’s philosophy, like analytical philosophy, is a failure to a great extent: because it looks for power, hidden behind the mask of wanting to understand, wanting to know, so just still following passively the power mechanisms of nature.

That’s why I appreciate postmodern philosophy: because it tries to go against the inertia of nature based on power. I love, together with postmodern philosophy, the “weak thought”, elaborated by the great philosopher Gianni Vattimo, who died just a few days ago, on the 19th of September, ended up not very much appreciated, even almost unknown, as far as I perceive, if compared to the greatness of his philosophy, in my opinion.

This is also the revolutionary concept contained in the idea of Jesus as a God who ends up dying on a cross, that is, in a total failure; a revolutionary concept unfortunately ruined by the overimposed idea of the triumphant resurrection, at least if we consider the way it was developed in classical theology, not to mention all the betrayals made by Christianity after him.

an independent thinker would need some sort of education to learn the terminology and ideas employed by the current field of academics he wishes to present his ideas to otherwise it would seem like he was talking in a different language. — simplyG

You mean he would need to learn the philosophical terminology? Or the terminology of the closest discipline (here sciences)? If so, I agree, if he uses scientific premises as a part of his method, he needs to know about sciences and keep updated on scientific discoveries. But in the end, he would still use a new vocabulary he invented for the rest of the method since the end goal of his discipline is philosophy, and not sciences. And sciences, as it is now, is quite clueless about philosophy. No philosophical thought can be studied using only the scientific method.

existing ideas have to be understood first in order to overcome them — simplyG

Existing disciplines would need to be understood, yes. But for example, if he builds knowledge around free will with the method he created, why is it relevant to consider what philosophers said about free will if he already assessed the philosophical method and concluded it is too different from his own to be relevant? It's like I said with sciences and religions, it's totally irrelevant for scientists to read the bible to see what it says about a natural phenomenon if they are already studying the phenomenon from a scientific point of view.

The pace would depend on the amount of good ideas being produced — simplyG

But how exactly can we judge if it's a good idea if it contradicts the methods in place?

due to some people having intuitions more compatible with recognizing the merit of the new idea — wonderer1

I didn't understand that.

even all the Maths and Geometry theorems, that we are able to prove in so clever and irresistible ways, can be considered just another way how power is able to impose itself as the fundamental law, fundamental rule, in nature, in ideas, in everything. — Angelo Cannata

You're still talking about human power, right? If so, with maths, you can objectively prove your solution is better, regardless of your social status. If a homeless finds a solution to a math problem and present it to a professor, since it's pure logic, they can't argue and have to recognize it works. I think maths underlie our "universal logic": throughout history, some things have never change, even if we represented 1 + 1 = 2 in a lot of different ways, the essence is still the same, so the essence can't be influenced by power. This notion of "unit" (=> numbers) and the notion of "and" seem to be universal for all humans.

I think maths underlie our "universal logic" — Skalidris

This is what happens in science, but science is liable to be exploited for violence. This is the problem with the concept of “universal”: it is just a mask to hide our limited, local, particular perspective.

The concept of “universal” is itself contradictory: “universal” means that something is the same from all perspectives. “From all perspectives” means that it is able to take into consideration even the specific perspective of the specific person who is talking about it. Then how can the concept of “universal” be universal, since it comes from a particular perspective? This is the contradiction of “universal”.

The example you made is meaningful, because you mentioned a homeless: unfortunately, universities don’t recognize the importance of a homeless, unless the homeless, as you said, finds a solution to a math professor. But a homeless, in order to find such a solution, needs study and study needs money. So, your reasoning actually can be used to justify a capitalist system where instruction is kept closed into the hands of those who have money.

“You, you homeless, are you able to find an original solution to a math problem? No? Then stay homeless, you don’t deserve help!”

This is what the universality of Maths is able to make in society. It is not by chance that today the richest people are those who master Maths, which is economy, money, investment, banks, computers, Artificial Intelligence, weapons.

So, the question becomes: if Maths is so universal, why is it so strongly connected to such a lot of injustice in the world, even in the world of animals and plants?

You mean he would need to learn the philosophical terminology? Or the terminology of the closest discipline (here sciences)? If so, I agree, if he uses scientific premises as a part of his method, he needs to know about sciences and keep updated on scientific discoveries. But in the end, he would still use a new vocabulary he invented for the rest of the method since the end goal of his discipline is philosophy, and not sciences. And sciences, as it is now, is quite clueless about philosophy. No philosophical thought can be studied using only the scientific method. — Skalidris

This would delve deeply into private language use which has nothing to do with the creation of innovative ideas. Just because an idea is presented in a different language does not mean it’s truly innovative on the other hand a few philosophers such as Kant have come up with their own terminology which was innovative and never used before such as thing-in-itself, a priory etc . The creation of new words or terminology is only necessary when existing vocabulary fails to describe certain aspects of reality or phenomena.

2) Not fitting in isn’t comfortable, and often brings bad feelings. — Skalidris

You seem to be missing out on the feelings of the trend-setter. The trend-setter intentionally does not fit in, is very comfortable with this position, and does not have bad feelings about it.

Now imagine that this person would present their ideas to philosophers: it's quite certain they would reject it, since this new method is incompatible and could therefore discredit their lifetime work. They could present it to the other disciplines related to the new method, sciences for example. — Skalidris

Contrary to what you say here, the trend-setter is highly respected for one's differences. We might not know exactly why the trend-setter is highly respected, and therefore is capable of setting the trend, but it may have to do with the confidence which one displays in one's unique choices. But of course the trend-setter would have to have the capacity of making choices which actually have some merit to be respectable.

To what extent can academic philosophy evolve, and at what pace?

PhD programs have as a primary purpose the launching of academic (or possibly other) careers. The grad student learns about the various topics in their subject, and then is set on a path of exploration, original research. Academic evolution thus depends largely on aspects of the subject that are studied by the senior faculty conducting the grad programs.

This tends to be a continuous process with students beginning their research under the tutelage of an experienced individual. So, frequently the next generation extends knowledge in a direction suggested by their advisors. Of course, there are exceptions. A brilliant student might come along and convince their advisor to allow them to explore unusual intellectual terrain. Jumps in knowledge may result. Or not.

The professors themselves direct intellectual traffic along various lanes, and there are any number of reasons for their choices, including possibilities of publishing an/or prestige among their colleagues.

unfortunately, universities don’t recognize the importance of a homeless, unless the homeless, as you said, finds a solution to a math professor. — Angelo Cannata

Notwithstanding movies like Good Will Hunting, I've never heard of this happening. The Indian genius, Ramanujan had a difficult time growing up, but was not homeless. He had family support, and later support from the British mathematical community.

I've always thought philosophy programs might be able to resurrect their relevance in three ways:

1. Making their undergraduate courses more about analysis and clear and concise writing. This is what a lot of English programs have already done to stay more relevant. The point isn't to make the discipline all about "marketable skills," but rather to make the discipline at least "somewhat," relevant. Academic writing is itself something that needs to adapt towards being more clear and concise. When I've looked into publishing papers it always shocks me how many journals still suggest quite high minimum page counts. It simply shouldn't take you a minimum of 15 single spaced pages to say many things of interest. It leads to bloat and articles on the same exact topics having the same exact 5 pages of literature review in every instance.

2. Making philosophy more directly relevant to the sciences. Because I read a LOT of popular science and philosophy of science it's become fairly obvious to me that a lot of bad science, bad philosophy, and wasted efforts talking past each other could be avoided by having science majors have a single "applied epistemology for the natural/social sciences," course.

People being brilliant scientists and researchers does not seem to adequately insulate them from going round and round on "what is really real," in a field, which could be avoided or at least made more fruitful by formal philosophy training.

Then you could also offer/require specialized "philosophy of X science," courses for those majors. Philosophy of biology and philosophy of physics in particular would be fun, it's like a grab bag of some of the most interesting problems. Ideally, these could be cotaught by a philosopher and a practicing researcher. Currently, such specialized courses almost never show up outside the graduate level, a massive disservice to philosophy majors.

3. Not being afraid to be speculative in some contexts. The field of "practical advice," "moral guidance," "general metaphysics of 'what is the world and what does it mean'" has essentially been abandoned by the field, leaving it to cranks, or often natural scientists (Pinker, Rovelli, etc. have books of the last sort).

There seems to be a sort of comfort with being irrelevant and keeping discussion safely bracketed within a space of "deflationary truth," and "reified opinion," such that no critique can come from outside the field.

IMO, people shouldn't worry about credentials so much either. "Oh no, this person has a degree in Y and is writing on X!" Well yeah, almost all the "great names," did this constantly. You see it accepted more in the sciences, cognitive scientists writing on physics or vice versa, etc. A degree is just a few years. A master's does not make you a master. I've had employees with masters who don't know their field at all and I've learned more about some topics than those I have graduate credits in. I always find it weird when reviews say things like "oh and this person has a master's in x science from y prestigious university, so they can write on x," as if x is completely unfathomable without paying money into what, in many ways, is simply an institution of rent seeking.

2. Making philosophy more directly relevant to the sciences. Because I read a LOT of popular science and philosophy of science it's become fairly obvious to me that a lot of bad science, bad philosophy, and wasted efforts talking past each other could be avoided by having science majors have a single "applied epistemology for the natural/social sciences," course — Count Timothy von Icarus

Most university philosophy departments offer specialization in philosophy of mind, which reaches into biology, neuroscience, computer science and cognitive psychology. Isnt this an example of scientifically relevant philosophy?

Exactly, but this is largely limited to the graduate level from course catalogs I've seen, and generally not targeted at majors outside of philosophy.

Even in publishing you see this bias. Routledge has its "Contemporary Introductions to the Philosophy of...," Oxford has similar publications, there are lots of competing introductions for metaphysics, philosophy of mind, free will, etc., but the philosophy of biology, physics, information, etc. stuff tends to presuppose a graduate level background in the relevant sciences. There are good handbooks published in this area, North Holland does a good one on the philosophy of complex systems, Routledge has them, but the Oxford "Very Short Introductions to," are the only true intro level guides I am aware of on the philosophy of specific sciences (they are good though).

I am assuming this has to do with the lack of classes offered. No one to sell text books to. ASU and Oxford have two of the broadest online philosophy programs for instance and they have just a single philosophy of science course, and these tend to be less applied views.

So, if people like this emerge and write about it, would we even be aware they exist, would we even consider their work? — Skalidris

Sure. I'm one of them, and I get some attention. .

Or are we stuck with slow changes? And by slow changes, I mean derivations from the main method that don't challenge it to the core.

If a change doesn't challenge the approach of academic philosophy to the core then it's unimportant.and leaves the situation unchanged.

P.S. I'm guessing a lot of people would disagree with premise 4, especially since philosophy seems so intuitive for some people that it would be hard to imagine how it could be done differently.

I would disagree with premise 4. I'd say there are essentially just two ways to do philosophy.

As for academic philosophy, I'd say it's dead and has no chance no evolving. It hasn't evolved since Plato. What may happen, however, is its transformation. This could happen if it ever decides to take the Perennial philosophy seriously. Until then it will keep going round and round in circles for the benefit of nobody.

Really there are just two philosophies, one that states the world is incomprehensible and the other that it is comprehensible. These are dualism and non-dualism. Every philosophical theory falls into one of these two categories. Academic philosophy is typically n the first category. The only way forward for it is to abandon dualism, and in evolutionary terms this would be a catastrophe rather than part of a gradual evolution. . . . . .

The only way forward for it is to abandon dualism, and in evolutionary terms this would be a catastrophe rather than part of a gradual evolution. . . — FrancisRay

Why would it be a catastrophe?

Why would it be a catastrophe? — Skalidris

It would actually be progress but in evolutionary terms it would be a sudden catastrophic change of course, not an evolution. To abandon dualism would for most people mean entirely scrapping their previous philosophical ideas, theories.and ideological commitments.

There are three possible solutions for metaphysics - dualism, monism and non-dualism. To abandon dualism means is to endorse the last of these, and this is to abandon western philosophy.

I see no future for western academic philosophy and there are university chancellors who feel the same and are cutting it from the curriculum. It is dead and cannot evolve but only go around in ever decreasing circles. .

This is why I predict a revolution. It will come when philosophers wake up to the perennial philosophy.and realise it is the only hope for the future of their discipline. It is not currently of interest to most philosophers, but it might become so when jobs at stake. .

So, if people like this emerge and write about it, would we even be aware they exist, would we even consider their work? — Skalidris

Well, this hit home a bit. The answer is, "No." I'm academically trained in philosophy, and have come up with a few original works. I've spoken with professors about them and most get angry when I've come up with something new that solves a problem. I remember discussing an issue in philosophy of science that the community had wrestled with for a while, and presented a solution that just used logic, and did not reference other philosophers, on a white board to him during his office hours.

I would say I'm a polite and non-aggressive person. He had a few questions, I followed up with answers, then he went quiet for a minute. After thinking about it, he, with barely contained anger in his voice said, "Well, that was a nice chat." Surprised I said, "Oh, uh, thank you." then left. A few seconds after I left I heard the door slam behind me.

I became enamored with Epistemology during my graduate school days. When I would present my ideas for Epistemology, professors would always tell me that I needed to write it pulling in another philosopher somehow. When I told them I formed it on my own, and didn't use other philosopher beyond the initial problem set, they would tell me I needed to reference at least 5 different philosophy articles for a viable paper. Of course then it was too long. I had to write papers that I wasn't passionate about, compare philosophers I didn't care about, for conclusions that ultimately didn't matter or change the field in any way.

So I left after I graduated and did not pursue a professorship. I realized then that academic philosophy was a celebration of its own failures. It constantly forced its acolytes to re-examine philosophy that had long been disproven and was absolutely anathema to free thought. And it makes sense. Solutions in philosophy become fields they are no longer philosophy. Most professors have been ground into churning out papers for publication to keep their job, not to actually further human progress. Its become a game at this point.

I did wonder if I could take my ideas to the public. I went to philosophy forums for years until I found this one. Here at least I get a few people who look at my work. But even then, most don't read carefully, aren't interested in really engaging in something new, and are more interested in telling you their opinion on things without really being interested in what you're saying.

I've tried posting variations of this https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 several times to get discussion going. I've had one person in all the years I've tried actually deeply engage with it. The only other person who seemed to appreciate it was someone who was new to philosophy. What's funny is I'm pretty sure I have the solution to Epistemology. I use it in my own life, and it basically solves all of the major epistemological problems of the day while introducing a way to finally evaluate inductions. But alas, most people either aren't patient enough to read the whole thing, or are not curious enough to really engage with it. I have no need to advertise to the world or try to convince people who aren't taking it seriously. Its there for those who care. Most do not.

So, philosophy is mostly a place for hobbyists. Here people look for semi-reasonable ways of looking at the world in a creative way that fits in with their world view. Most are not here to solve actual problems or come up with real solutions. It is an emotional haven for people, not a rigorous attempt to solve real world problems.

It doesn't bother me much at this point. I've long left the field professionally. I see that the world of AI is where epistemology is being taken serious. There the problem will be solved. Eventually philosophy really will have nothing left to contribute to the world beyond entertainment.

Interesting question. What do we even mean by academic philosophy? when I was an undergraduate, I mistakenly presumed academic philosophy was primarily the teaching of students regarding philosophy.

Now it seems more like an employment program for those with advanced degrees. I never hear anyone say "teach or perish."