Well, we seemed to have covered quite a lot on the topic of politics (or at least heard a lot of viewpoints). Hopefully this will get some attention as well. I was listening to Bill Hicks's comedy routine while revising for my physics exams, and when he reached the end of his act, he went through his usual Thompson-esque speach about how life is "Just a ride", and how people forget that, and how every now and then, people come around and tell us "Relax, it's just a ride. And will kill those people". Now not only does he always give me a good laugh, he also had me me thinking "wow, that's actually pretty good food for thought. Certainly better than certain papers I've read over the past month", which brings me to the question of how philosophy should be packaged when it is released "into the world"... While the practice and study of philosophy requires a certain selflessness in the act of attachment to abstract, sometimes purely theoretical value, I have little doubt that most people reading this (as well as myself) still hope to make a living some day. I wouldn't go as far as saying "Philosophy sells", but as the reaction to so-called 'deep' main-stream movies like "The Matrix" (ugh) proves, you can sell philosophy. The question at hand is (surprisingly): should we? I recall an interesting topic that was being discussed a few months back, about philosophy in movies. Throughout the ages, both 'professional' philosophers (Nietzsche, Sartre, Plato - perhaps) and 'folk' philosophy (pretty much every other good book/movie you can think of) used fiction as a medium for the communication of ideology and philosophical thought. Some of the beneficial aspects of this approach are clear: [The numbered arguments belows form matching numerical pairs with the objections, listed later] 1a) it communicates thought alongside entertainment, making its acquisition less effortful, and perhaps associating the stimuli of reflective behaviour to a pleasant activity; 2a) in doing so, it also vulgarizes concepts which can be rather complicated, making them more accessible; 3a) it injects philosophical thought into popular culture; 4a) it's active, bringing our domain to the masses instead of waiting for the masses to come to philosophy; and 5a) the artistic formulation is vague, allowing spectators/readers to elaborate, suppose, draw their own conclusions and in short, add their personal touch to the thought being communicated. Quite a few academics I've met agree with some or all of these points. However I've also met respectable academics who see the flip-side of each point and thus argue that, while philosophy in popular culture is not a bad thing, communication through such a medium should not be prioritized. Some counter arguments include: 1b) any thought communicated is lost in the content, as the spectator/reader has a passive role due to the nature of entertainment. One experiences it, one is not immediately brought to reflect upon the underlying message [I don't agree with this personally]; 2b) vulgarizing defiles the original thought. Oversimplification can hide the strength of a point, as lead to erroneous conclusions; 3b & 4b) it doesn't necessarily inject though in a form where it will be of use to society/be accepted/make a difference; 5b) while the opportunity to draw one's own conclusions is certainly not a bad thing, academic papers which clearly lay out arguments and answer objections allow readers to due the same thing, except with the whole argument and a complete justification, permitting perhaps more in-depth analysis of question on the reader's part, and therefore more consistent conclusions. The same academics, for example, would not recommend the reading of "Thus spoke Zarathustra" as an introduction to Nietzsche, arguing that his more academic work is easier to approach and clearer, and the depth of this 'professional' philosopher's thought in his novel-like work is something that is better explored when armed with a firm understanding of his way of thinking. I personally think both views make a strong case, and in a sense both are right to a certain extent. What defines a good philosophy paper is it's clearness, conciseness and the strength of its arguments (layout, premisses, justification and examples). Essentially, a philosophy paper is meant to be the ideal way of approaching the problem at hand (or at least describing it), the only barrier with the general public being the technical language. But why not write philosophy papers aimed at the general public? Perhaps the drive to publish 'to survive' in academia is removing our work from the grasp of the lay community. Papers are more technical as academics become more specialized, and the amount of reading needed to understand something which is meant to talk to you and communicate clearly and cogently increases drastically. It's possible movies and novels with strong philosophical content are lauded by certain academics just because of that: they are the only option available for those without sufficient technical knowledge to understand 'more advanced' papers. That's why I personally think undergrad papers are a blessing. You can send them to your parents and friends, discuss them with course-mates who aren't necessarily taking the same modules (or simply haven't done the reading) and still be understood. If the aim of philosophy is to contribute to progress of human knowledge, surely we should keep the necessity for effective communication and the propagation of ideas in mind when writing. Technical papers are needed for in-depth analysis on the part of specialists, but accessible papers are also needed so the rest of society (and academia) can keep up with current schools of thought. But let's not be too hasty in throwing away the more abstract stuff. Personally, I'm particularly on board with argument 5a, concerning the advantage of 'artistic vagueness'. I'm very fond of poetry, which my former english-teacher often referred to as 'condensed language'. I think the appeal lies in the fact that the imagination works actively; that the reader, in 'expanding' the language, plays a part in the creative process in following the poet's 'guidelines'. I believe that philosophy as an underlying component of novels, plays and movies is a bit like poetry: objection 5b is correct in stating that it is not the most effective way of communicating the author's thought, but I believe it remains the most effective way in pushing non-academics (and sometimes academics) to think philosophically. While will not communicate a complete argumentation, it will encourage the formation of original thought, and I believe that this 'stimulation' of the general public to pursue philosophy on an individual basis is also an important part of our rule as philosophers (literally, 'lovers of wisdom' in this case). But I've been talking a lot here. The problematic still remains: do you think we should be putting more effort into the production of papers accessible to the general public, or is the path or artistic vagueness and philosophy embedded within other media the way to go? Do you find any other major advantages/cons to this method of communication? -- Edward. |