I recently wrote a satirical piece about popular philosophy. I was happy enough with it to put it online, because I think what it shows is interesting, but beyond that the net effect was to leave me thinking I probably won’t do this kind of thing anymore. As I recently seem to have discovered, I am currently writing to discover why I write, and what I seem to have discovered here is that, whilst I’m happy enough to write things that show something important about philosophy, I have no interest in writing anything combative, critical, or ‘snotty’.
Which is not to say I don’t feel this way about certain things. As far as I can tell, an awful lot of the modern trend towards Stoicism is incredibly shallow. Not all, but a lot. But is this a surprise? That people can be shallow, especially when they jump on popular trends? Why trouble yourself with this? And if you would try to make a stand against it, you will look like Cnut against the tide. (Or perhaps that’s the point…)
Shallow though it may be, I think the recent push towards Stoicism comes from a good place, even if that place isn’t philosophy. I’m not convinced that many of these people really love wisdom, but beyond that there’s not much to dislike about the Silicon-Valley-Stoic version of things and it’s surely better than many of their alternatives. It is at least trying to be virtuous and rational. And if, in amongst all this ‘how can Stoicism help me succeed’, they happen to stumble upon some actual philosophy that might awaken something deeper in them, what more could you ask for?
And so to those popularisers of Stoicism, who seem to understand little but talk lots: why would I work against people who are pushing in the right direction? They have gaps and lacks in understanding, as we all do, but their hearts are in the right place (when they are not promoting themselves). I have no serious interest in disparaging this.
I have no serious interest in disparaging academics either. Quite the opposite: I have tremendous respect their work (sometimes…), I just can’t bring myself to join in with it anymore. But that’s my business, not theirs. I’m happy to leave them to their work.
Once I said: ‘If you think you are swimming in dirty water, you get out. You don’t keep swimming, adding to the filth.’
Then I said: ‘If I think I have got out of dirty water, why would I return to spit in it?’
Now I say: to write these snotty things is not even to make a stand against the tide but only to spit at it and run away before I get wet feet.
Am I proud of that behaviour? I’m not sure I am.
I don’t mean to speak out against anyone, I only mean to speak up for philosophy. Because as I see it, philosophy is under threat from two aspects: the popular versions of it show it to be shallow while the academic versions of it show it to be trivial. But philosophy is neither of these things; it is the opposite. And so if you show it like this, as shallow or trivial, then I will say ‘that’s not philosophy’. I will want to point out the misunderstanding, for the sake of philosophy and for all our sakes.
I called my original essay on this ‘Demarcation’, which will set bells ringing for anyone familiar with the philosophy of science. That is what I see myself as doing: it is no different from a scientist denouncing pseudo-science. There are good pragmatic reasons to do this, when it is justified, since allowing pseudo-science to run on unchallenged can cause a lot of damaging effects. But what is more interesting is the way in which this process casts light on what you are doing. The ‘demarcation problem’ is interesting, not because it helps us to ward off the bad effects of pseudo-science, but because it tells us more about what good science is and ought to be.
Isn’t it the same with philosophy?
Related posts: The Rion: An Ancient Dialogue for Our Times, How To Read Plato, Why Do I Write?, Demarcation, On Climbing Ladders, You Don’t Want Stoicism
tobybetenson.com 