Reflection on academic philosophy
How Misaligned Incentives Shape Discourse
Let us take the views of any philosopher who is considered great.
Next, let's consider two contemporary philosophers. The first one is a hard-working, very intelligent, and insightful philosopher. The second one, on the other hand, is lazy, not very intelligent, and superficial. Both come across the views of the great philosopher. The first philosopher correctly interprets his system, in line with the author's intention. Since he has nothing new to say on the subject, he moves on. The second philosopher, however, completely misunderstands the system, essentially turning it into a caricature. On this basis, he writes a fiery polemic.
While the first philosopher still remains without a publication this year, the second one is basking in triumph. Despite his work being superficial and biased, it was noticed by specialists who fabricate heaps of polemics based on it—thus it is widely cited.
This example is, of course, extreme, but it well illustrates that incentives in the academic world are often not as they should be and give rise to the temptation of taking shortcuts or doing things that do not advance the field but are beneficial from a career standpoint. I believe this is the reason why there is so much empty chatter and endless disputes in the world of academic philosophy. If publications and citations are the main measure of success, it's better to babble nonsense than to remain silent.
The advantage of practicing philosophy independently, that is, outside the academic world and its expectations and requirements, is that it allows one to stay true to one's interests and goals. As for me, I am primarily interested in the problem of metareality, i.e., the question: what is the content of metareality? And I can fully devote myself to formulating the best answer. I don't have to engage in unnecessary discussions and disputes that do not bring me closer to this goal. Moreover—I can publish nothing for decades if I have nothing to say, but simply delve into the chosen topic in peace and quiet. Let an academic try that! In the academic world, the rule is—if you don't publish, you don't exist.
These thoughts came to me while reading Yitzhak Melamed's Spinoza’s Metaphysics: Substance and Thought. He describes there an interpretation of Spinoza's metaphysical system by Curley. Curley didn't like several consequences of Spinoza's system, and to remove them, he interpreted the system in a completely new way. In his interpretation, God is solely the first cause, and modifications are outside Him: God is the cause of the Universe, but the Universe is not in God. This interpretation is, of course, original, but it finds absolutely no confirmation in Spinoza's works. On the contrary—many passages openly contradict it, and only a handful can be interpreted in its favor.
From an academic point of view, such work is desirable because it generates discussion—it allows for writing polemics and replies, etc. However, it does not bring us closer to the proper goal of Spinoza's metaphysics—the explanation of the content of metareality.
Sponsored by: Wiadomości giełdowe GPW