Do Philosophers Need Wastepaper Baskets?

Over two thousand years ago Cicero famously declared:

"There is no view so absurd but some philosopher has said it."

The recent history of philosophy has greatly extended the range of absurd views on offer. There are many possible explanations for this. The increase in the number of philosophers is one. The professionalisation of the subject is another. The combination is deadly. There is a great incentive to publish and get citations, and boring but true pieces are probably less likely to be published or cited than preposterous assertions dressed up with footnotes and references. Also you may not get an academic post at all unless there is a little niche you can carve out for yourself that is yours and yours alone. What better way to do that than to defend a position in print that no one has done before (even though the reason that no one has done is that it is fairly obviously a non-starter): pretty soon a bunch of non-entities will start responding in print to your absurdities, stating the obvious. Then you are away. You can start replying to their replies, and your citations will shoot up even higher.  So there may even be a kind of meme for ridiculous views being generated within the academic philosophical context. Philosophers who come out with extreme views (many of which are absurd) probably fare better academically than those who don't. OK this is wild conjecture - and if you think it is absurd, and feel motivated to cite and respond to this you will inadvertently prove my point...

Which reminds me of a joke about a university where the Vice Chancellor was intent on closing down a department to save money. It came down to a choice between Mathematics and Philosophy. The mathematicians thought they had a winning case: all they needed for their research was some coffee, a table, some pencils, and a wastepaper basket. But the philosophers undercut them: they didn't need the wastepaper basket.

Comments

[Gail Renard]

REPLY FROM A NON-ENTITY

Naturally let’s start by stating the obvious. Of course philosophers offer increasingly absurd views to claw their way up the greasy pole to be crowned King of the Jungle. But this isn’t a phenomenon unique to one profession. The problem is the world now has the attention span of an A.D.D. goldfish with Alzheimers on a bad day. We live in an all-singing, all-dancing culture where everyone needs a gimmick or wants a quick thrill, and that includes the world of philosophy. It’s not enough to have a science, history or arts programme on the telly unless the presenter (a nun or, better still, deposed Pontiff) juggles and plays the nose flute simultaneously. And remember the old show biz adage: there’s always someone younger and cuter coming along. Goodness knows how Cicero would have coped, but his De Optimo Genere Oratorum would have had to have gone one better.

But just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get you. Obviously this is a subject of serious concern to philosophers. So if you crave a citation or a higher posting in academia, please free feel to reply to my reply, or indeed use it as the basis of your next publication. Just one last tip: your philosopher’s joke was very funny, but if you really aspire to high office, next time try finishing with a song.

[Ophelia Benson]

Yes, this is not only not unique to one profession, it's not even unique to one discipline. It plays a major, even a starring role in Literary 'Theory' and related fields.