Are philosophers conning us?

Question

I think philosophers collude maliciously to coadvertise their work while shutting the general public out of the directory of philosophical credibility. Their actions in philosphy reflect the actions of monopolistically competitive companies in the economic sector. Like these companies, collusive behavior dominates the industry and is not openly regarded as wrong, in part because it increases the overall sales, productivity, and cohesiveness - whether it be the industry of widgets or philosophy books.

The audience I was refering to consists of those who read the books, even if just for a class.

I like the one about "Everbody's a philosopher." That was exactly my point. In order for a person today to be respected even in local forum, he has to speak like Derrida or LaClau and cite people that he may actually find as twisted. For instance, When was the last time your philosphy or psychology teacher discredited Freud, who molested his patients, or Heidegger, who was a member of the Nazi party? Most of them won't do it and I want to know if it's because they're afraid to take a stand, which any philosopher should be able to do, or if they're just trying to share in the fame and notoriety, like a guitar player showing off his Van Halen fingertapping.

Answer 1

Some philosophers are conning us, no doubt. But some are genuinely interested in the arcane knowledge they investigate and write about. Some are very smart, but confused. Some worry that popularising philosophy will dumb it down or, worse, pander to beliefs and values that just aren't true. Others try to make philosophy relevant to life and everyday concerns. Are they just trying to make a quick buck?

Philosophical con artists have been around since the beginning; they were called Sophists. Unfortunately, without the advantage of history, one person's sophist is another person's philosopher, often.

I agree with you completely that a philosopher must be able to take a stand and criticise, even to the point of being iconoclastic. Socrates didn't spare a thought for the Sophists. Heidegger WAS a Nazi, he never repudiated it, and he helped, both actively and passively to discriminate against Jews. His philosophy, which is "purist", reflects this; I find it both morally disgusting and intellectually oversubtle (making a big deal out of the ordinary, take Dasein for example).

But there are still great philosophers out there, and, contrary to one answer, not everybody is a philosopher. There are many people who speculate and wonder, without taking the time and trouble to test their views carefully. They are not quite philosophers. Everybody has a right to their opinion, but not every opinion is right.

Sometimes a very simple question has an answer that is neither simple nor obvious. A famous one in philosophy is, "What is time?" Neither Augustine, nor Wittgenstein, who tried to illuminate us about this question, were con artists.

So where does that leave us? Perhaps as Epictetus says: we have to become philosophers ourselves, for how else will we know whether someone is conning us or not!

Answer 2

Ever hear of the Socrates Cafe? It's a growing movement to bring philosophy back to the people in a discussion like forum like the dialogues of Plato. As for philosophers, most are simply doing work to rationalize not having to believe anything, and only conning themselves.

Answer 3

As you point out, academic or professional philosophy has become almost completely an insular and exclusionary activity. In other words, philosophers can't be conning the general public, because the general public isn't listening. If anything, they're conning each other.

Answer 4

You're confusing philosophy with opinion. Philosophy attempts to find the truth of a matter through logical means. An opinion is based upon feeling, experience, and a number of other elements and may or may not be logical at all.

Answer 5

I like to define philosophers as people who continue to think when other people give up... and being a philosophy major I have come up with ZERO absolutes in life, therefore I have nothing to offer you especially not a con.

How can you catagorize all philosophers (including motives, results, perceptions) all into one and call them cons. Like any other human, we are all different...

Answer 6

Sorry, but you need classes in Logic and Deductive Reasoning. They would help you think straight!

Answer 7

you are philosophizing the matter, so you are a philosopher, so you tell us, are you conning us?

Answer 8

"Everybody's a philosopher."