Philosophy, justify your existence
I just came back from a philosophy conference in Nantes. During one of the breaks, a professor from the University of Nottingham told me that there's a polemic over the purpose of philosophy. He said that right now, in England, there's a big debate about whether philosophy is worthwhile in any way. Every couple of years, each department in British universities have to be evaluated on their "impact". Apparently, "impact" means the amount that they have an effect on the community -- how much they serve the people who fund them. This year, heads are rolling and there's a debate about whether philosophy serves any purpose for society whatsoever.
My first thought was, "That's a shame. Off the top of my head, there seem to be two difficulties with measuring the effect of philosophy. One is that it's hard to measure. A lot of effects are long-term and even then it's hard to measure what effect the dissemination of new ideas has on the world. The second is that the purpose of philosophy is not to sustain economic growth."
He told me it's more complicated than that. The universities are so afraid that they're talking about sending philosophers to local schools to talk about their research. That way, they serve the community. And it's not just about justifying their existence, it's also about justifying their particular research. So they would teach children what they are researching... um, de re versus de dicto readings of endurance criteria for identity over time? Obviously, their research is not exactly easy to share.
"The worst part is", I said in commiseration, "I believe philosophy has done a lot to sustain economic growth, but in ways that it'll never get credit for. Logical language is the foundation for modern computing, and linguistics was founded off of the philosophy of language."
He paused before saying something surprising. He told me that he doesn't think philosophy does help society or the economy. Besides a few applied topics, how could it? After a second of thinking about it, I reluctantly agreed with him. How would debates on free will or metaethics ever help the economy in the same way logic or language can? But then again, neither did the Mona Lisa or the moon landing help the average person. In the same way, is advancing human knowledge a value in its own right? Even if using those resources means that we have less to help those in need?
My first thought was, "That's a shame. Off the top of my head, there seem to be two difficulties with measuring the effect of philosophy. One is that it's hard to measure. A lot of effects are long-term and even then it's hard to measure what effect the dissemination of new ideas has on the world. The second is that the purpose of philosophy is not to sustain economic growth."
He told me it's more complicated than that. The universities are so afraid that they're talking about sending philosophers to local schools to talk about their research. That way, they serve the community. And it's not just about justifying their existence, it's also about justifying their particular research. So they would teach children what they are researching... um, de re versus de dicto readings of endurance criteria for identity over time? Obviously, their research is not exactly easy to share.
"The worst part is", I said in commiseration, "I believe philosophy has done a lot to sustain economic growth, but in ways that it'll never get credit for. Logical language is the foundation for modern computing, and linguistics was founded off of the philosophy of language."
He paused before saying something surprising. He told me that he doesn't think philosophy does help society or the economy. Besides a few applied topics, how could it? After a second of thinking about it, I reluctantly agreed with him. How would debates on free will or metaethics ever help the economy in the same way logic or language can? But then again, neither did the Mona Lisa or the moon landing help the average person. In the same way, is advancing human knowledge a value in its own right? Even if using those resources means that we have less to help those in need?