What? A post in high_philosophy?

[philosophyjeff]

Here's a quote from Brian Leiter's blog:

"Philosophical excellence is not a natural kind; to the extent it exists, it emerges from the consensus of philosophers."

Is this true?  Does (or would) its truth undermine any important philosophical goal?

I'm presently undecided on the issue.

Comments

[doctoreon]

"Philosophical excellence is not a natural kind; to the extent it exists, it emerges from the consensus of philosophers."

I can be both excellent and correct, i.e., my views correspond with the truth, while every other philosopher in the world disagrees. I'm still right, and they're still wrong.

I could be both excellent and correct while every other philosopher in the world has disappeared.

That original quoted statement is just plain wrong. Consensus does not define excellence at any endeavor. Consensus is only desirable as a end unto itself when the group of people who have achieved it are not influenced towards their consensus by some outside force, which is rare.

[themaskedmedea]

I strongly suspect that consensus can never be a guide to excellence. What are some other things that consensus -- even of experts -- suggests are excellent? There's a reason that consensus and consent have the same root word, and we all know consent can be manufactured through culture and ideology.

This is precisely the view that has diminished the activity of philosophers to largely self-congratulatory work, and removed them completely from the classroom because the consensus is that teaching undergraduates is not important; it is precisely the view that has the discipline balancing on the edge of banishment from academia because the consensus is that other disciplines and administrative responsibilities don't matter; it is precisely the view that has driven so many intelligent, excellent philosophers from the academic field because the consensus of academic philosophers typically excludes and diminishes the work of women and minorities.