Philosophy for Everyone

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Nic R. Jones
{"title":"Philosophy for Everyone","authors":"Nic R. Jones","doi":"10.5840/symposion20207215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The lack of diversity in academic philosophy has been well documented. This paper examines the reasons for this issue, identifying two intertwining norms within philosophy which contribute to it: the assertion that the Adversary Method is the primary mode of argumentation and the excessive boundary policing surrounding what constitutes “real” philosophy. These norms reinforce each other, creating a space where diverse practitioners must defend their work as philosophy before it can be engaged with philosophically. Therefore, if we are to address the diversity issue, these norms must change. I advocate for the community of philosophical inquiry to serve as a new standard of practice, as it requires a simultaneous reimagining of both norms, thereby addressing the issues that arise from the two elements working in tandem. With its emphasis on epistemic openness and constructive collaboration, and a broader definition of philosophy which conceptualizes it as a method of questioning/analyzing rather than a particular subject matter, I posit that its implementation would facilitate a more welcoming climate for diverse practitioners. While these changes are unlikely to solve the diversity problem “once and for all,” I argue that they would significantly help to improve it.","PeriodicalId":37705,"journal":{"name":"Symposion","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Symposion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/symposion20207215","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The lack of diversity in academic philosophy has been well documented. This paper examines the reasons for this issue, identifying two intertwining norms within philosophy which contribute to it: the assertion that the Adversary Method is the primary mode of argumentation and the excessive boundary policing surrounding what constitutes “real” philosophy. These norms reinforce each other, creating a space where diverse practitioners must defend their work as philosophy before it can be engaged with philosophically. Therefore, if we are to address the diversity issue, these norms must change. I advocate for the community of philosophical inquiry to serve as a new standard of practice, as it requires a simultaneous reimagining of both norms, thereby addressing the issues that arise from the two elements working in tandem. With its emphasis on epistemic openness and constructive collaboration, and a broader definition of philosophy which conceptualizes it as a method of questioning/analyzing rather than a particular subject matter, I posit that its implementation would facilitate a more welcoming climate for diverse practitioners. While these changes are unlikely to solve the diversity problem “once and for all,” I argue that they would significantly help to improve it.
每个人的哲学
学术哲学缺乏多样性是有据可查的。本文探讨了这一问题的原因,确定了哲学中导致这一问题的两个相互交织的规范:主张对手方法是论证的主要模式,以及围绕什么构成“真正的”哲学的过度边界监管。这些规范相互加强,创造了一个空间,在这里,不同的从业者必须在哲学上参与之前将他们的工作作为哲学来捍卫。因此,如果我们要解决多样性问题,这些规范必须改变。我主张将哲学探究作为一种新的实践标准,因为它需要同时重新构想这两种规范,从而解决这两种要素协同工作所产生的问题。由于它强调认知的开放性和建设性的合作,以及对哲学更广泛的定义,将其概念化为一种质疑/分析的方法,而不是特定的主题,我认为它的实施将为不同的实践者创造一个更受欢迎的氛围。虽然这些变化不太可能“一劳永逸”地解决多样性问题,但我认为它们将大大有助于改善这一问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Symposion
Symposion Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Symposion was published for the first time in 2003, as Symposion – Revistă de științe socio-umane (Symposion – A Journal of Humanities), with the purpose of providing a supportive space for academic communication, dialogue, and debate, both intra and interdisciplinary, for philosophical humanities and social and political sciences. Symposion: Theoretical and Applied Inquiries in Philosophy and Social Sciences shares essentially the same purpose. Its main aim is to promote and provide open access to peer-reviewed, high quality contributions (articles, discussion notes, review essays or book reviews) in philosophy, other humanities, and social and political sciences connected with philosophy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信