每个人的哲学

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Nic R. Jones
{"title":"每个人的哲学","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
Philosophy for Everyone
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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