3 ms·

Good article. The point about contemporary philosophers not having grand theories is something that comes up frequently in philosophy spaces (i.e., /r/academicp

Good article. The point about contemporary philosophers not having grand theories is something that comes up frequently in philosophy spaces (i.e., /r/academicphilosophy or https://dailynous.com https://dailynous.com). The problem is that the academic system is really not designed to select such individuals, instead optimizing for specialized publications, pedigree, etc. The average philosopher has zero incentive for constructing grand theories and indeed is typically ridiculed for even attempting to do so. And so instead the best "public intellectuals" the world of philosophy can offer are either obsessively focused on particular issues rather than the field as a whole, (e.g., Peter Singer) or are entirely philosophically-uneducated charlatans who want to sell books and make money, not discover truth (e.g. Sam Harris, talking heads on Twitter, Substack, etc.) that unfortunately get an audience. The closest we get are probably Charles Taylor (big scope, but unfortunately too verbose and abstruse) or Zizek (too niche and far into his own entertainment career.) I'm not sure what the solution is, but it probably involves a brilliant (and credentialed) philosopher that is also savvy with YouTube and willing to disregard the academic philosophy social milieu.

matrix87 2y ago
> The average philosopher has zero incentive for constructing grand theories I mean, considering Hegel's grand theory indirectly lead to the deaths of tens of millions in the 20th century, maybe that's not a bad thing?
nonrandomstring 2y ago
The problem is not limited to philosophy. All of academia is broken this way. Sadly, we think the only alternative is "industry", an equally broken set of incentives. That limits fronts of human progress to two types. We either get committee-driven institutional science leveraging huge resources, supercomputers, particle accelerators - blighted by cutthroat competition, opaque "publishing" and fraud - or radical populist individuals and small unaffiliated groups of thinkers able to operate without material resources. The Goldilocks zone of quiet, contemplative science, of whimsical, "high-risk" enquiry reminiscent of the Enlightenment, is gone in the 21st century.
- keiferski 2y ago
  Agreed and that is a really good, but simple, point that I didn't realize as clearly before: there is no real alternative to the academia vs. industry dichotomy. What is needed might be a third option that allows for exploration without the pressures of profits or publications.
  - nonrandomstring 2y ago
    The kicker is it's not really a dichotomy either. Academia and industry have gotten closer together, colluding to decide what research is funded and what is silently dropped, what is taught and what never makes it onto the curriculum. This is even framed as a good thing by governments who talk of academic-industry "alignment" and how the academy "serves" industry. It's a way to get public money for training that is a subsidy to commercial interests. "Objective" higher education and research designed to shape industry by genuine innovation is as rare as rocking-horse shit - mainly in niche areas of physics or biotech that don't have any commercial application yet.. but might one day.
  - gsf_emergency_2 2y ago
    Common to all "3rd options" seems to be their (read, immediate) implicit/tacit "dual-use" assumption: Egs: DARPA: every new findout is an edge for beating the soviets Patronage: sooner or later, but most likely sooner, you come up with something your funder can brag about or profit from or simply feel good about (Detour back to second options. Academia: professors must bring in the tuition bacon at the very least Industry: academics can immediately reverse engineer your artifacts or even patents, if they happen not to be mere positioning.) Bell labs: if you squint hard enough, everything is related to infocomm infra Sorry, had to try to beat that "one day everything will see the sun!" clause https://archive.today/latest/www.nytimes.com/1985/01/06/nyregion/about-books.html https://archive.today/latest/www.nytimes.com/1985/01/06/nyre...
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    Your third option sounds suspiciously similar to golden-age DARPA, which had been created in response to the launch of Sputnik in 1957?
econ 2y ago
I won't call it a grand theory but I like this solution to the puzzle. https://gaby.wordpress.com/2025/03/20/wilde-democracy/ https://gaby.wordpress.com/2025/03/20/wilde-democracy/
- judahmeek 2y ago
  I would like the idea of voting diplomas, but ensuring that such gate-keeping can evolve over time without being gamed to slowly strip a larger & larger fraction of the population of representation over time is a really tricky problem. Thus, I think that the freedom to vote & to hold office should be enshrined in the constitution for everyone, regardless of criminal history or citizenship.
  - econ 2y ago
    It would take a similarly isolated gov department to rate and set the difficulty. That one should probably not have a diploma. That the system will be gamed is no real concern as that battle will continue forever. This version is at least capable of plugging the hole when enough people notice it. The freedom to hold the generic office seems fine. For a specialized department some relevant experience and diplomas isn't a lot to ask. If unskilled employees could do a great job in any occupation we would see this in the private sector. I think it can just be left for judgement by the voter.

matrix87 2y ago

> The average philosopher has zero incentive for constructing grand theories I mean, considering Hegel's grand theory indirectly lead to the deaths of tens of millions in the 20th century, maybe that's not a bad thing?

nonrandomstring 2y ago

The problem is not limited to philosophy. All of academia is broken this way. Sadly, we think the only alternative is "industry", an equally broken set of incentives. That limits fronts of human progress to two types. We either get committee-driven institutional science leveraging huge resources, supercomputers, particle accelerators - blighted by cutthroat competition, opaque "publishing" and fraud - or radical populist individuals and small unaffiliated groups of thinkers able to operate without material resources. The Goldilocks zone of quiet, contemplative science, of whimsical, "high-risk" enquiry reminiscent of the Enlightenment, is gone in the 21st century.

keiferski 2y ago
Agreed and that is a really good, but simple, point that I didn't realize as clearly before: there is no real alternative to the academia vs. industry dichotomy. What is needed might be a third option that allows for exploration without the pressures of profits or publications.
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  The kicker is it's not really a dichotomy either. Academia and industry have gotten closer together, colluding to decide what research is funded and what is silently dropped, what is taught and what never makes it onto the curriculum. This is even framed as a good thing by governments who talk of academic-industry "alignment" and how the academy "serves" industry. It's a way to get public money for training that is a subsidy to commercial interests. "Objective" higher education and research designed to shape industry by genuine innovation is as rare as rocking-horse shit - mainly in niche areas of physics or biotech that don't have any commercial application yet.. but might one day.
- gsf_emergency_2 2y ago
  Common to all "3rd options" seems to be their (read, immediate) implicit/tacit "dual-use" assumption: Egs: DARPA: every new findout is an edge for beating the soviets Patronage: sooner or later, but most likely sooner, you come up with something your funder can brag about or profit from or simply feel good about (Detour back to second options. Academia: professors must bring in the tuition bacon at the very least Industry: academics can immediately reverse engineer your artifacts or even patents, if they happen not to be mere positioning.) Bell labs: if you squint hard enough, everything is related to infocomm infra Sorry, had to try to beat that "one day everything will see the sun!" clause https://archive.today/latest/www.nytimes.com/1985/01/06/nyregion/about-books.html https://archive.today/latest/www.nytimes.com/1985/01/06/nyre...
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  Your third option sounds suspiciously similar to golden-age DARPA, which had been created in response to the launch of Sputnik in 1957?

econ 2y ago

I won't call it a grand theory but I like this solution to the puzzle. https://gaby.wordpress.com/2025/03/20/wilde-democracy/ https://gaby.wordpress.com/2025/03/20/wilde-democracy/

judahmeek 2y ago
I would like the idea of voting diplomas, but ensuring that such gate-keeping can evolve over time without being gamed to slowly strip a larger & larger fraction of the population of representation over time is a really tricky problem. Thus, I think that the freedom to vote & to hold office should be enshrined in the constitution for everyone, regardless of criminal history or citizenship.
- econ 2y ago
  It would take a similarly isolated gov department to rate and set the difficulty. That one should probably not have a diploma. That the system will be gamed is no real concern as that battle will continue forever. This version is at least capable of plugging the hole when enough people notice it. The freedom to hold the generic office seems fine. For a specialized department some relevant experience and diplomas isn't a lot to ask. If unskilled employees could do a great job in any occupation we would see this in the private sector. I think it can just be left for judgement by the voter.