[FOM] "Progress" in philosophy

[Neil Tennant]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Charles Silver wrote:

> 	I believe Russell said somewhere that when a philosophical problem  
> has been solved, it is no longer part of philosophy anymore.  If he  
> didn't say it, it's right anyway.   Philosophers have a vested  
> interest in *not* solving problems, because a solution to a problem  
> diminishes their empire, while keeping problems open provides more  
> opportunity to publish.
> 	Articles in the most prestigious journals generally consist almost  
> exclusively of excessively niggling comments on views by noteworthy  
> authors belonging to the same philosophical inner circle. (It has  
> been frequently claimed for many years that the status of the  
> author's university is also a criterion for publication.)  Scarcely  
> do these articles contain anything one might out of generosity call  
> an "idea".  However, there are a few creative philosophers who stick  
> their necks out and actually express ideas, mostly in books.   These  
> ideas become the necessary "data," so to speak, for the other 95% to  
> hack away at and to churn out needed publications.

To continue in the same depressing vein: you should not omit, either, to
note that one standard technique for ensuring one's longevity in
philosophical citations, after some initial original work, is to become an
obscurantist, so that an industry can develop, hopefully within your own
lifetime, of neophytes' attempts to interpret what you really might have
meant by your unclear (hence, surely, profound?) prose.

Neil Tennant