It seems to me that one thing that could be done is for people who’ve “gotten it right” not to leave the discipline. And (then) for folks who do leave to remember that there are plenty of people like them left behind.
Although, at the risk of dissenting somewhat from what seems to be the consensus, I don’t actually think that analytic philosophy is in particularly bad shape, certainly not by the standards of academic disciplines in general. We’re talking about a field whose giants have included people like Russell, Quine, and (currently) Dennett. (And I mention these folks with particular reference to their views on the relationship of philosophy to science.) Yes, there are also some people who are Wrong, but that’s pretty much life in academia (or, if you really want the truth, anywhere else in human society). I think one has to be happy with a field if those in it with good ideas are rewarded (which is not always the case in all subjects, but is something on which philosophy does a decent job, as far as I can tell); expecting those with bad ideas to be punished may be asking too much (even if we assume it is wholly desirable).
We’re talking about a field whose giants have included people like Russell, Quine, and (currently) Dennett.
You missed out Popper! I’d probably rank these four in the order Popper > Quine > Dennett > Russell.
Russell was historically important, and is always a pleasure to read, but his inventions were either utterly trivial (e.g. Russell’s paradox and his theory of descriptions) or else a monstrously ugly obfuscation of mathematical logic, parasitic on the original ideas of Frege, Pierce, Peano and Cantor, which was unbearable to use and became obsolete almost immediately (I’m talking about Principia Mathematica of course.)
A link to this Paul Graham essay seems warranted.
It seems to me that one thing that could be done is for people who’ve “gotten it right” not to leave the discipline. And (then) for folks who do leave to remember that there are plenty of people like them left behind.
Although, at the risk of dissenting somewhat from what seems to be the consensus, I don’t actually think that analytic philosophy is in particularly bad shape, certainly not by the standards of academic disciplines in general. We’re talking about a field whose giants have included people like Russell, Quine, and (currently) Dennett. (And I mention these folks with particular reference to their views on the relationship of philosophy to science.) Yes, there are also some people who are Wrong, but that’s pretty much life in academia (or, if you really want the truth, anywhere else in human society). I think one has to be happy with a field if those in it with good ideas are rewarded (which is not always the case in all subjects, but is something on which philosophy does a decent job, as far as I can tell); expecting those with bad ideas to be punished may be asking too much (even if we assume it is wholly desirable).
Well that warrants a link to Karl Popper’s essay on the nature of philosophical problems.
You missed out Popper! I’d probably rank these four in the order Popper > Quine > Dennett > Russell.
Russell was historically important, and is always a pleasure to read, but his inventions were either utterly trivial (e.g. Russell’s paradox and his theory of descriptions) or else a monstrously ugly obfuscation of mathematical logic, parasitic on the original ideas of Frege, Pierce, Peano and Cantor, which was unbearable to use and became obsolete almost immediately (I’m talking about Principia Mathematica of course.)