Why does nobody care about philosophy?

[@KaneB]

I recorded this video about two years ago, but I didn't upload it because I wasn't happy with it. Enough time has passed that I can't remember why I disliked it, so I figured I might as well upload it now.

[@justus4684]

Your super power is: Time capsule Kane

[@hiphur4524]

You couldn't find the article by Eric Schwitzgebel that's why

[@MooshBoosh]

Hehe, I like that. I usually have the opposite response, where I find new reasons to be unhappy with my old work.

[@exalted_kitharode]

Ahah that's hilarious

[@AlexandreAuCambodge]

That's cool.

[@octopusgoat2502]

On the point about worrying public engagement would reduce the quality of output, I think another rebuttal to that is the fact that public philosophy content (on youtube or in books directed at laypeople, for example) will happen regardless. As it is now, a lot of the most popular philosophy videos on youtube are made by people without a philosophy degree and are often pretty low quality. If actual academics started competing in this public sphere, even if their content wasn't quite journal-quality, it would still be a massive step up from the philosophy content produced by creators outside of the field.

[@MrLogicallyrandom]

I have a deep desire for this scenario to go down.

[@connorperrett9559]

God forbid the worthless plebs who haven't gone through the bureaucratic credentialing apparatus think they have the right to consider the meaning of human existence.

[@michaelwu7678]

Yes then there would be far fewer Jordan Petersons selling their pseudo- intellectualism

[@gh0s1wav]

This is actually happening on YT in all academic fields. I've been finding more and more KZbinrs making videos on philosophy, economics, sociology, etc. who actually have a experience in the field and academia. There videos tend to be more interesting because they go pass surface level arguments or bring up unconventional insights that actually have some depth.

[@gh0s1wav]

@@MrLogicallyrandom Here are some YT channels with people who have experience in the field and/or academics: F.D Signifier - www.youtube.com/@FDSignifire Carefree Wandering - www.youtube.com/@carefreewandering Sabine Hossenfelder - www.youtube.com/@SabineHossenfelder Sense of Mind - www.youtube.com/@senseofmindshow Unlearning Economics - www.youtube.com/@unlearningeconomics9021

[@joelturnbull4038]

As a non-philosopher, I am grateful for public philosophy, including this channel. I agree that it should be recognised as a real contribution to the discipline.

[@twa9995]

​@seyfert8820 i think he is saying that when people who philoiphize for a living put their ideas out in public their ideas are seen as less

[@kattenelvis1778]

My philosophy of math/language professor once had a good point about this. Back in the 1960s and earlier, public engagement in theoretical physics was very low. However by the 80s and 90s, popscience started to gain a lot of traction in for example television shows about theoretical physics which increased public engagement in physics massively. This lead to many people misunderstanding the topics in major ways. People constantly misunderstand entropy, relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum computers, atomic physics, string theory e.t.c in predictable ways. This might even be worse than lay people having no idea and only being taught in situations where these misunderstandings can be fixed quickly.

[@KaneB]

This is a good point: it's not obvious that greater public engagement would lead to greater public understanding. To be completely honest though, I don't really care about public understanding. What I care about is the public's cash. I want philosophy departments to get money 💰💰💰

[@niket527]

Yeah but that's not really the fault of the people, it's the fault of the communicators and the media that bent the science for the sake of storytelling. I'd be careful of the 'dumb masses' thing because it leads to elitism

[@Nai-qk4vp]

@@niket527 Yeah, it's the fault of the media for utilizing bad metaphors and stories to tell a wider audience. It is good to use stories to understand concepts that would otherwise be too abstract, too big, like a galaxy, too small like and atom or they cannot be perceived by the senses like magnetis. Problem is when the metaphor makes no sense because there isn't actually anything comparable. Take the following assertions: "The sky before dusk was as red as coal" Coal isn't red. No sense. But "red as an apple" does. Apples are red. Or you treat both as the same instead of ALIKE in some aspects. Like treating human bodies AS machines instead of LIKE them. You will neglect that, at least compared to an older machine from times past like a TV, human bodies can repair themselves when damaged. TVs can't. (I still don't like comparisons between humans and machines but this is just for the sake of argument)

[@Nai-qk4vp]

@@niket527 Also, remember, laypeople are just as intelligent as academics, capable of learning and having deep, meaningful thoughts and communicating them. Different people may be better or more knowledgeable at different things but that doesn't mean more intelligent. And we have this tendency to think great philosophies , ideas come from "Great Men" and their great books. They don't. They are only normal people and when they do give name to and describe things in a unique way, they are in the end building on ideas that in the end came from other ordinary people, in books and journals and conversations during dinners and walks in the park just as much. This "Great Man Theory", that a few "superior" people are the ones that make history , create everythinf good and lasting and important is poison and we must kill it. It's not true, it's never been true and it makes us seek truth less and makes our knowledge dull and stale. And it's bigoted. The masses are intelligent, actually. More people philosophising would be a great thing, in reality. It's a good thing to remind myself and my colleagues in uni every so often that we are not more intelligent than laypeople. Also why I've always disliked that "stand in the shoulders of giants" saying. To hell with that. I stand shoulder to shoulder with my fellow people instead.

[@Paakku97]

​@@Nai-qk4vpThank you for this comment 🙏

[@Pyromaniac77777]

From my experience; When I was a Christian I was told that my interest in philosophy would be better directed towards Theology. As a young kid interested in this reality’s truths I was told to do something productive like chemistry or biology rather than philosophy. When I needed a job I was reminded that philosophy didn’t pay and wasn’t respected. My mom told me I’d make a good therapist when I employed the Socratic method and basic philosophical practices. “You ask such good questions!” She didn’t understand that the questions I ask are questions that anyone with an understanding of philosophy asks themselves and others. I’ve gotten incredible value out of philosophy over the years, but everyone seems to attribute that value to anything except philosophy. My dad openly states that it has no practical value whatsoever and refuses to discuss it at all. Yet he praises me for asking questions and being skeptical of information, also not understanding that that skepticism is philosophical. To summarize, my interest in philosophy has been attacked from all sides from my childhood well into my adulthood. No girlfriend has ever appreciated it, I’ll tell you that much. Only one human being has understood it’s value, my best friend who is also interested in philosophy. Edit: I believe the focus on “being productive” is doing the most harm. In the US, at least, being unproductive is a terrible crime and you hurt your career and your social standing by daring to do things just because you want to do them. You need a reason for everything, and that reason usually comes down to money now or money in the future.

[@joshuakakooza5736]

Damn

[@Anonymoose66G]

The problem isn't productivity, productivity is beneficial, the problem is The USA only values short term productivity leading to dismay, this is not productivity, this is only sustained by a surplus of workers meaning once one eventually becomes unproductive you can bin them and repeat the cycle, boom and bust cycles, it annoys me how prevalent this type of thinking is society. Furthermore I'm interested in how your relationship with religion has changed with a pursuit in philosophy. I'd also like to hear your experience with philosophy as a degree and career, thanks.

[@Pyromaniac77777]

@@Anonymoose66G Yes, productivity is not the problem; the problem is a too-strong focus on “being productive” where productivity is defined either vaguely or in self-contradicting ways, and failing to achieve that nonsensical standard is punished socially and/or financially. For example my brother feels “unproductive” when he spends a Saturday with his wife and kids. It’s really sad to me that he’s been indoctrinated to the point of feeling guilty or ashamed of taking even a single day to prioritize his family. What he’s doing *is* productive, but he’s been taught that work is productive and anything that does not support or further his work is unproductive. I prefer not to discuss my relationship with religion or my career so I will be brief. I was raised with singular beliefs and taught to believe what I was told without evidence. I followed that path for many years. Now I believe in whatever manifests within reality, and whatever does not manifest is not manifest. If tomorrow the sun is blue I will ask the questions “what”, “why”, “how” and “what to do next” instead of insisting that it is still yellow. If it is yellow tomorrow but people insist that it is blue, I will ask “what”, “why”, “how” and “what to do next”. In either situation, any question that isn’t answered will be “unknown”, not “assumed”. Philosophy taught me that what I don’t know is infinitely larger than what I do know, and change is the only constant. I’ll revise that if someday change ceases to be constant, because I believe that if reality changes than so should my understanding of it. I don’t label my beliefs any particular way but I’d sum it up as “Zen Buddhism” as Alan Watts describes it.

[@Anonymoose66G]

@@Pyromaniac77777 Ok, thanks for the reply, I completely understand not wanting to discuss personal details. I find it mind boggling that your brother sees that scenario as unproductive, in my eyes that's a very productive day, the problem is people only tying productivity with monetary gain, we need to think about the societal, social, micro, macro and monetary gain accumulative, the way I see it a day with your wife and kid is highly productive because it's emotionally beneficial to every party involved, (which also increases monetary productivity) when you truly think about it that day means there's a stronger chance of remaining together thus a stronger chance of being reproductively successful (a bit of a weird analogy I know but the point is every decision we make is based on statistical analysis our brains do every second to pass on our genetics, that's why our morals are our morals, why we think how we do etc, evolutionary psychology intertwines with philosophy. This is why we deem days like these to be enjoyable etc.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

"Philosophy" is bad because the people in it are bad

[@tunes012]

Speaking as a previous undergrad in philosophy, I appreciate this channel not only for discussion but making my passion for it that much easier to maintain. It is also important that the field has as much exposure as possible.

[@Anonymoose66G]

May I ask about your career path and experience with doing an undergrad in philosophy? Did you go into law? What university did you go to? Did you enjoy it? How practical of an undergrad is it for your future career etc, any advice would be appreciated, thanks.

[@lpqsilver]

there's probably some selection bias here, but I have been surprised by how often i'll describe my understanding of the problem of the criterion, or metaethics, or other things which interest me to people around me and they respond by saying they have thought a little bit about that kind of idea and we then discuss it. at the very least, people usually express some interest. philosophers aren't weirdos with interests no one else has, they just happen to pursue those interests to a different degree than others for whatever reasons

[@libertyafterdark6439]

I think the truth is that there never was tons of engagement with philosophy, and there were always the “who cares about that rambling guy about truth and virtue, I need to eat” critics from its beginning through to today. We live in an age where science, being something that has improved peoples lives in very direct noticeable ways and gives us windows into potential futures that can be accessed direct via fiction. We’re comparing ourselves to the sciences when we engage in a practice which is fundamentally geared towards a totally different kind of end, one which the public will never be able to watch KZbin and write obscenely long comments on. You can argue that with the rise of political engagement we’ve seen an increase of interest in ethics and political philosophy, but since I see most of this engagement as instrumental (maybe the science engagement is as well?) I’m not really willing to count this group as being genuinely interested in philosophy - rather it seems they are interested in philosophical validation. If you are a metaphysician, you are basically just trying to figure out how to explain the things that everyone already takes for granted. Is reality real in a physicalist sense? Is it grounded in subjective idealism? Can we ever know? Who cares? I’m here and I need to eat. Now - I’m weird, I think that’s stuff is way too interesting to the extent I’ve curtailed my potential future eating capacity to pursue it. So just to reiterate, I think we have always been the weird ones, and that’s okay :)

[@KaneB]

>> I think we have always been the weird ones, and that’s okay Well, it's okay... until we need to eat, lol.

[@sunshineetall2611]

I'm a driving instructor with a English Literature major from a 3rd world francophone country yet I always find joy in listening to philosophy content even though I don't understand most of it.

[@unstablepc5913]

I don't know if people don't care about philosophy. My town's university periodically holds philosophical cafes where a philosopher will talk about a given topic in cafe to generally a full audience. Of course, the topics are specially selected to be of interest to people, much like an astrophysicist might not talk about dust redshift corrections in the optical domain to an audience despite the obvious general interest in space.

[@saintsword23]

I went to an amateur philosopher's meetup once. Never again. It was the most inane display of midwittery I've ever been part of. When I would get into making actual arguments they'd just dismiss me because I didn't have a citation for my original thinking. All they did was sit around quoting philosophers they didn't understand at each other instead of actually thinking about the topic. Imo this is the problem I've always had with philosophy culture: it's full of philosophy scholars and not philosophers.

[@Fanaro]

Great channel. One thing philosophers often do, even on KZbin, is overcomplicate things a lot and not exemplify with stuff in the real world. Without anything for you to feel emotionally connected to, nobody cares. Your videos seem to connect to the real world in a very practical way.

[@gabrielethier2046]

My guess is that philosophy seems impenetrable to some because of the amount of jargon that is used But considering how popular online debating is, there is still a tradition of public philosophy out there

[@dlotable]

People don't care about philosophy because they don't respect or want to emulate most philosophers. Having a PhD doesn't make you a thought leader and most academic publishing does not and will never matter. Also people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care and rightly so.

[@SgtPwnVids]

My first thought as a systemic solution- You could tie mentorship in philosophy to creating the “easy version” of papers or concepts. Then up and coming philosophers would create digestible and “getting to the bit people care about” literature about the groundbreaking theories of their mentors. That might create a pipeline that jumpstarts the public perception that is needed

[@flix1179]

My perspective is: Philosophy deals with issues in a WAY that people avoid, a hedonistic world does not suit philosophy, hedonism seeks to silence the critical voice of conscience (of their own conscience), not giving space for thoughts or reflections, therefore, checkmate A world that consists of being in a hurry for 5 days a week, for the 2 "Free" days, to look for things to cope with one's own life and one's own free day, these searches do not seek anything more or less than death itself, think, if you are in a hurry during the week, for it to end, and in the last days of it, you engage in activities to "anesthetize" life, man, you are living waiting to die, I'm sorry.

[@chrissmith9167]

What your saying sounds very elitist and a big reason why people outside of philosophy don’t get into it.

[@flix1179]

@@chrissmith9167 Actually, no, my point is quite the opposite. Philosophy does not segregate any thought, in it you find universals x particulars, empiricists x rationalists, metaphysicians x materialists, among many, you probably read my comment wrong, but I will rephrase it... Philosophy deals with problems that people seek to "cope" to talk to themselves, productivity, happiness, meaning, relationships, among others, philosophy is a means of thinking, or state of thinking, that most seek to avoid, like a cope greater, like"wasting time."

[@chrissmith9167]

@@flix1179 my apologies.

[@flix1179]

@@chrissmith9167 np bro love u too

[@horsymandias-ur]

Aristotle said philosophy is only possible under the auspices of leisure.

[@Garrett1240]

“What’s up dawgs?” 😂

[@examininglife4338]

Well done overall! 8:17 I'm not convinced that a philosophy KZbin channel or other media is a "waste" of a philosopher's time IF the monetary gain or the likeliness that some other fulfillment is met is greater via that route than pursuing academia

[@whycantiremainanonymous8091]

Between William of Ockham, who died around 1350, and Immanuel Kant, who published his First Critique in 1780 (and excluding natural philosophers, who wouldn't be considered philosophers today), no major philosopher, whose work is studied today, was a university professor. We might be approaching another similar period. I'm not sure it's a big loss.

[@KaneB]

Just to clarify, when you say that you're excluding natural philosophers, are you also excluding folks like Descartes and Leibniz who had a foot in both camps? If so, I can believe this... If not, that's remarkable.

[@joaokleberoliveira5272]

Maybe i'm wrong but i guess that the firts institucionilized philosophers in universities campi were the german idealists that came imediately after Kant (Fitche, Hegel...)

[@whycantiremainanonymous8091]

@@joaokleberoliveira5272 Kant was a lifelong professor in Königsberg. Back in the 13th and 14th century, "professor" wasn't quite an established idea, but all the major scholastics taught theology in the University of Paris.

[@whycantiremainanonymous8091]

@@KaneB Descartes and Leibniz studied in universities, but weren't university teachers. So yes, including those two. And, by the way, Kant also had a foot in both camps.

[@simbabwe2907]

Did you just exclude Heidegger?

[@chitranshsrivastav4648]

Maybe I am nobody

[@KaneB]

[Hume intensifies]

[@Eman_Puedama]

​@@KaneB Bhudda approves.

[@zacharyh.9565]

Okay Odysseus

[@real_pattern]

coherent physicalism agrees

[@rogerwitte]

I had an interesting message exchange (I think twitter, but don't remember for sure) with the blogger Lynneguist (aka professor M Lynne Murphy). She had been encountering analogous issues ... until the university noted that her blog was improving the reputation of the University of Sussex. Then the university changed her job title to include 'and public engagement' ... problem solved for her personally, although the generic issue remains.

[@KaneB]

This kind of thing is a positive development, I think. I wonder though whether, if she had been earlier in her career, the blog would have helped her get a job there in the first place. I rather doubt it...

[@Elta305]

I personnally like philosophy even if I am a student in computer sciences. I had philosophy lessons in high school (it is mandatory in France) and I liked it but I know a lot of people who didn't like it. Probably a lot of us are biased by philosophers in the media as in France we have BHL and others "philosophers" that are seen as imposters. I also think that a lot of people don't see the applications of philosophy because they don't associate philosophy as it should, they separate it from morality, religions, etc even if all of that is philosophy. I know that in AI in university there is an AI ethics course, idk if they make a link with philosophy but it is probably a good start. Furthermore sciences and philosophy shouldn't be separated. Einstein, Russel, and others were great philosophers too. In France we had Gaston Bachelard who also used science in philosophy.

[@newgarden1659]

Bien sûr et aussi t’as Deleuze, Descartes, Derrida et d’autres philosophes qui vient de France. En tant que musulman au moins c encouragé dans la religion elle-même de réfléchir (que ce soit ce que dit Dieu mais on peut interpréter que ça peut être appliqué pour tout dans la vie) un petit peu et de acquérir des connaissances juste pour avoir une idée générale du monde. Une idée faite par des humains pour les humains. Moi personnellement j’y connais rien en philosophie mais mon frère m’en parlait donc c tout quoi. Mais en tout cas bon courage avec tes études 🤝

[@Megaritz]

One asymmetry between science and philosophy, in their present state, is that there is a lot more pop science than pop philosophy. I can go into Barnes and Noble, and there’s a whole bunch of shelves of pop science books-but only a few shelves, at most, of pop philosophy books. I’ll try to remember to count them next time I go. Also there are a bunch of well-known pop science authors/speakers who have science credentials-but only a few well-known pop philosophy authors/speakers who have philosophy credentials. This is harder to quantify than the books, but I’m pretty sure it’s true. At least in the Anglosphere (I don’t know about, say, France). Among the people we might consider pop philosophy authors/speakers, they seem to be disproportionately (A) credentialed philosophers who are mainly famous for their highly controversial ideas (like Peter Singer), or (B) pseudo-philosopher hacks (like Matt Walsh). Offhand, I can’t name any current pop philosophy authors who don’t meet either of the above two qualities, although I’m sure there are at least some but not many. Bertrand Russell would presumably be an example, from an earlier generation. I think it’s fine to have some pop philosophy authors who are famous for their controversial ideas, but there should also be more pop philosophy authors who are famous for simply effectively bringing ideas and information on the practice to the masses, or suchlike. Also, to clarify, I also don’t think someone cannot be a philosopher or good philosophy author/speaker simply on the grounds that they lack philosophy credentials, but the credentials are (defeasible) evidence of quality. There are of course various demarcation issues as well-I have a broad conception of philosophy, so I think a lot of books are more-or-less philosophy books (of varying quality) even when they aren't marketed as such, but this is still distinct from being specifically on the present state of the discipline. I think a lot of philosophers these days would agree on the value of public philosophy. The main problem isn't ideological resistance (though I’m sure there is some), but mainly the incentives. So I'm glad there was some focus on that here.

[@BygoneT]

Does philosophy need actual "Professionals" so to speak? I never thought so.

[@zazenbo]

truthfully, it’s because many of the people that are interested in philosophy come across as so pompous and pretentious that most people think: “I… don’t want to be like that guy.” / the discourse surrounding (non-academic) media that touches upon philosophical themes is frequent enough that people can get their fill without having to deal with elitists

[@SympatheticMonster]

Just started the video, but from experience- public philosophy tends to be fairly unapproachable, vague in terms of what it offers, and chaotic. To draw a parallel, it's like going to a "gym" without a workout plan or a goal, or doing crossfit. You "exercise", eat like shit, fail to apply what you aim for outside of the gym area, and end up wondering why you fail to see any progress and only end up injuring yourself. People have an impression of what philosophy is, a skewed idea, and when newcomers join our club, they usually get trampled or come in with no battle plan. Entering a public philosophy group is like entering a gauntlet - it's not bunch of knights in shining armour engaging in honourable combat, it's an intellectual brawl. My strategy involves entering such a space with sky-high ego and desire to "win", casual philosophy clubs aren't made for "thinking", thinking is what you'll do once the show is over, once you step out of the ring, a philosophy club is like robot wars where you put your philosophy, your beliefs, your ideals to a test and either temper them or break them. Now I'm going to watch your video and see what you have to say.

[@mr_santurion7250]

I believe that this video only expands the views on acedemic philosophy. As philosophy, more than an acadamic subject is the sum of all the understanding and ways of viewing the world of oneself. And those ideas have to be expended one and put into action. Therefore many people are philosophes. So interest in philosophy has increased such as with self growth videos. But your video is genuily interesting and very enjoyable. Well done! And continue on!

[@John-dx8lt]

I’ll give you a hint.. It’s a lot harder to control ppl that can think for themselves 😅

[@wrog268]

personally I think that most philosophers forget the simple truth of the human condition that there are things we can't know and thus will never know. There for I think it is meaningless to speak about things with no uncertainty. I think what philosophers should focus on relations between thing for an example they should not say:"you must do this", but instead say "that if you are looking for long term happyness you should do this". Because what a man must do with his life is a question I think is likely unknowable or if a man claims he knows it he doesn't.

[@InventiveHarvest]

I have much respect for what you do, Kane. I would very much like to see a channel like this one, with an academic focus, for economics. As far as I can tell, it doesn't exist. The public has interest in economics, as it very much affects their lives, but the econ commentators out there are doing shady stock forecasting or political posturing (Paul Krugman) for example. Recently a journal, NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) had a conference where actual academic economists presented their papers. Instead of breaking the videos up by individual papers, they published six hours long live streams, with paper after paper after paper. Totally inaccessible. I am trying to muddle through it all to find stuff. Why? How hard would it be to cut the workshops into individual presentations? Anyway, there was one presentation that studied medical devices that had their level of regulation decrease. Not only did the devices become cheaper and more innovative, but they became safer as well. If the public understood this concept, we would live in a much better world. But, for now these things remain hidden behind the ivory tower. The point of all this is that what you are doing is awesome! Your videos advance and enrich society more than the academics do. And, I think you enjoy making videos more than you would doing research. So, win win. You also stand the opportunity to make more money (and personal power) than you could in an institution. I think you should monetize as much as possible. Find sponsors, sell merch. We want Kane B T-shirts with edgy quotes on them. We want Kane B chocolate bars. Make an empire where you can hire video editors and graphic designers if you want. This video reached 400 people in the first hour. That is power. Use your power for good. Open a service where academic philosophers pay you to present their paper on KZbin. The sky is the limit, and the best part is that where you go from here is entirely up to you. There are no institutions governing your actions - the world is yours!

[@kkounal974]

The medical device stuff seems mightly sus tbh, although i guess more context is needed to make judgements.

[@KaneB]

Thanks, I appreciate the support! Yes, I find that what I do on KZbin is much more fun and, frankly, more intellectually fulfilling, than writing journal articles. Not that I dislike writing articles in general, but I'm not so keen on how modern journals work. Kane B chocolate bars sound yummy...

[@InventiveHarvest]

@@kkounal974 the science is actually quite clear, but the public is steadfast in their socialist intuitions. Anyway, here is the paper in question. It's the second presentation in, starting at about the 17 minute mark: kzbin.infokfY4IEPiWGw?feature=share

[@kkounal974]

@@InventiveHarvest I quickly skimmed it because I'm going to sleep rn are they referring to some specific paper like one flashed ~39 minutes in? They divide equipment into classes based on how critical it being in good condition is, are they taking about all the classes? Also i don't understand what you mean by "socialist intuitions", there is nothing inherently socialist about regulation or standards for a product to be allowed in a market, socialism is about ownership of the means of production. Misusing the word is a red flag to me generally, (no matter one's political orientation that is), because it kinda of signals i want to attach positive or negative connotations to this unrelated thing by putting "socialist" before it. Then again maybe I'm being pedantic, goodnight.

[@InventiveHarvest]

@@kkounal974 ownership is deciding what happens to something. Property rights come in bundles that can be divided between multiple entities. Regulations are the government deciding what happens to it. I am including concepts like Bernie Sander's democratic socialism - it's a spectrum of government control. The classes in the paper are different levels of regulations. The study examines devices as they are moved to different classes of regulations.

[@LB-py9ig]

To be fair, much of modern philosophy is navel gazing. Might making right isn't a philosophical argument, but the hard-line opposition to it has led to outright dismissal of results. There is no merit to even discussing something like anti-natalism because it is innately self-defeating on purpose. Ideas that engineer the defeat of that idea do not have a value. Humans started thinking to improve their ability to survive. If overthinking something is leading to you eventually losing, stop wasting time thinking about it.

[@connorperrett9559]

The conception of science as having all-encompassing explanatory power has supplanted philosophy for the average person. Most people in developed nations seem to think that the Scientific Method can be applied to many things that it really cannot be applied to, and that anything the Scientific Method undeniably cannot be applied to is meaningless.

[@Sam-_-]

You’ve inspired me to pursue my Masters in Philosophy 🙏🏼

[@KaneB]

Nice, that's great to hear! Hope you enjoy it!

[@siddhartacrowley8759]

It was rather repelling for me. The academical enviroment sounds very strict and problematic for a person like me.

[@snnn2535]

@@siddhartacrowley8759 It is. I used to study a major in political sciences but ended up dropping because the academy enviroment was not only strict, but it also drifted away from the very goals and "spirit" it was suppose to pursuit. I am now dedicated to academy in a science faculty and it's not near as bad as it was when I started college within the humanist side of knowledge.

[@epicotakugamer4930]

what a waste of money

[@kipphz]

T-thanks, but reconsider!

[@deadman746]

It's more accurate to say people don't care for philosophers than that they don't care about philosophy.

[@TheoEvian]

Yeah the feeling of analytic philosophy being "higher order truths about schmess" is something that I get from time to time. But maybe it is more about the form of the arguments than the contents of them. However I have to say that this feeling that public outreach actually harms one's chances at getting a job in academia is something that I as a PhD student in Japanese literature feel too a lot. Like which member of the public actually cares about "fictional worlds theory" aplied on "Shono Yoriko's The Kompira" being published in a scholarly journal? And because the public never actually engage with what we do they think we are useless hence our funding gets cut etc.

[@ThePiotrekpecet]

Hey I usually don't comment but I've been watching (or maybe listening would be more appropriate?) to your videos and I'm really grateful for having been exposed to some concepts in your videos (particularly in epistemology). I do research in applied mathematics (mathematical statistics and probability) and I feel like considering philosophical questions makes me better at spotting conceptual issues with some statistical methods (which is relevant to my research in addition to just being interesting). Your channel may be the best on youtube in terms of laying out arguments for/against a particular positions, challenges/responses etc. in a somewhat fair and easy to understand manner (and actually presenting modern philosophy not going over plato's cave allegory for gazilionth time). Also at my institution there are incentives for popularising your area of expertise so I was surprised that there are no such incentives where you are. Thanks for your great work

[@mark110292]

Kane, could it be that public engagement (1) recruits novices to the field, (2) is a sort of quasi-experiment for ideas, and (3) a venue for those learning philosophy to improve their skills communicating abstract topics. I might add it could be a great service to the discipline if SEP and/ot IEP were to endorse and encourage some kind of forum arm to their site. One could see how an endowment for such could benefit the content-creators (perhaps philosophy grad students) and interested public.

[@KaneB]

(2) and (3) are definitely true for me, and although I don't have any studies with respect to (1), I've had plenty of people tell me that my videos inspired them to study philosophy in university.

[@mark110292]

@@KaneB Heartening to hear so for all three

[@TheDostoevskyWineShow]

Literature is also a great form of public philosophy. Philosophers such as Godwin, Sartre, Camus, Nietzsche, Proust and many others used novels to democratize their philosophical ideas. Richard Rorty (hate or love him) was a big proponent of the use of novels as a philosophical tool for the masses. In my opinion, nowadays, KZbin videos, podcasts and movies can also serve as a philosophical tools to spread philosophical ideas to everyone. Great video and hi from Brazil :)

[@ItsDemidover]

i think a big reason it feels like no one is engaging with philosophy is our current state of capitalism, so much pressure to not only make money but to always be increasing how much money you make due to the levels of inflation. Science and capitalism are much more compatible. And when people do engage with philosophy they’re encouraged to turn that hobby into a business, so when they create a youtube channel they’re encouraged by the algorithm to post so much content that it’s bond to be lower quality and standard then they’d actually like it to be, causing the overall conversation and thought to be of lower quality as well.

[@ItsDemidover]

and then this takes up half the discussion, then arguments arise, and nothing meaningful actually happens.

[@ItsDemidover]

it’s also how pretentious the community comes off

[@jimyeomans5716]

I don't have the citation on hand but there is some empirical evidence that the value of peer review as measured by future citations of work shows a massive gap between the best journals and the majority of journals. This is for hard science but is consistent with the point about corpus's ossifying in large fields. Maybe the current communication system doesn't even really by it's own standards.

[@karakukantsume]

ESOTERIC, adj. Very particularly abstruse and consummately occult. The ancient philosophies were of two kinds,-exoteric, those that the philosophers themselves could partly understand, and esoteric, those that nobody could understand. It is the latter that have most profoundly affected modern thought and found greatest acceptance in our time. ------- Ambrose Bierce "The Devil's Dictionary" (1911)

[@SuperSuperspoof]

Me as a mathematician, nodding along to most of this (especially the part where public engagement is not incentivized)

[@hegelsmonster5521]

Great video! Just a idea: why not a philosophic-academic publishing media as a vlog-journal? (of course with the academic duty to citate all relevant sources)

[@josephk.4200]

As a non-philosopher, my perspective of philosophy is that it is essentially irrelevant and masturbatory. The only real purpose or use Philosophy could have is to engage with the public and provide them with some practical applications for philosophy. I’m sure there are modern philosophers with useful ideas such as Zizek, but even he seems to have a hard time converting his discipline into something useful to regular readers. At times brilliant, at other times incomprehensible. Philosophers have made this mistake of having a unique language with a new word for every idea they have, which ends up being very ephemeral and impenetrable, seemingly even to other philosophers who have trouble translating and understanding each other I think. The only useful philosophical concepts I’ve seen are discussed in plain language, not technical jargon that each philosopher defines slightly differently.

[@n484l3iehugtil]

Agree with an addition: I find the jargon not only mostly unnecessary (but sometimes it is necessary just to differentiate different things), but also makes the text seem more credible than it really is, as the underlying idea doesn't really become more clear or valid in some cases.

[@zaquepifer2376]

*clicks philosophy video* "What's up dogs?" I was instantly caught off guard but drawn in

[@bds8715]

Until philosophy becomes a financially sound career choice it will never be respected by the public...

[@KaneB]

Yeah, it could be that the problem isn't so much that philosophers have failed to do enough public engagement, and more that the public just sucks.

[@bds8715]

@@KaneB that’s the view im leaning to 😅 seeing what asinine things get tons of views / subscribers while philosophical content gets hardly anything… philosophy is competing against the dopamine machine and can’t win 🫠 i don’t mean to be judgmental either; the masses are just following their bodily programming like me 😁

[@Nai-qk4vp]

@@KaneB Therefore you suck. Because, don't forget you're part of "THe PUBlic" too. I'm sorry but when you say that and when you treat yourself as being separate from the public, you come off as very arrogant and holier-than-thou. Just don't.

[@Nai-qk4vp]

@@bds8715 Dopamine "programming" doesn't exist. Humans are adaptable,, not mechanistic automatons You're not a slave to a neurotransmitter. The problem here is relational, not neurochemical. Change society and philosophy and people will find use and value in it. Social media thay promotes only short quippy bombastoc statement is one such obstacle. Lack of funding because philosophy isn't directly useful to capitalism and wage labour(even actively undermining it) is another. Change those instead of focusing on a chemical. And it is wrong-headed as the video assumes, that philosophy's engagement with the public doesn't come for free. It does. Philosphy underpins EVERYTHING. It is operated upon at every moment and informs our every action. It's only that those in power prefer that we forget that these are philosophies in the end and not "common sense" or"just the way things are". For instance: The current wave of transphobia for example, rests on the false assumtption that transgender people are the gender they were assigned at birth and not the truth that they are the gender they say they are. The falsehood has material impact, on policy like transgender people being denied healthcare, being forces to use the wrong bathrooms, and being harassed for it, being victims of violence and their agressors getting away with it thorugh the "trans panic" defense. Should the understanding of gender change to more than just "man=penis, woman=vagina" as it is now, policy would change. They would go into the right bathrooms,, people wouldn't call them "sir" when they clarified thay they are not a "sir" And the very way we think what men,women or other genders are. In ways we didn't even think possible. How we dress, speak, the things we like, hoe we think of other people and us would completelt change. Somethinf as imoortant and fundamental to people as identity is clear example of philosophy havinf use for the wider public.

[@saintsword23]

@@KaneB Close. It's that American culture, and perhaps just western culture as a whole, sucks. It's a materialistic society that lives for petty sensual indulgences. Philosophy doesn't help get more and better sensual indulgences so people don't care. Even though I patently disagree with his rejection of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche predicted this current state of affairs with uncanny accuracy.

[@freeloguy3387]

olisunvia is a KZbin channel run by a philosophy student. She talks about topics that are interesting to Gen Z kids.

[@joshuakakooza5736]

Didn't know she's a philosophy student but makes sense the way she talks

[@cariyaputta]

1. Most don't care about stuffs they can't directly observe. 2. Living is hard enough as it is hence there's little room for metaphysical speculations. 3. Human are excelled at mental gymnastics so that they don't have to deal with philosophical inconsistencies in their world view.

[@noonesomeone669]

Scientists have largely taken the place of philosophers in the public square in a society that is increasingly technocratic. The questions that philosophy is concerned with are often a hindrance to the mechanisms that modern society place on people. The breadth of philosophy and its technical language acts as more of a barrier to public engagement than what is present in science. It is a lot easier to publish a mass market book on scientific cosmology by omitting the mathematics and technical frameworks than to take a lay reader through a review of epistemology. A fundamental problem with philosophy is that it is much more about changing and examining how one thinks than examining physical phenomena or quantitative phenomena that is the hook for other public intellectual fields. More outreach and a reexamination of how to weave philosophy into commonly understood phenomena like media or recent history can help to bridge the gap between philosophers and the general public.

[@colbyboucher6391]

But... why? Why bother?

[@avninbar]

As a scientist (ok a scientist which is on the border of being experimental philosopher) I must object. First, a lot of science has no direct practical use it still face public critic but not has much. But I think the best example to where philosophy has filed is mathematics a filed that is in many ways is part of philosophy but still gets far more attention.

[@owenswabi]

How did people in the past interface with philosophy? It seems like such a large portion of what could be called “philosophy” is either highly politicized, commercialized, or forced

[@EpicMiniMeatwad]

As it always has been and will forever continue to be.

[@ph43draaa]

Because a lot of it descends into language games especially modern philosophy.

[@right_42]

bŕo started the video with "whats up dog" 😂😂

[@apes4days254]

The more people take ethics for granted, the more that society will begin to recess into an anti-critical state of understanding

[@supine2491]

Philosophy (lit. philo + sophos: "love of logic") was invented by the first/last non-anglophone philosopher Gottlob Frege in 1879. Many of the greatest minds to follow him went to great lengths to prove the meaninglessness/uselessness/impotence/fraudulence of philosophical speculation, writing, and, frankly, thinking as such. Wittgenstein is particularly loved. What's been important to philosophy through Russell and beyond was to place strict limitations on what philosophers are allowed to think about, or why, how. What remained was often the study of numbers, formulas and propositions in terms that mathematicians don't want, scientists don't need, and people could clearly never even begin to care about. Before the invention of philosophy by the English (oops, Frege), many used to call themselves philosophers but weren't actually saying shit. They are still being read after centuries, some by totally regular people. And if analytic philosophy could be defined through its presupposition that Hegel was never born, after some century or two, the new and hot thing is analytic Hegelianism. What will they discover next?! On the other hand, my national newspaper of record has actually asked, recently, in multiple prominent articles, what some philosophers think about the world -- unheard of for some decades. There's more good quality online (audio/video) content on philosophy than ever before. It's easier than ever to find online study groups for philosophy. Applications to my university's philosophy program are up some 40% over the last decade or so, coinciding with the retirement of some of its most aggressively oppressive analytic jihadists. There was a long-standing culture of McCarthyism: to read most philosophers, you had to get the fuck out of the philosophy department and get an English degree like all the other frauds. You would have been laughed out of (damn near banned from) the campus for writing your thesis on Heidegger 15 years ago. Was this cancel culture? It used to be the standard. It can't have been healthy. I agree with Liam Bright ("analytic") here: whatever analytic philosophy is or was, it should be considered more of a research programme, or a commitment to style over a substantive tradition. It is also already dead. Let's just start doing philosophy again. I'm being flippant, of course, but maybe this is more a cry for help for why your favorite band isn't that popular, their newest records getting no airtime. Maybe I like some of their records, prog/math rock is sometimes nice! And I myself am not a fan of the hegemony and dogmatism of this shallow Deleuzianism that you find in many humanist-academic-activist cliques. It just doesn't follow from this that people no longer like music. So far as I can tell -- and many data points support this -- people are more interested in philosophy than at any point in my lifetime. It seems they're less impressed by math, science and logic, or other such divine ideals as science wars & new atheist era intellectuals brandished. Trends come and go. There may be downsides to this (enter Jordan Peterson), but benefits and good reasons for it just as well.

[@lunarmodule6419]

As an avid "KZbin shorts" consumer - i can say lots are philosophers quotes. Of course im shown these because i like philosophy - but it's on KZbin. It's a start.

[@captainzork6109]

Regarding the quality standards of KZbin channels: In the Netherlands there's this KZbin channel by the Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS), which is a state funded but independent institution which makes a lot of high-quality, well researched and nuanced content. Basically it's a bit of journalism, which makes a lot of the complicated happenings in the world accessible to a broad audience in easy to understand language. Essentially, they produce explainers. Personally, I'm very proud and happy to be a Dutch person because of our strong state-funded institutions. But in any case, that channel may be a good model for public philosophers to go by

[@timmyt1293]

Nationalism is pathetic, bad philosophy. Stop doing it.

[@cyberneticbutterfly8506]

Similar problem is the lack of long form debate. It's not possible in modern society to for people to naturally gravitate to long term stuff. You actually have to *incentivize* thinking that takes effort

[@daniel-zh4qc]

Nice - glad this came up in my feed - just got a phd in philosophy - as you know in the 20th cnetury anglophone world, analytic philosophy and abstract high end formal theorizing about logic and language took over the departments across the states ... The mode of discourse, language use, vocabulary became so arcane and abstract - largely to give a patina of serious scientific-like study to philosophy during a period when the sciences were taking off....the disciples became detached from reality in a way that would have horrified Plato or Aristotle. Here philosophy became depoliticized and turned inwards into a neo-scholasticism...... Sartre says philosophers are beholden to the heuristic defining their socio-historocal world....and i think neoliberal capitalism and positivism were the heuristic defining th 20th century and they very much captured philosophy in the english world.... I mean Rawls is political philosophy at its best??? Good news, the social heuristic is changing and i am excited to see what comes My theory is with chat gtp and ai and all that that in 150 years everyone is going to be a philosopher in a true sense just like Kant or Wittgenstein stated ....all that will be left to debate will be the "big" ontological, epistemological, and ethical debates and so philosophy talk will be the new common language (you already see this happening, qed this channel and others) Also for a tip for changing things ---- programs need to emphasize teaching more.... Im a great teacher but programs dont care about that, its all the publications so you get all these super nerds teaching courses and they turn all students but strange nerds away from the field.... Ive had hundreds of students take a class and say "man i hated philosophy bc my last teacher was so arcane and speaking too abstractly, and i just hated it, but then i took your class and i love it!".... Too many people shoving quine, russell, putnam down students throats in intro classes, when really your undergrad courses should be about striking interest.... if anything universities need to add a general non specialized intro to phil course.... in either case its too bad when they hire they don't care about teaching ....

[@moviereviews1446]

Are you seriously a PhD in philosophy? If you are then it is no wonder why your field has been relegated to a university department masturbation.

[@riceballs_walmart]

I don't know but someone who is trying hard to persue theoretical physics i am deeply in love with philosophy becuz even physics used to be called natural philosophy back in the days and mathematics also arrived from philosophers clearly helped in creation/curiosity for science. While philosophy is a subject i still take it as an important thing to consider, i am not good at English much i hope i was able to convey my views and feelings.

[@Omer-is6my]

The painting in the thumbnail is from Fikret Moulla.

[@Philosophuncultist]

Is there data to show that public interest in philosophy has actually decreased? I know that Magee had his TV show in the 70s and 80s, but I don't believe philosophy was ever all that popular with the public. I will place this to one side. My personal experience has made me cynical of lay-persons and their interest in philosophy. In the main, people get second-hand embarrassment when they find out that I studied a masters in philosophy, and they want to switch the topic. I find most people to be materially driven, and they expect bread-on-the-table practical value from graduates. Commonly, they ask, What have you done with that [an education in philosophy]? This is actually code for: What utilty do you contribute to society? They seem rather unconvinced that philosophy can equip someone with employable and transferable skills. The lay-person wants to see a service or product that is useful to them, and can turn a profit, otherwise they aren't really interested. In their view, philosophers engage in a wishy-washy navel-gazing exercise that spends all of its time pondering ridiculous questions that will never be answered. Philosophers are thought of as not engaging with anything substantial, nor anything important to people's everyday lives. In addition, they simply see no relation between philosophy and the other academic disciplines, and they often think of mathematics and hard science as polar opposites to philosophy. Therefore, I see the problematic as a far more embedded one, and it is located in the general attitudes of the masses. Will improved public outreach do much to heal this reputation? I am not sure but I think the repairs that need to be made are quite severe. *Sigh*

[@KaneB]

>> Is there data to show that public interest in philosophy has actually decreased? Honestly? I have no idea! You're right: this assumption could be completely wrong. A lot of philosophers these days seem to think that there is a crisis in the public appreciation of philosophy, but perhaps things have always been this way, and there are plenty of alternative explanations for problems such as cuts to the funding of philosophy departments. Anyway, it's unfortunate, but definitely not surprising to me, that your experiences talking about philosophy have been so negative.

[@Philosophuncultist]

@meursaultroquentin3012 @meursaultroquentin3012 I like the name, Nausea is a brilliant novel. My answer is derived from my experience and my research, so you have to consider that outcomes may vary. I studied Analytic philosophy in two respected UK departments. You can expect to finish your degree with the best technical writing capabilities and oration skills of any degree, and the second best logical training of any degree (mathematics coming first). In short, if you tested graduates from all the disciplines, then philosophy graudates would score the highest of any humanities degree on a quantative measure and would score very highly overall on both analytic and verbal measures. If you took the results of the best graduates, then you would find that they study: Physics, mathematics, enginnering, economics, and philosophy. This is not simply my opinion, you can look it up. Unfortunately, the job market is both inefficient and irrational and doesn't reward graduates based on their abilities, unless they shine brightly in the quantative measure; mathematics. This usually doesn't include formal logic, for businesses aren't interested in the truth, they are interested in persuasion and sales. Therefore, the best thing for you to do is to have good A levels in mathematics or to combine your degree with mathematics to increase you chances of getting rewarding employment. Mathematics is hard, so why do I give such a poor assessment of the job market? Data suggests that mathematics graduates are the second most rewarded in terms of their post-degree salary, and this is well deserved. If you study engineering, then you are also likely to get a good salary, and it is well deserved. However, if you study physics, then you fall to mid-table, despite the quality of its graduates and the mathematical difficulty of the course. In fact, physics graduates stand near philosophy gradauates as averagely employable with an okay salary. Therefore, don't overly stress yourself about it, for I know many philosophy graduates on a decent wage. Nevertheless, the real scandal is realised when we see the most financially rewarded degree, economics. Economics graduates are head-and-shoulders ahead of the competition with average prospects three times as good as those that studied mathematics. The great con is that economics students do not need to write well, nor do they need any knowledge above A level mathematics, and yet, they are so massively favoured. All this data was recently released by the BBC and is not purely based on my opinion. The question is why? I guess economics sounds of relevance to the business world, which it certainly is not, whilst physics and philosophy graduates are treated comparatively poorly. Above all, nevermind the degree you studied, the best thing of all is who you know! This world is very corrupt and if you can use cronyism/nepotism and networking to your advantage, then do it. Unfortunately, this method tends to favour the social butterfly, and not autistics like myself who have to rely on sheer will and ability. On the whole, I hope this helps you materially weigh up what is worth it to you.

[@sirbaguette8378]

As the person above asked... What are these employable and transferable skills? Sure, it provide soft skills like thinking critically, writing well and considering moral/ethical implications... But many science fields already do this. A good chunk of assignments consist of essays and in order to write a scientific research paper/thesis, one needs to be able to be concise and write well anyways. Any science field that involves humans/animals requires considering ethical implications. And to be in a scientific field, you must have the ability to think critically in order to assess the strength of scientific theories and research methodologies, among other things? What are such skills provided by a degree in philosophy not covered by any other degree??

[@Philosophuncultist]

@@sirbaguette8378 I don't believe philosophy equips you with skills that aren't found in other degrees. The only stand-out is training in sentential logic. I don't think it matters all that much, for instance, unless a science student goes on to work in a lab, then all that work is not transferable. Despite saying this, on average the philosophy student is worse than most science students when tested quantatively, but superior to most science students when tested for analytical skills and verbal comprehension. When the scores are averaged physicists tend to come out on top, and philosophers tend to sit just below them (still above the other science disciplines though). From anecdotal evidence, I studied philosophy of physics at Bristol university, and the physicists in my class could write rather well, but they were not held to the same standard as required by philosophy. Simply, if one puts the mathematical formalism to the side, philosophy essays require a much higher level of conceptual analysis. I put it to you that there aren't that many physicists who write books like Timothy Williamson writes about philosophy. Physics books are full of formula and don't tend to investigate their theoretical assumptions in-depth. In short, I refer you to the argument I gave above because I don't have much more to say about it.

[@lamorthonyfairyfriend4082]

I agree that philosophy wasn’t ever that popular. At least for what I’ve heard from others, they don’t see philosophy as valuable due to the job opportunities. I’ve always thought it was alarming because I thought it was important just for the sake of it. Maybe it’s just the people around me, though.

[@skeletorlikespotatoes7846]

And even now...as science becomes more and more obscure it is returning to philosophical ideas that preceded it and predicted what it is facing now.

[@quagmiretoiletgaming]

since when is science becoming more obscure bub edit: nvm i think i understand what u are saying now

[@skeletorlikespotatoes7846]

@@quagmiretoiletgaming just mean it gets more abstract and difficult to measure empirically the behavior

[@the11382]

The people I talk to tell me that philosophy is a bunch of edge cases that cannot be proven or disproven, or that you are better off asking a scientist instead.

[@tutubism]

really depends on every individual population of human beings on this planet. keep in mind that people are different (not by physical means, like looks or beauty. i mean this in terms of the mind/mental or thinking processes). genetic & environmental factors play a role in human neurodiversity which could explain why most people have differing personality, communication styles & all sorts of other social behaviours. i'm obviously not an expert (more of an enthusiast of education or learning & gaining information/knowledge) but i'd still encourage those who are curious in this sort of field or subject to do their own research & dig deeper into the world of neuroscience if you want to get in depth about how the brain actually works not just in humans but other living organisms as well. other than psychology.

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

Reading the book series called "The Library of Living Philosophers" by Paul Arthur Schilpp will emphasize for neophytes that contemporary philosophers are a thing and engaging with contemporaneous topics and at best almost technical for average readers of western canonical books of philosophy. You can see biographies of Rudolf Carnap, C.D. Broad, G. E. Moore, George Santayana, Dewey, Russell, Einstein with focused in his philosophical development and his formulations of General and Special theory of Relativity that will interest both philosophers and scientists alike; Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Brand Blanshard, Clarence Irving Lewis, Karl Jaspers to major continental philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre, Paul Ricoeur and Hans-Georg Gadamer; Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Paul Weiss, to other more major analytic philosophers like Donald Davidson, Michael Dummett, P.F. Strawson, Roderick Chisholm, Jaakko Hintikka, A.J. Ayer and Willard Van Orman Quine; Marjorie Grene and to more literary figure like Gabriel Marcel.

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

Oh, I also forgot my other favorite philosophers Hilary Putnam--- Putnam a scientific realist and later pragmatist. I heavily appreciate pragmatism since it actually tries to put theories into practice. For example there are a lot of theories about politics but most politicians don't necessarily apply those theories. So basically pragmatism is a theory about theory putting into a practice.

[@Altitudes]

Daniel Dennett only wrote about people not caring about chess variants because he threw a tantrum after getting destroyed at duck chess. Probably.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

The reason philosophy is dismissed is because it has not produced a single new idea since the 1960s, after Mach defined Logical Positivism, and this took over the sciences. The rejection of positivism by philosophers in the 70s meant that their field is doomed to irrelevance, as they degenerate into arguing positivistically meaningless things.

[@StreetfighterU]

The main reason is that humans are naturally pragmatic creatures. Academic philosophy is limited in the sense that it doesn’t always translate in the real world when people have to deal with paying bills, getting jobs and vice versa. Academic philosophy and pragmatic philosophy (the real world) clash. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t an intersection between them, but it just means Academic philosophy becomes quickly outdated when you value the human experience and the personal philosophy that comes with it.

[@luisvasquez5015]

We could peer review KZbin channels, podcasts, etc. This is basically what institutional channels already do (for example, by sharing recordings of talks and lectures)

[@yourfutureself3392]

Great video. Where is the link to the article you mention during the video?

[@juicyjames2074]

There are societal issues that the public are concerned that could be resolved or engaged in philosophy. Talking about how western philosophy and society has lead to a more corrupt version of love would get more public engagement since they are obsessed with loves

[@conradgarcia6874]

I think the main problem concerns human thinking and behavior. Humans are strongly normative. Likes to assert a right or a wrong when there's no apparent empirical or logical solution at hand. So they make their own systems, rules, ideologies, culture and from this mixture comes operative behavior. Ants have a symmetrical system. What's valuable to an ant today is still valued a million years ago and a million years after. Now, philosophy has been such a valuable system. Science and technology won't exist without it. And yet, just because philosophy is undergoing issues scientists and the public tend to create normative judgments like "Philosophy is useless." or Philosophy is dead." or "Philosophy needs to go." The question is are these statements normative or positive. The obvious answer is they're normative. Scientists are humans too. Though they may extract positive information with scientific results, these statements aren't scientific but under the logical space.

[@eliad6543]

15:15 I completely disagree on this point - the engagement with the public has to be bidirectional. In the realm of what's intended for public engagement, the public's opinion should matter, and it doesn't matter that they're "not qualified". In the journals it'll be up to the experts, but for philosophy to be in actual engagement with the public, the academics will have to value the opinion of "laypersons" a whole lot more. You can't stay aloof of contemporary culture and politics while also having an impact on it. You either influence it and be influenced by it, or stay detached both ways. More public engagement will be to give much more room to the first option, and this requires giving the public some credit and influence, as contradictory as it may be to the quality of output as perceived from within academia. This is not ideal, it's not a good choice to make either way, but I don't really see a way to bypass this without fooling yourselves.

[@lunarmodule6419]

You got 27k views! It kinda totally contradict the premise :-)

[@justzisguy]

People love philosophy, but academic philosophy deserves its crisis.

[@SeriousGamingFreak]

Interesting what you said. Why does this idea of “philosophy” need to be converted to a career choice where someone could make a livable income? Seems ironically disingenuous. The only acceptable motivation of being philosophical should be to expand on existing information and not to dick around uselessly for a paycheck.

[@SeriousGamingFreak]

I could image the reaction religious people would have if someone made a similar argument regarding the relevance of religion and being able to have an income because of religion.

[@justzisguy]

@@SeriousGamingFreak I think this is why the vow of poverty exists for priests (at least in theory lol)

[@erwingunther2569]

I feel like philosophy is the most important thing to learn.

[@badart3204]

I think philosophy is more popular than ever however it’s not the kind I think you are advocating for. People desire systems for how to live life due to the decline in religion and traditional systems more than what you seem to be interested in. That’s why surface level stoic philosophy and Nietche’s work is gaining more interest

[@yuriythebest]

I think you should differentiate more between "Academia Careerist Philosophers" and "Philosophers"

[@thedog5k]

It's so pretentious too. H'es trynna flip all the people making fun of PH degrees.

[@a.i.l1074]

I am interested in philosophy, I understand what they do, but I see a lot of philosophers who believe weird things for reasons for ridiculous reasons. Every time philosophy discovers something true and useful, it branches off and becomes a separate, more interesting, subject.

[@scambammer6102]

philosophy hasn't discovered anything since it branched from science

[@a.i.l1074]

@@scambammer6102 I'm counting the social sciences as having at least some verifiable results which would previously have been philosophy. In my line of work, I use psychology which is often directly downstream from philosophy, but it has been verified and a profession built around it

[@arunjetli7909]

@@a.i.l1074BS who sets the premises for any research, and who draws the perimeters ? Are you satisfied the lies peddled by New York Times when it passes it’s propaganda as objective truth. The soundness of the narrative is based many times prejudices that are subliminal. Only critical thinking can get you near the truth if not exactly to it.The media is a labyrinth of agendas posing as objective reality. It gets you into wars Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine by pushing “ morality “ the last refuge of scoundrels like J S Mill is politics where you can speak with a forked tongue Do you have the tools to question this juggernaut of canards

[@SeriousGamingFreak]

⁠Was it Science then Philosophy or Philosophy then Science?

[@scambammer6102]

@@SeriousGamingFreak originally science was part of philosophy called natural philosophy (from the Greeks). They split gradually starting in about 1600 with Galileo and Descartes, when science adopted a specific epistemological model, ie the scientific method (forming and testing hypotheses).

[@lipingrahman6648]

The history of Philosophy and of the individual freaks that philosophers tend to be is far the more interesting than necessarily anything philosophers believed in. I have been fascinated by Nietzsche, not for his beliefs but how much of a freak he was and his pathetic end always gave me a smile. Since the public has no interest in what philosophers believe, rightly so, than for Philosophy to get some attention and or to be useful to the public philosophers should present the power struggles, failures, strange superstitions, and freaky lives of the philosophers. It could be a sitcom, it would certainly buy that for a dollar.

[@chongology1602]

What a uniquely retarded comment

[@jursamaj]

Not only does the public have no idea what philosophers do, philosophers don't either. Go ahead, ask them. You'll get a broad range of answers, many of them not really saying anything meaningful at all. Indeed, that itself is why so many are dismissive of philosophers: modern "philosophy" consists mostly of cataloging what old philosophers said. Philosophers never examine those old philosophies, and figure out whether they have actual value. They never come to any sort of consensus. Dietrich got it right: There is no Progress in Philosophy!

[@Avengerie]

Kane B: “Many people are dismissive of philosophy” Me: “Hmmm, I wonder what happened to Kane A?”

[@riceboybebop7018]

Wassu dawg. Highest compliment as i wanna be like diogenes

[@rusty6172]

I typed up a lot of why I don't think proper philosophy interests me as someone that has engaged in thousands of hours of public philosophy, but didn't post it because I was afraid of sounding ignorant. I'll just say that public philosophy seems to get to reality orders of magnitude faster than proper philosophy, and is therefore more relevant to people who do things other than philosophy. It also seems to skip over the obviously-outdated material in favor of the obviously-superseding material. I have a pet peeve for obviously outdated material, I simply will not study it unless it has interesting bearing on what still exists. I'm not trying to be a historian of philosophy, afterall. I guess philosophy just seems overly concerned with finding the knowability of reality rather than the reality of reality.

[@jeffk3746]

I think philosophers just need to accept that they are a minority and that’s fine. Most people just aren’t interested in these subjects

[@MinishMan]

See I think the public engagement and career aspect is why I'm most interested in Political Economy. Access to the resources required for a flourishing life - both in terms of the material needs of food, drink, shelter and space and a fulfilling way to spend one's time, social ties etc - just seems to be completely dominant over every other sphere of human existence in our age. It's been most telling for me when it comes to AI. This is a new technology with probably extremely revolutionary possibilities across all human domains, but what are most people searching? What are most people writing guides and making websites on how to use it? To get a job, do a side-hustle, improve business performance, cheat the stock market.... Totally banal, pointless, stupid uses. Le sigh.

[@joejackson969]

Yeah m8 people need money cuz they have to eat. Can't blame them for that.

[@unhingedconnoisseur164]

there's something which i dont really understand about dennett's "chmess" example (although i have yet to read the article so it could be just me being ignorant), but isn't the original chess itself kind of completely useless?

[@bastiancu2365]

We have convinced ourselves that we don't have time to have fun and enjoy life. That instead, we are meant only to work and produce "useful" things to society. I would like to say more, but my words are lacking

[@SmellySquid]

Can I have a link for the slowing of larger fields?

[@szefszefow7562]

I think we should stick to analytic philosophy - maybe it wont be a banger among teenagers or "the public" but why would that be considered a problem. String theory also isnt popular due to its complicated maths, but thats not why its valuable. People need popular philosophy even if its gibberish like existentialism, but answering the sorts of questions like "what is the meaning of life?" and the nature of freedom and all that isnt the only value of philosophy. And this kind of philosophy can be done even by people untrained in philosophy. What can't be is a clear analysis of some important concepts, or philosophy of science from which we also expect a certain standard of clarity. Analytic philosohy isnt all that philosophy has to offer, but this way of doing philosophy is very desireable, at least in some contexts. Many people condemn it, but i think this might be the biggest mistake philosophers can make

[@GigasGMX]

That’s interesting; I always thought that “publish or perish” was a phenomenon limited to the sciences.

[@kingassassin7953]

The same can be said of any esoteric discipline.

[@JoakimfromAnka]

Yo Mr Baker you must do more discussions with youtubers *cough* Aarvoll *cough* Distributist *cough*

[@nevetstrevel4711]

People are really into psychology history politics sociology anthropology social psychology theoretical physics etc. In the past and for most of human history all of those things would have been considered philosophy. So the real question is why even have a philosophy degree at all? Why have a philosophy department? If philosophy broke into pieces, various subdivisions then what is "philosophy" anymore? If I was thinking of sociology or poli sci, why should I go to philosophy instead? If I can hear a sociologist speak or a philosopher which o e do I go to?

[@KaneB]

There are plenty of questions in modern philosophy that aren't answered by the sciences. Also, I'm somewhat skeptical of the view that the sciences were once part of philosophy and then broke away from it. I suspect this is an illusion that arises from three facts: (1) It's true that in the past, the fields that we call the sciences were often treated as a branch of philosophy, but they were specifically classed as "natural philosophy". That is, a distinction was drawn between what we today would call philosophy and what we today would call science, but both types of inquiry were given the label "philosophy". It's not so much that science broke from philosophy, more just that the labels changed. (2) In the past, there was far less specialization. The same scholar would often contribute to a variety of different fields. We look at philosophers like Aristotle, see that they were dealing with topics that are now covered by physics and biology, and this gives the impression that such topics were once the domain of philosophy. (3) Even if science cannot answer a particular philosophical question, it may significantly influence how we approach that question. For instance, I don't think that science in itself is going to solve the problem of induction or the problem of external world skepticism. But since many people think that science is one of our most reliable tools for delivering knowledge of the world (that if we can trust any method of empirical inquiry, we can trust science), it's generally held that any attempt to solve those problems needs to entail that there is scientific knowledge as well. I'm not denying that there are some questions that were once the domain of philosophy, that have now been answered by science. But the impression people sometimes have that philosophy once had far broader scope, that over time science has intruded on philosophy's domain and solved its problems, and that modern philosophers are left with irrelevant dregs, is largely a myth.

[@veganphilosopher1975]

I think interest in AI is a good area for philosophy and even psychoanalysis to make a come back. My degree was cognitive science which was an attempt at a interdisciplinary mind study ( no philosophy unfortunately)

[@sirbaguette8378]

Where I'm studying (in Ireland) it's actually quite the opposite. I've met students from varying disciplines (such as neuroscience, psychology and computer science) choose an MSc in cognitive science because they wanted to enhance their knowledge of their own field and how it relates to other fields. However, apparently their main criticism was that it focused TOO MUCH on philosophy.

[@lunarmodule6419]

Of course i have to take you back to your premise : How do we know people are less interested in philosophy? Do we have numbers? (Im playing Socrates here lol)

[@aarantheartist]

I actually think it’s kind of a myth that people don’t care about philosophy. There are more people studying philosophy now than ever before. It’s true that not everybody cares about philosophy, but you can say that about any topic. It’s also true that most lay people don’t care about philosophy, but, again, you could say that about History, Mathematics, even Science. You mentioned the practical application of science gives people a reason to care about it. I don’t think so. I like my smart phone, but I’ve no idea how it works, and I don’t really care for the science behind it. I don’t know that philosophy is any different to other subjects in how much people care for it. I like your ideas about encouraging outreach from academia though.

[@KaneB]

People don't need to care about science in the sense of learning anything about it. The point is that if people care about smartphones, and they think that science gets the credit for smartphones, then they'll likely be happy for their taxes to go towards funding science departments.

[@cbbcbb6803]

I enjoy reading philosophical writings occasionally.

[@lorenzomizushal3980]

Mainly because it doesn't pay. Go back a few hundred years and ask the question to the peasants. There's simply no time to spend on something that isn't entertaining or puts food on the table. It's a sad fact that philosophy is mostly for those with enough money to be able to spend time without worrying about money so you can study such pursuits. Looking back in history most philosophers were either wealthy or from a family that had enough money. Sure there are probably outliers but not enough to disprove the general trend.

[@KaneB]

Sure it does. There are people who are employed as professional philosophers. I want to ensure that this continues to be the case, and I think that greater public engagement will help with that. I also think there are plenty of people outside of professional philosophy who find philosophy entertaining.

[@KaneB]

@@thotslayer9914 Philosophy departments at universities.

[@lorenzomizushal3980]

@@KaneB yeah, mostly people who don't have to worry about money, dude. You need a lot of time unemployed, and it's quite competitive. You're risking a lot for a chance, not a certainty, to get that spot. And guess which types of people can get there? Those who have enough money to not worry about being unemployable. They're never poor people.

[@KaneB]

​@@lorenzomizushal3980 Rich people will have a better shot at success, but that's the case in pretty much all fields. I was able to do my philosophy MA and PhD because I got funding from a research council. I would like such things to continue to be funded, so that other people can make money doing philosophy.

[@sehr.geheim]

​@@KaneBWell, then let's first eliminate the system that gives rich people privilege and then we can give everyone a shot at philosophy :D

[@murderparker7968]

Anyone know who painted the art in the thumbnail? Thanks in advance.

[@martinbennett2228]

For at least the last 500 years many philosophers have despaired of the lack of progress in philosophy when compared to other, particularly scientific, disciplines. For at least the last two and a half thousand years too many philosophers have reinforced the notion that philosophy is useless by appearing to say or actually saying that we cannot know anything and that anything expressed in philosophy are equally valid or invalid matters of opinion. Some quite celebrated and even notorious 20th and late 19th century philosophers have bolstered this impression. There is a terrible tendency for the subject to be bogged down by subjectivism. The continental philosophies for whom Husserl is their antecedent are among the worst offenders, unfortunately Husserl's 'epoché' was 180° wrong, rather than embrace phenomenological subjectivity, laying objectivity to one side, he should have done the opposite. In order to be obviously relevant to general understanding, specialised understanding and personal understanding, philosophy needs to tackle the challenge of objectivity and put to one side the futility of subjectivity.

[@KaneB]

I'm not concerned about lack of progress compared to science, and I don't see any value in philosophers emulating scientists anyway... at least, I don't see any value in all philosophers doing that; it might be fun for specific groups of them to do that. I think that people can find traditional philosophical questions engaging, even if there is no hope of progress in the sense of convergence on a single answer. Anyway, I might be misinterpreting you, but it seems as if you're suggesting that philosophers should dismiss precisely those questions that I find the most interesting, e.g. the sorts of questions raised by radical skeptics. My bet is that there are plenty of people outside academic philosophy who find those questions interesting as well: it's just a matter of reaching out to them.

[@martinbennett2228]

​@@KaneB Although I am also reflecting my own perspective, I am trying to explain in part, why there are problematic public perceptions of philosophy. - Why take heed of philosophers if they cannot agree amongst themselves? It could be that popular perceptions of the subject is that it is more disparate than in practice, in the English speaking world, it actually is. My teaching is part of a multilingual baccalaureate system in which Philosophy, Mathematics are compulsory (as are a first and second language). Apart from their own intrinsic value, I see these subjects as supportive of the other academic disciplines with an emphasis on justifications for knowledge. At the outset, after explaining that a number of introductions to philosophy take some length in failing to explain what the subject is, I (rather prescriptively) define philosophy as the study of what it is possible to know and how we can know it. The radical scepticism of Descartes (we study the first two Méditations in detail) is seen in the context of Descartes' overall aim of establishing a solid foundation for all knowledge of 'The World' and not as an end in itself that inevitably reduces to solipsism. I am not sure whether you have misconstrued me, however I do think that without constructive answers there is a danger of disappearing down a rabbit hole without issue. This is not really what I find in your (sometimes over long) videos: what impresses me is the balanced and informative consideration that you give to alternative or competing perspectives. I am aware that philosophy in the French section, as it apparently is in France, is rather different, but seems to be unpopular amongst the French students in our school. Incidentally, for this years baccalaureat français, students had 4 hours to address questions: 'Is happiness an affair of reason?' or 'To want peace, is it to want justice?' Although the second question could be reasonably answered by a general overview of political philosophy, I can see how easily both questions might invite a tedious mish-mash of unfocussed generalities.