May 22, 2005
I have for several years circulated the URL to your article to
people in and outside academia, but only philosophers have said
that they immediately remember similar situations. However,
before I go on, I must say that I have good memories from most of
the philosophical discussions I have taken part in. We
philosophers can be generous, and admit to our shortcomings,
too. And few intellectual experiences can be as exhilarating as a
truly open and dynamic discussion in philosophy. But there is a
residual problem which demands an explanation.
Why is philosophy a blood sport? For once Henry Kissinger may
have a point. When he was asked why academic debates often turn
nasty, he said 'because the stakes are so low!'. They are not
relevant to money, power or love. But Kissinger did not go to the
heart of the matter.
Power and money are often only means to an end – pride in one's
standing. The best way to achieve a high standing is, of course,
to be eminently good at what one does. However, since many see
this as a zero-sum game, putting others down is another way – and
much more fun (some think). If the subculture condones this, it
tends to spread. But if going for the jugular becomes the norm,
philosophy suffers, and we all have a duty to prevent this.
Best,
Ole Martin Skilleås
Prof. of Philosophy
University of Bergen, Norway
|