It
may not be true that philosophers are no longer interested in big questions like ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’, ‘Where did the
universe come from?’, ‘What is our place in the world?’, and ‘What makes a life
meaningful?’, but even if some of them are still tackling these problems, they
are likely to be doing so in such a way that it is not easy for lay people to
see that it is these big questions that they are trying to answer.
For
one thing, it is likely that these philosophers have analyzed the big questions
into manageable smaller problems and are working on these smaller problems
without making clear how they are related to the big questions (probably because
they themselves are not yet clear about how the relation between these problems
should be understood). For another, they are so used to writing for the
readership of fellow philosophers (assuming background knowledge, using jargon,
etc.) that the way they write may not be accessible to lay people.
Professionalization
is good for philosophers at least to the extent that it allows them to have
extensive intellectual interactions and, relatedly, intellectual division of
labor.* If not being accessible to lay people is the price for enjoying these
benefits of professionalization, philosophers may be willing to pay it. On the
other hand, it is not unreasonable to ask what philosophers have to offer to
those lay people who care to think about, or are even troubled by, the big questions, for philosophers are in the best position to tackle
these problems. After all, they have got the training and, thanks to the professionalization
of philosophy, the time needed to tackle these problems.
For
people who want to have answers to the big questions, many of
these questions are ultimately about how we should live our lives. It would be
expecting too much if we expect philosophers to be wise people in the sense
that they are able to see through all the vanities, illusions, and foolishness
that are common among human beings, and
live accordingly. In other words, it would be expecting too much if we
expect philosophers to set examples of how we should live our lives. It is
reasonable, however, to expect philosophers to be able to analyze problems
clearly, avoid confusions and mistakes in thinking, and draw conceptual
connections when necessary, so as to obtain whatever knowledge and
understanding that can be obtained by human beings concerning some important
general aspects of the world and human life ¾ to give good answers to some of
the big questions. And people may find these answers helpful in
determining how they should live their lives.
So,
the question is: How many professional philosophers would feel obliged to meet such
a reasonable expectation?
*
Of course, the professionalization of philosophy has its dark side. As Barry
Stroud points out, the professionalization of philosophy was made possible by the
connection between philosophy and the university; and since “what universities,
even the best universities, now demand from individual professors, on the
whole, is quantity of publications, frequency of citation in the professional
literature, widely certified distinction in the profession, and other
quantifiable measures of an impressive resume”, this “ has rendered much more of philosophy sterile, empty, and
boring” (Stroud, “What is Philosophy?”).
