Sorry Justin, I only just saw your reply and I see what you mean. I’d apologize for the annoyance behind my initial comment, but so much of what philosophers seem to be saying in any public (let-alone on sites like DN which are mainly read by philosophers; though I applaud the recent Dolezal and Charleston posts) domain seems to revolve what value philosophy has. So whilst you are right to point out that philosophers can both argue about/do surveys on the value of philosophy as well as demonstrate its value publicly, I don’t see a particularly good balance between those activities.

One valuable aspect of philosophy that we don’t find elsewhere is the freedom of thought to wander unfettered where the discussion takes us, as Socrates pointed out to Theodorus in Plato’s Theaetetus long ago. The very thing that leaves it open to narrow-minded accusations of ‘uselessness’ is what is most valuable about it. To put it Aristotle’s terms, it is the superlative activity of human reason that anchors the purposiveness of all other human activities but itself serves none. Philosophy is, and ought to be, good for nothing – it is good ‘for’ nothing (else) because it’s already as good as it gets in itself. Demands to get to the point and render philosophy ‘accountable’ to the economic exigencies of student/consumers in an increasingly stratified society would love to foreclose this and reduce philosophy to the art of ‘critical thinking’ that can be applied in a variety of business and professional contexts, a kind of ‘thinking outside the box’ in order to more successfully accomplish one’s job, whatever that job might be, from manufacturing weapons and drones, to advertisement and marketing, conducting surveys, etc. If that means philosophy no longer has a place in the corporatized space of contemporary universities then so be it – for much of the last two and a half millennia the best philosophy happened outside of universities anyway.

Ciaran Cummins, I hardly know where to begin and it would take too long to consider your misreading of my post point by point in detail, but let this suffice for the present regarding your claim that ‘…having them [philosophy departments] in universities seems preferable to not having philosophy encouraged anywhere at all’ – I would just respond and reiterate, in the words of Justin, that “Another idea would be to avoid posing false dichotomies.” In fact, your response to my earlier statement is little more than a series of such false dichotomies – (1) either one improves existing philosophy departments or one is committed to an idealized conception of philosophy that is utterly impractical; (2) either one works within the existing institutional framework of university philosophy or else one gives up on philosophy altogether; (3) either philosophy is preserved in philosophy departments and from there extended into the public realm or else it disappears entirely and the dark ages commence. I’d just like to call your attention to something I alluded to in my earlier post: whether we posit the origin of the university in the Middle Ages or more recently, it has to be acknowledged that philosophy, as a discipline and as a way of life, has survived just fine for the majority of its run outside of universities altogether. And as far as your last remark goes, that I offer constructive suggestions instead of lamenting the way things are and ‘going on’ about dead philosophers, my first constructive suggestion is directed to you: please spend some time studying the fallacy of the false dilemma before you deign to shoot an imperative my way again.

Fair enough, Ciaran. Apology accepted. I agree that resignation is not the right response. We need strategies for resistance. The first step is to make a convincing case for refusing to demonstrate the ‘use-value’ of philosophy, to show our ‘papers’ to the authorities demanding an accounting. That discussion is already lost the moment we engage in it: we will then either reduce philosophy to various applied iterations and informal logic/critical thinking (if we ‘win’) or else have to concede that philosophy is useless if one’s ambition at university is to become a competent accountant or nurse, a business manager or sports therapist (if we ‘lose’). There are a variety of ways that a third option can be articulated. Personally, I’m fond of the argument made by Aristotle and one of his commentators (Alexander of Aphrodisias?) that, like anything that really matters, philosophy’s ‘uselessness’ is what gives it a supreme value (it’s what allows other, lesser activities or objects to be ‘useful’ at all by being the end toward which they converge). But one can make a convincing historical case as well – after all, universities would not exist if were not for philosophy. It was the first major, so to speak. Far from outgrowing the need for it we need it more than ever: witness the prevalent functional illiteracy and willful ignorance running riot at almost every level of our contemporary culture. I guess if one needs a practical justification maybe Adorno put it best: let’s at least make sure Auschwitz doesn’t happen again.

PeterJ: It is not the case that usefulness is in the eye of the user. In fact, I would hope that nothing is in the eye of the user – otherwise, the user would be hard pressed to effectively use anything since his or her vision would be impaired. I’d like to follow up on your last claim about ‘the evidence’. Let the record show that Aristotle argued that philosophy (at least philosophical contemplation, its essential activity) is useless. On your reasoning, Aristotle is thus an invariably unsuccessful philosopher, who merits a badge of incompetence. Maybe you can petition that APA to posthumously honor him with one. They might even give you one, too.