A Love Letter to Philosophy
“Philosophical enquiry makes the entire planet better than it would otherwise be. It helps constitute the awesomeness of Earth. Philosophy needs no further excuse.”

So writes Eric Schwitzgebel (UC Riverside), in an essay at Aeon.
Here’s a little excerpt:
Billions of years ago, some stars exploded. The resulting heavy atoms swirled together into planets orbiting new stars. Pieces of those planets came to life, opened their eyes. Some learned to talk. They learned to wonder about their place in the cosmos, and about themselves, and about their values, and about their capacity to wonder about the cosmos, themselves and their values. They peered past the limits of their knowledge, asking ambitious questions they could not fully answer, appreciating both the importance of those questions and their incapacity to fully answer them. Each of us, when we philosophise, become the means by which the Universe, after billions of years, wakes to itself, momentarily contemplating itself in doubt and amazement.
Read the whole thing here.
Then maybe send it along to your students. Or deans.
And there’s this other recent piece—also good—which takes a somewhat different tone:
How many times have I heard, “but why should our tax money go to philosophers? What do you produce?” Answer: we produced the modern world.
From its conclusion: “Stand tall, philosophers. You are part of the most ancient and powerful tribe.”
I think it’s important to distinguish the value of philosophy from the value of the philosophy profession. Philosophy is worth doing for the individual, but to influence the world, professional philosophers need to get our ideas out there to the public. The fact that philosophy is extremely valuable doesn’t entail that we’re giving value for money by producing it.
The distinction is indeed important, and it sounds defensible that professional philosophers, as a collective, should strive to ‘influence the world’. But this can be achieved by many, quite indirect and disconnected, means and over such long periods of time that it seems mistaken to believe that there is a way to measure or even reasonably estimate what ‘value for money’ philosophy, as a whole profession, brings.
How about this: studying philosophy in an academic setting made my life better. Surely that’s true for others as well. So, why think we need any further justification for what we do? No one (other than libertarians, when doing a certain sort of ideal theory) thinks it’s a waste of money to build baseball diamonds or public swimming pools. But these things don’t fill any bowls or advance any political causes. They don’t even purport to raise LSAT scores. They merely make people happy… much like studying philosophy.
Not true that only philosophers & libertarians fret over the waste inherent in huge stadiums & public pools. Think doctors who recognized public pools as vectors for polio propagation.
But there are substantive conversations about whether to build them and if so, how much to spend on building them. That they make people happy is only the beginning of the conversation, not the end.
Also, they are public goods: a large fraction of the community benefits from them. There are innumerable ways to spend public money to make a specific person’s life better: again, just noting that a given expenditure would improve my life is only the barest beginning of the conversation about whether the public should make that expenditure.
That’s exactly the utilitarian ideology, which is a total nonsense to me, because a thing is not valuably good simply on the basis of its capacity to produce a large amount of happiness to a great number of individuals, that would just be an extrinsic value! What about intrinsic value?
The whole point of classic utilitarianism is that it maximizes the intrinsic good of happiness. The GGGN has that intrinsic good as the second G.
Studying philosophy in an academic setting is worth doing. Whether the public thinks it’s worth paying us to do that is another issue.
Informing the public is only one war philosophy can be valuable. Influencing scientists or policy-makers is another way.
People may focus more on what they love than on what they value; which is more abstract. There is love of sports, cinema, favorite foods etc. How many people love wisdom which is the definition of philosophy or give wisdom a second thought? With the Anthropic looming a tech imitation of life will be based on what? Atheist materialists are studying the physical brain to ascertain what in it gave rise to consciousness. What next, study a computer to see what in it gave rise to electricity? We are in a Material Age until the Precession of the Equinoxes evolves us out of it, and that is the level of understanding of many. Philosophy has to keep on keeping on until its time comes around again, and it will.
The conflation of value with lucrativeness is pernicious. What makes philosophy worthwhile cannot be reduced to the potential to generate capital. The same can be said for much of what distinguishes us as human beings.
That’s probably true if you have a reductive concept of capital, on which only certain sorts of market-traded goods count as capital. But if you are willing to include things like “human capital” and “social capital” and the like, regardless of how difficult it is to express their value in monetary terms, then I think it is appropriate to say that at least a large part of the value of philosophy (whether or not it is all of it) includes things like the fact that it produced some social understanding of the value of representative government and free speech, and scientific research, and publication, and logic and reason and critical thinking, and gave many individuals skills related to these. If philosophy didn’t ever do anything to make society better off, or to develop the abilities and flourishing of individuals, then I think it would be appropriate to worry that it wasn’t valuable.
Well, yes, I would certainly agree with the thrust of these claims. I might suggest, however, that my use of ‘capital’ (which is indeed just as you initially intuited) corresponds to the standard colloquial usage, while the things you’re describing are semantic expansions on that basic definition. Honestly, though, I don’t think we have a very deep disagreement here.
From a personal perspective I’d have to say that my own published work probably won’t have much impact on the world. But over the years and especially in retirement I have seen some of the impact of my 40 years of teaching. Just last week while undergoing medical tests it turned out that two different health-care assistants were former students. Independently of one another they both told me how my classes influenced their thinking about themselves and the world. Lasting value–maybe not in the long run, but some value nevertheless.
Roger Crisp says the same in an interview on YouTube
If a philosopher cannot pay the cost of living then there would be no time for philosophy. The more we look the more we know and the more philosophy can discover.
100% of everything I have done, built, produced, made, dreamed, and woven is only Pure Philosophy. The world will soon know and understand just how Ancient and how powerful Philosophy truly is. Zarathustra, this one is for you. – Anna Imagination
Philosophy are words derived from the wonder of the universe…
well put! a truism if there ever was one. but what is the truth but a validation of the subject’s opinion?
A good friend of mine once suggested I become a philosophy instructor. I respect this friend dearly, and yet I took what he said as an insult. 😭
That being said, I’ll always be grateful for the teacher I had during my high school Theory of Knowledge (I.B.) class. 🙏 Perspective is so incredibly valuable. Also, he introduced us to Fawlty Towers.