[v1k1ng1001]

Originally Posted by TimMason

I suspect that this is a little unfair. First of all, there are technical questions that philosophers have to look at, and that are not such as can be very usefully discussed using the language of the ordinary educated reader. The fact that you or I do not understand this stuff doesn't mean that it isn't philosophy, or that it's not necessary to the overall project.

Well during my MA and PhD studies I was lucky enough to study the history of philosophy as well as the three major contemporary traditions: analytic, continental and pragmatism. I currently work out of the latter tradition and I can tell you from personal experience that the situation is pretty bleak in terms of there being any serious meta-philosophical criticism of the discipline.

Originally Posted by TimMason

Secondly, I can think of a number of philosophers who do speak to the issues of the day. In France they range from the TV stars like Bernard Henri-Lévy (everybody hates him, but he still sells a lot of books) through to the more austere figures such as Alain Badiou who, though much of his stuff is heavy going, sometimes descends into the political arena with a readable text, as he did recently after the election of Sarkozy to the presidence.

I like Badiou!

Originally Posted by TimMason

In the USA a number of philosophers direct their work to questions of the day. Rawls' work still leads to comment and argument. Dennett talks forcefully about religion and biology. One could write a fairly long list.

I've read and even taught Rawls. I will give him credit for setting aside his Kantian aspirations and making the pragmatic turn late in his career (Political Liberalism), albeit grudgingly. But the pragmatic scope of his work is limited. Political Liberalism is, on his own account, only useful in situations where 1. there is a constitutional crisis or 2. a new nation needs principles to form a constitution. Even then, the tools he provides are pretty thin. Rawls just seems to repeat the form of inquiry that many political theorists have subscribed to since Hobbs: derive a principle of natural right. This form of inquiry was pragmatically significant while new nations were being born and while old nations were in the throws of revolution, but today that pattern of inquiry is largely obsolete. The best you can say for Rawls is that his work has facilitated interesting discussions in its application within legal realism, as with Dworkin. Like his colleague Hilary Putnam, if Rawls hadn't been at Harvard or somesuch, no one would care what he had to say.

Originally Posted by TimMason

On the other hand, we may be a little more sceptical about that wisdom than used to be the case. Today, people challenge the scientists, the philosophers, the doctors - everyone in our democratic age is equal to the experts after spending five minutes with Wikipedia. Or Glenn Beck. More people have been educated to a higher degree than ever before, and more people have the critical skills needed to argue right back at the academic. When a philosopher writes for the comment section in the Guardian blog, he or she is likely to be roundly criticized by a bunch of nobodies. Some of them don't like it very much.

I'm all for this. At its worst, it still shows that some people care. At its best, we find people out there really willing to educate themselves and others. At least there is still the hope we get to the point where more people read Badiou than listen to Glenn Beck. At the end of the day this stuff does belong in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of the academic.