This just over the transom:
I wish I could express to you just how much of a blessing your blog has been (and continues to be) to me.I am a grad student in a Ph.D. program here in the states. I read your site for enjoyment, but also because I find that you tend to very acutely and eloquently crystallize objections and points that I find appearing in my own mind in a very rudimentary and unrefined way. It is a great reassurance when I find you making a point so clearly that has occurred to me, but that I haven't known quite what to do with.And, of course, this is to say nothing of your topics and insights that are well beyond me and never would have occurred to me.I have a love/hate relationship with this field. I love it, but I suffocate within it because of predominating paradigms. I was recently instructed by a professor in one of my courses that "no reasonable person needs to argue for naturalism" when I pointed out that a certain author never once argued for the naturalism he was presupposing.
Sheer dogmatism! And a betrayal of the spirit of philosophy. To just assume that naturalism is true is as unphilosophical as to just assume that it is false. Either way arguments must be given, and if you want my opinion, the arguments against naturalism are insurmountably strong. I am presently writing a review of J. P. Moreland's The Recalcitrant Imago Dei: Human Persons and the Failure of Naturalism. It is chock-full of powerful arguments against naturalism. If Moreland is right, it is more reasonable to reject naturalism than to accept it. This is from a recent PhilPapers survey:
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?
| Accept or lean toward: naturalism | 464 / 931 (49.8%) |
| Accept or lean toward: non-naturalism | 241 / 931 (25.8%) |
| Other | 226 / 931 (24.2%) |
The respondents are faculty members at "99 leading departments of philosophy." List here. A majority of these professional philosophers from the leading departments do not accept or lean toward naturalism. Your professor, I suppose, would have to conclude that they are not reasonable people. Unsinn!
Were I younger, and more naive (and probably less attuned to the spiritual dimension of our work) I could probably take it in stride. But at my age I feel increasingly foolish for allowing my livelihood and future to depend on folks that do not play by the rules.
I agree that anyone who thinks naturalism to be just obviously true and such that no reasonable person needs to argue for it is not playing by the rules. As for the spiritual side of philosophy, spiritual depth, I am afraid, is almost nonexistent among analytic philosophers. The other side of the coin is that those with such depth are often 'mushy' in their thinking. The ideal, of course, is the marriage of the two. Plato, Aquinas, Spinoza serve as examples.
I used to think it would "selling out" (or something like it) to apply my mind to something more secure, practical and potentially lucrative. And yet lately I have – from time to time – thought that the most philosophical thing a man can do is to extricate himself from such foolishness and go enjoy his life. My problem is that I am in this not to be an "academic" ( really could care less), but rather because I absolutely love to teach. So leaving would indeed feel like selling out in some sense.
Just as one ought not confuse a philosopher with a paid professor of the subject, one ought not confuse academic philosophy with philosophy. Of course, this is not to say that no genuine philosophy gets done in academe. Kant was a great philosopher and an academic. It is interesting to note, however, how many significant philosophers were either non-academics or only briefly associated with academe. Partial list: Descartes, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Santayana, Sartre, Camus, Edith Stein, Simone Weil.
Now if you "absolutely love to teach," you should probably stick it out, get your doctorate and try to find a job. If nothing materializes — and I don't mean a miserable adjunct position — you are young enough to re-tool. If you are really serious about philosophy (as opposed to the teaching of it), you will find a way to do it. Spinoza might be the perfect model here. Find the modern-day equivalent of lens grinding, make your living from that, and devote the rest of your time to otium liberale. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Anyway, I always find quite a bit of respite in reading your work, and I wanted to tell you that I appreciate it.
And I appreciate having people like you as readers!