Philosophy is open to all. Books, podcasts, and videos on the subject come in all varieties and a variety of skill levels. The difficulty comes when you move beyond introductory information to the harder topics which require more specialized language.
I agree that philosophy should be inclusive as that is where growth and change occur. However, I disagree that it is primarily the "intellectual's" fault. I believe the perception of some obscured knowledge or reserved enlightenment is at fault. In my experience it has been a lack of reception that has expanded gaps in any area rather than those in that area being unwilling to "enlighten" others. I have never met an expert in any field who did not enjoy discussing, at length, their thoughts and ideas in their area of expertise until the eyes of all listeners who have not dedicated years to the subject (intellectual or not) begin to glaze from information overload.
There is an inherent gap created by specific knowledge in any pursuit. One does not fully understand the discussion of impedance and sensitivity in the realm of an audiophile without a base knowledge to build on and a willingness to learn further. Nor can one hope to discuss the minutia of identity or thought without putting in the work to build a foundational awareness of the topic.
This is all to say, if you want to make philosophy more approachable and increase acceptance you must start with a foundational awareness of logic and philosophical discourse. This can be done by offering logic, speech and debate, and introduction to philosophy earlier in schools. Learning to question ones beliefs/assumptions and to form philosophically sound arguments goes a long way towards breaking the "intellectual" barrier. A guide along the way can help but there is no knowledge that exists that is locked behind the door of academia any longer.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! I agree that the access points have drastically increased in recent history— but I think we can take it further. Those who have understanding have a responsibility to be that “guide along the way,” and to not treat others with arrogance or distaste because they don’t understand.
The personal ownership of learning and knowledge is a perspective that was left off of the essay, but is the strongest critique. Intellectuals can’t be held responsible if their audience doesn’t care to get the required starting knowledge. But the crucial piece, particularly for philosophy, is that it is the study of how to live. This knowledge is useful for everyone— so how can those intellectuals help people who don’t know where to start, or who need to have that initial a-ha moment to start to make connections?
Pick up a book of Philosophy by Socrates, Aristotle, Albert Camus, or George Carlin, and begin to read your way to the knowledge you wish to obtain as any institute of higher education would require of you at an astronomical expense. Abraham Lincoln did it, without the expense, so can you.
Books are the key to unlocking so much knowledge, but it can sometimes feel overwhelming knowing where to start. I recommend Meditations by Marcus Aurelius or Letters from a Stoic by Seneca as good starting points with good, accessible translations.
Your key phrase was 'non-critical explanation.' Giving common language explanations would help most of us a lot. Lawmakers could learn more from expert testimony on subjects they seek to govern if they actually understood what was the real issue.
Exactly right. Being able to translate advanced, technical information into common language is a skill set in its own right— but it’s vital to the flow of necessary information.
Thank you for reading, and for your comment! This essay does lean heavily on personal experience and general perceptions, but it absolutely could be made stronger with specific examples.
Good eye! I was between the Parthenon and the Pantheon but went with the Pantheon instead because it fits the theme of the timeframe of Roman Stoicism that I pull from frequently, and because I liked the aesthetic better in this picture in particular.
Philosophy is open to all. Books, podcasts, and videos on the subject come in all varieties and a variety of skill levels. The difficulty comes when you move beyond introductory information to the harder topics which require more specialized language.
I agree that philosophy should be inclusive as that is where growth and change occur. However, I disagree that it is primarily the "intellectual's" fault. I believe the perception of some obscured knowledge or reserved enlightenment is at fault. In my experience it has been a lack of reception that has expanded gaps in any area rather than those in that area being unwilling to "enlighten" others. I have never met an expert in any field who did not enjoy discussing, at length, their thoughts and ideas in their area of expertise until the eyes of all listeners who have not dedicated years to the subject (intellectual or not) begin to glaze from information overload.
There is an inherent gap created by specific knowledge in any pursuit. One does not fully understand the discussion of impedance and sensitivity in the realm of an audiophile without a base knowledge to build on and a willingness to learn further. Nor can one hope to discuss the minutia of identity or thought without putting in the work to build a foundational awareness of the topic.
This is all to say, if you want to make philosophy more approachable and increase acceptance you must start with a foundational awareness of logic and philosophical discourse. This can be done by offering logic, speech and debate, and introduction to philosophy earlier in schools. Learning to question ones beliefs/assumptions and to form philosophically sound arguments goes a long way towards breaking the "intellectual" barrier. A guide along the way can help but there is no knowledge that exists that is locked behind the door of academia any longer.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! I agree that the access points have drastically increased in recent history— but I think we can take it further. Those who have understanding have a responsibility to be that “guide along the way,” and to not treat others with arrogance or distaste because they don’t understand.
The personal ownership of learning and knowledge is a perspective that was left off of the essay, but is the strongest critique. Intellectuals can’t be held responsible if their audience doesn’t care to get the required starting knowledge. But the crucial piece, particularly for philosophy, is that it is the study of how to live. This knowledge is useful for everyone— so how can those intellectuals help people who don’t know where to start, or who need to have that initial a-ha moment to start to make connections?
Pick up a book of Philosophy by Socrates, Aristotle, Albert Camus, or George Carlin, and begin to read your way to the knowledge you wish to obtain as any institute of higher education would require of you at an astronomical expense. Abraham Lincoln did it, without the expense, so can you.
Books are the key to unlocking so much knowledge, but it can sometimes feel overwhelming knowing where to start. I recommend Meditations by Marcus Aurelius or Letters from a Stoic by Seneca as good starting points with good, accessible translations.
Your key phrase was 'non-critical explanation.' Giving common language explanations would help most of us a lot. Lawmakers could learn more from expert testimony on subjects they seek to govern if they actually understood what was the real issue.
Exactly right. Being able to translate advanced, technical information into common language is a skill set in its own right— but it’s vital to the flow of necessary information.
I can't tell whether you have a point or not. You have made a bunch of assertions without supporting examples.
Thank you for reading, and for your comment! This essay does lean heavily on personal experience and general perceptions, but it absolutely could be made stronger with specific examples.
I think you meant for your title picture to be of the Parthenon in Greece, but that is the Pantheon in Rome....
Good eye! I was between the Parthenon and the Pantheon but went with the Pantheon instead because it fits the theme of the timeframe of Roman Stoicism that I pull from frequently, and because I liked the aesthetic better in this picture in particular.