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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I can't tell whether you have a point or not. You have made a bunch of assertions without supporting examples.
I think you meant for your title picture to be of the Parthenon in Greece, but that is the Pantheon in Rome....