Has Philosophy over stepped it's boundaries?

[bennyboy]

…" as many different perspectives as a person cares to put on it" And what if the entire set of perspectives a person cares to put on it are beside the point or worse still, irrational?

Then the idea which they are challenging will easily stand.

"Battle tested strongman, worthy of transmission to the next set of ears"? Putting ideas to the test within a purely acadmic environment without reference to any practical application in the world is from my perspective at the very heart of why philosophy is vanishing up it's own backside at this point in time, and more tragically, regarded by the general public as no more than an obscure academic party game with no relevance to the real world. (Let's not get into a debate about 'real' for now.)

I must resist the urge to respond with witty memes. I must resist the urge to respond with witty memes.

Logic is vanishing? Moral systems? Ideas about cosmology like the Big Bang? Ideas about artistic and musical beauty?

See, the problem is that you don't know what philosophy is. You think it's French guys sitting in cafes talking about the existential absurdity of some character in an old opera. But that you think this is not philosophy's problem-- it's yours.

I'm tempted to quote Ayn Rand's epistemology here but since she's regarded as a non-philosopher by the 'wise' I'll desist.

I don't see how dogma came into this or why you've introduced the concept in this context so I'll avoid commenting on it.

Because snobbery generally involves a kind of academic dogma-- "Ewwww. . . you don't even know THAT?"

Must they? Haven't you noticed how so many philosophers use particular words with a meaning unique to their own writings?

Have you noticed how even rhetorical questions usually have points?

As to the origin of the word philosophy, so what? The origins of any term used to denote a particular discipline can't bind or limit the scope, meaning and purpose of that discipline for all eternity. Take for instance the simple difference between, say, the medieval use of the term to include a vast array of intellectual pursuits many of which today are not regarded as within the scope of philosophy proper. Physics, for instance, comes to mind.

If physics comes to mind, then I would argue again that you have an incomplete view of philosophy.

[genkaus]

"Battle tested strongman, worthy of transmission to the next set of ears"? Putting ideas to the test within a purely acadmic environment without reference to any practical application in the world is from my perspective at the very heart of why philosophy is vanishing up it's own backside at this point in time, and more tragically, regarded by the general public as no more than an obscure academic party game with no relevance to the real world. (Let's not get into a debate about 'real' for now.)
I'm tempted to quote Ayn Rand's epistemology here but since she's regarded as a non-philosopher by the 'wise' I'll desist.

You do realize that Rand opposes this view of Philosophy. And she may not be well-liked among philosophers but that doesn't make her less of one.

[dissily mordentroge]

I'm tempted to quote Ayn Rand's epistemology here but since she's regarded as a non-philosopher by the 'wise' I'll desist.

You do realize that Rand opposes this view of Philosophy. And she may not be well-liked among philosophers but that doesn't make her less of one.

I'm unsure what is meant here by 'opposes this view of philosophy'.
And yes, not being well-liked ( I'd say loathed) among philosophers certainly doesn't make her less of one. I have a lot of respect for her epistemology although finding a great deal of her political and ecomonic theory absurd. In particular the baseless assumption the laws of supply and demand necessarily function to maximum benefit as the public will always act out of rational self-interest. But hey, this risks getting a long way off topic.

[genkaus]

I'm unsure what is meant here by 'opposes this view of philosophy'.

The view that philosophy is an academic party game with no practical application to real world.

In particular the baseless assumption the laws of supply and demand necessarily function to maximum benefit as the public will always act out of rational self-interest.

Funny. You call it a baseless assumption and then proceed to give the reasoning behind that conclusion?

[dissily mordentroge]

I'm unsure what is meant here by 'opposes this view of philosophy'.

The view that philosophy is an academic party game with no practical application to real world.

In particular the baseless assumption the laws of supply and demand necessarily function to maximum benefit as the public will always act out of rational self-interest.

Funny. You call it a baseless assumption and then proceed to give the reasoning behind that conclusion?

What is is about fora that makes posters misconstrue every remark hardly ever taking a statement for what it is? I'm outa here.

[bennyboy]

What is is about fora that makes posters misconstrue every remark hardly ever taking a statement for what it is? I'm outa here.

Fora?

I can see why you're so worried about academic snobbery-- if everyone does it, you're not a special snowflake after all.