how great is the percentage of philosophy professors that actually contribute original arguments and ideas to the discourse ?
im not talking about historical reinterpretation of some ancient text, rehashed introductions to philosophy or even advanced textbooks im talking about new contributions to contemporary discussion of philosophical questions
please tell me if my question is legitimate
>>1379294
First of all introductions to philosophy have value and they have to be adjusted as time goes on and trends change.
Second of all, they all publish articles and books etc..
And of course, like in any field most are just average while a few are groundbreaking.
Reinterpreting older texts is how philosophical writing works because your arguments nees to be linked with previous writings on the subject.
You cant just start writing shit as if you invented the whole of philosophy.
All "important" philosophers reinterpret older works or reinterpret arguments fomr older works at one point or another.
>>1379294
Criticizing the academic process of tenure-seeking with bullshit papers is valid but you have to understand that it's a problem in literally every field, even the hard sciences. One thing about philosophy it seems, and some thinkers like Schopenhauer have pointed this out, is that you don't need to be knee-deep in a university to publish something influential.
So when you have kooky outsiders like Zizek who don't spend much time in a traditional academic environment it can make the folks in academia look bad.
>>1379641
Its not just in philosophy. Today its true in many fields, not all of course.
>>1379641
I hear Zizek get shit on all the time here but what did he do wrong? I'm not talking about him being "leftist or liberal filth" but what does he do wrong academically? I actually like the man, even with all his memeing.
>>1380334
He took some flak for writing ad copy for Abercrombie and Fitch, but he gave a pretty unique justification: he would rather do that than have to "kiss ass for a tenured post" for several years at an American university. He thinks the latter would compromise his ideas more; he's probably right.
>>1379593
They're just tsundere and hysterical.
Virtually all of them.
>>1379593
It's because a meme formed where people mockingly insult other people in academia, and idiots take it seriously.
>>1380372
Though I disagree with his marxist ideology (the only way to save the west is through leftist radicalism? okay) I have have some serious respect for the guy.
I dislike how he's treated as a meme around here
>>1380398
Around where?
>>1380459
Not him, but I think he means 4chan in general, specifically /his/ the board. I've seen more references to Zizek in an average day here than I did in a year before the board was founded.
>>1379294
Most innovations are just old arguments dressed up with a few new premises, or being applied to a new framework. But that is true of every discpline. The whole " brand new idea that totally breaks with the past" narrative is mostly silly enlightenment era posturing that most people who study intellectual history don't buy into.
If we are just looking for original arguments and ideas, then probably even the average university sessional instructor has done something like this, by making a clever variation on an old argument or positing a novel answer to an old objection to an argument, etc.
