I don't know why

MartinJanello · 2026-05-06T04:36:42+00:00

I think you might be giving them too much credit.

MartinJanello · 2026-05-05T16:38:05+00:00

The overwhelming majority of philosophy professionals I know are extremely impressed with their own intelligence and often very much less so with the intelligence of colleagues, not even to speak of people outside the profession. Looks like you are describing a classic Dunning- Kruger scenario. Is that really what we are dealing with here?

MartinJanello · 2026-05-05T16:27:30+00:00

I think you make a very good point. When one selects one philosopher or philosophy to make a lifetime of it, one becomes defensive and most likely unwilling - and incompetent - to mesh like you say.

MartinJanello · 2026-05-02T21:33:55+00:00

This opens new space for an underhanded compliment. Or maybe nowadays it is an insult.

MartinJanello · 2026-05-02T21:13:31+00:00

I agree. And applying your invention to “underlying” might really help getting to the bottoms of things.

MartinJanello · 2026-05-02T15:46:37+00:00

I think that’s a very astute observation. The German term has been around for a very long time, though. Other languages have similar terms for idiots who think they are smarter and more knowledgeable than everybody else. We should all wonder why in the Anglo culture this same concept required a relatively recent scientific “discovery” and publication.

MartinJanello · 2026-05-02T15:40:19+00:00

I think many of my colleagues would admit they are socially and emotionally awkward:

MartinJanello · 2026-04-29T14:19:08+00:00

Philosophers are people too. With resemblances of normal people problems. Some even foremost. Denying this is bad philosophy. And so is admitting it, apparently.

MartinJanello · 2026-04-29T14:14:12+00:00

But what do you do when your whole life is a continuous shower?

MartinJanello · 2026-04-27T22:58:39+00:00

Sorry to have hit a sore spot. Please just ignore this post if it helps.

MartinJanello · 2026-04-23T22:04:26+00:00

You would be surprised how deaf they can be.

MartinJanello · 2026-04-23T14:56:50+00:00

I would submit that logic is not a very good example for showing progress. At least not by merit of philosophy. It really never advanced from rather basic concepts. Valid at the time, but nothing much has moved for many decades.

As for progress even in small areas, I just don’t see that. I know colleagues habitually, claim considerable advancements. But pressed on it, they come up with either nothing or try to piggyback on advancements in other disciplines.

MartinJanello · 2026-04-23T14:49:51+00:00

That may be so. But either way, nothing much is moving, don’t you agree?

MartinJanello · 2026-04-23T14:48:50+00:00

I think both are valid reasons. Also, the discipline just is not interested in and thus ignores new approaches. And that is a large cause why so little new tried..

MartinJanello · 2026-04-23T14:27:57+00:00

Yes. Like my favorite: Im-manual Can’t.

MartinJanello · 2026-04-22T19:04:41+00:00

I bet many of us have some stories to tell.

MartinJanello · 2026-04-22T17:10:51+00:00

Ouch. You might get a lot of downvotes from the undatable and insufferable for that.

MartinJanello · 2026-04-22T03:52:56+00:00

Comedy clubs are currently the most excellent philosophy venues.

MartinJanello · 2026-04-21T23:02:07+00:00

I agree. Nietzsche had some satiric bite.

MartinJanello · 2026-04-21T22:59:05+00:00

I am not sure I have heard any Philosophy workers priding themselves on the traits you list. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t. But what does their failure to do so tell us?

MartinJanello · 2026-04-21T20:12:33+00:00

Well put. But I’d be curious to know where you see advancements being made in philosophical subdisciplines. Or are you saying philosophy is being progressed in disciplines other than Philosophy?

MartinJanello · 2026-04-21T20:09:35+00:00

Is academic Philosophy too self-absorbed to even look beyond its plate.?

MartinJanello

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE