Philosophy Isn't Easy

I'm having a difficult time understanding the sentiment expressed here, regarding Hannah Arendt:

Yet if her star shines so brightly, it is because the American intellectual firmament is so dim. After all, who or where are the other political philosophers? The last great political American philosopher, John Dewey, died in 1952. Since then American philosophy — with the partial exception of Richard Rorty — has vanished into technical issues; within the subfield of political philosophy, the largest of its figures, John Rawls, remains abstract and insular. His work may quicken the attenuated pulse of academic philosophers, but it does not move the rest of us.

No kidding.  Philosophy is abstract?  Who'da thunkit. 

Philosophy is a difficult subject and getting things right involves drawing careful distinctions.  That leads one quickly to technical issues; a theory of knowledge can hinge on one's views on the semantics of gradable adjectives.  Unfortunately for those that would like to get things right (e.g., Rawls) philosophy just does hinge on technical issues and just does require abstraction.  They can't be avoided and philosophers ought not dumb things down and ignore relevant issues because some historian's pulse is not quickened. Political philosophy deals with issues of fundamental importance to our society, and I think that there may be something to the criticism that philosophers need to make more of an effort to present views for public consumption, but due to the intrinsic difficulties there's just nothing to be done about the relevance of technical matters.  The suggestion of the above passage, that philosophers have chosen to focus on technical matters or abstraction because of insular intent doesn't add up. 

Philosophy is abstract and technical.  It has been for thousands of years because abstraction and technical distinctions are relevant to answering philosophical questions.  Philosophers can, perhaps, do a better job of addressing the public (here's an example of where they are), but to allege of Rawls or any other philosopher that their "light is dim" because they have taken on difficult, technical problems is just silly.

Lastly, regarding "Rorty-the-exception" (who did not get to his present positions without technical work, btw).  I'm not sure this story is true or even where I heard it, but it's funny and illustrates a point.  Allegedly, Alvin Plantinga once interupted a talk in which Rorty was claiming that truth is just whatever one's community will accept by announcing "I do not accept what you're saying" and walking out.

Comments

[matt666]

I would contend that anyone who feels "moved" by Aristotle or Kant, for example, hasn't actually read Aristotle and Kant. Then again, I wouldn't call anyone who ISN'T mostly concerned with technicality and abstraction a "philosopher" regardless of the bigness of the questions they address. I think that the problem stems mostly from the fact that most people don't actaully understand what philosophers do and have always done. The popular conception of philosophy is something along the lines of "saying strange and paradoxical things, that must be wise because they are so strange and paradoxical."

[Metronil]

I disagree...only philosophers think that they are "saying strange and paradoxical things" but to the rest of us you're just unkept, awkward, nerds that think too much.

Get outside a little, go play some ball or something.