Why Listen to Philosophers? A Constructive Critique of Disciplinary Philosophy

Abstract

This article articulates a fundamental crisis of disciplinary philosophy—its lack of disciplinary self‐consciousness and the skeptical problems this generates—and, through that articulation, exemplifies a means of mitigating its force. Disciplinary philosophy organizes itself as a producer of specialized knowledge, with the apparatus of journals, publication requirements, and other professional standards, but it cannot agree on what constitutes knowledge, progress, or value, and evinces ignorance of its history and alternatives. This situation engenders a skepticism that threatens the legitimacy of disciplinary philosophy. The article proposes a response to this skepticism, rooted in the conditions that philosophers evince a specific kind of awareness of their own activity and its professional and cultural location, demonstrate this awareness by articulating it in the practice of philosophy itself, and recognize that precisely such articulation lies at the core of the Socratic idea of philosophy as a form of self‐knowledge.

Science and Religion: An Origins Story

“…The best way to see how important this task was is to see it as arguably the foundational instance of a persistent, if rarely understood, problem in the university: the problem of disciplinary constitution (Loncar 2016, 23–24). Often more determinative than the “content” of an academic discipline is its form and structure as an institutional and ideological reality.…”

“…So science, whatever else it is, is a form of social legitimacy and prestige that in Western culture has been institutionally connected to the university system, the inhabitants of which generally possess a special epistemic legitimacy just in virtue of their presence in the university (Loncar 2016, 3–5). The crisis in which universities found themselves by the end of the eighteenth century had much to do with the changing cultural and epistemic conditions marked by the scientific revolution, the growth of modern nation states, and the rapid rise of print culture, which, as Wellmon shows, increased exponentially between 1770 and 1800.…”

Epistemic Authority in Nursing Practice vs. Doctors’ Orders

“…A second theme, identifying my powerful self , emerged when nurses reported feeling powerful in situations where they brought knowledge and experience to influence decision-making in patient care, as indicated in these exemplar statements: “When I can call a doctor and say, this is what I see, this is what’s happening, this is what the patient’s reporting…they’ll say, when yah, you’re right…I feel smart, I feel powerful,” and “It is a very powerful job sometimes and we get to pick and choose what we think the patient needs, you know, based on their respiratory assessment and it, it is, very powerful.” These experiences of power came from nurses’ epistemic authority – not only knowing that they know, but being validated by others’ acknowledgement of their knowledge. As Loncar (2016) explained, there is power in “perceived epistemic legitimacy” and individuals and disciplines rely on this power.…”

The Myth of Secular Philosophy: Philosophy of Religion’s Origin and Fate

“…I have previously developed such a perspective vis-à-vis analytic philosophy (Loncar 2016) and the topic of science and religion (Loncar 2021) and aim here to develop that critical philosophy in relationship to my own core field: philosophy of religion. The very power of the university's institutional forms would suggest the value and even necessity of subjecting them to critical philosophical inquiry.…”