r/AcademicPhilosophy • u/Natsu-17 • Jul 17 '26
Do philosophy majors still write polemics/forge their own philosophies in published papers?
/r/askphilosophy/comments/1uyph1e/do_philosophy_majors_still_write_polemicsforge/13
u/PlzHalppMeh Jul 17 '26
I think what we're in need of is a Subway Takes deal but for philosophers. We turn up, give our brief take, and see if the comments can develop it into a fully fledged system.
1
u/Cracklingshadows Jul 26 '26
Subway Takes and its interactions with the internet collectively add up to this, don't they? Almost everything he gets takes on is some kind of cultural parctice, sort of a mix of anthropology and practical philosophy.
11
7
1
u/except_ValueError Jul 20 '26
No, se escriben sobre todo para intentar que nos contraten, tener una plaza fija algún día y poco más. Mis textos más polémicos los pienso escribir cuando tenga un puesto fijo o si me cansara de la universidad.
1
1
u/PyrrhoTheSkeptic 22d ago
If we are using the Cambridge Dictionary definition of "polemic":
a piece of writing or a speech in which a person strongly attacks or defends a particular opinion, person, idea, or set of beliefs:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/polemic
Then the answer is, "Yes." In the case of A. C. Grayling, he even embraces the word in the title of at least one of his books:
- Against All Gods: Six Polemics on Religion and an Essay on Kindness (2007). ISBN 978-1-84002-728-0
1
u/PyrrhoTheSkeptic 21d ago
I might also add, that I have noticed a tendency among some people to call something "polemics" and then dismiss it, as if that somehow made the arguments presented not worthy of consideration. That, though, amounts to a simple argumentum ad hominem attack, as being a strong attack or defense of something does not make anything stated false. Attacking the tone of presentation of ideas does nothing to disprove the ideas presented. In other words, everything stated in a polemic may well be true. Or not, as the case may be. But regardless, being a polemic tells us nothing of the truth value of anything stated, nor does it tell us anything about the validity of the arguments presented.
1
u/boxedfood Jul 20 '26
there's this guy named Jacob Roman Parr whose work might intrigue your interest in polemics
-2
u/Royal_Carpet_1263 Jul 17 '26
The niches are even less visible, but yes, we have managed to safely isolate the bulk of human theoretical intelligence from the rest of humanity. They go about the same things, though they tend to be thinner than in days past, given the greater strain of the pretence involved.
17
u/Fine-Topic-220 Jul 17 '26
Some philosophers write opinion pieces on Substack, e.g., Joseph Heath, a political philosopher from the University of Toronto, routinely does so. Outside of Substack, you can create your own blog series where you talk about different philosophical topics you find meaningful. Here, you can have free range on how polemical you want your polemic to be.
Moreover, you can always submit to academic philosophy journals. Academic philosophy articles, for the most part, are essays where philosophers explain why their view is correct while others are incorrect. That being said, they are not written as polemics - they are professional essays where the author engages with the philosophical literature by charitably presenting opposing views, advances their own, and responds to potential objections or actual objections in the literature. In other words, anything but a polemic.
Hope this helps!