Frances to Boris... Yes, you are correct. My brash view of philosophy in trouble today did overstate the problems. It is after all really my first love, and for reasons that are intellectual. (1) The areas current in philosophy that intrigue me most at the present include that brand of idealist realism often simply called pragmatism as originating from the angloamerican camp, and the recent research in its ontology and to a lesser degree in its phenomenology. The main task for pragmatism now by most reports seems to be a search for a sound means that can bridge the drifting gap between metaphysical philosophies on the one hand and empirical sciences on the other. The key means that are being explored as a strong bridge to even close the rift include semiotics and systemics and methodics and categorics and even theistics, but in modern ways that differ for their traditions. The pragmatist logic of relational relativity is furthermore a steering mechanism in these matters. (2) One of the barriers to the wise philosophic education of students and scholars today in my opinion is the rampant nationalism with its patriotism, and tribalism with its nepotism, that stubbornly prevails in academia. The very arrogant idea for example that aesthetes and artists and athletes and scientists are good merely because they are the supported citizens of a sovereign country is illogical and irrational and unreasonable, to put it mildly. No governmental polity or religious deity can determine what is truly art or philosophy or science or god for that matter. If there is a simple message that should be sent to young people entering universities, and particularly in architectural and philosophic programs which is the topic being discussed here, it might be to aid them in working toward a global communion of related peoples on earth, and not in supporting a colonial union of political nations on earth. (Oh darn, there I go again...)
You wrote... "...it does seem that philosophy, given its legitimate interests in art and tech and science, is in some trouble". Perhaps some branches of PH, but I don't think that PH as a whole can be in trouble. It is dynamic science with some ups and downs, but always moving ahead slowly with, at least, some progress. I believe in a strong presence and high intelligence of a few leading minds in each area of philosophy. Qualitative broadness of the subjects in our education of the young is in trouble. Particularly in humanities. Frances wrote... The classification of those global objects called the arts and techs and sciences by some kind of categories is seemingly an ongoing and unending work in progress for thinkers. There remains little consensus of opinion on a lot of stuff that has been posited. The same can be said of aesthetics and of architecture, and from positions that hold them as either art or tech or science. It is unclear to me however whether this says something mainly about the problems of classes or categories or objects or thinkers or theories. Considering all the learned persons that exist in scholarly academia, it should be expected that some reasonable agreement would emerge, even if only tentative. To me this current state of affairs in regard to a lack of rational intelligent ability is confusing, to say the least. If philosophers, let alone artists and technicians and scientists, cannot deal adequately with psychical things like art and theory, then it is not surprising that they cannot deal with physical and practical things like peace and love. This casual observation of mine may overstate the issue with too much gloom and doom, but it does seem that philosophy, given its legitimate interests in art and tech and science, is in some trouble.
