Thanks Onno

I have only skimmed it, but it seems to be an interesting article, I think that the opening section, where the author discusses Hadot is interesting and pertinent to some of the ideas that developed in the latter part of the string. 

Tangentially: I have not really had much time to follow the string since the end of January. But I think that more recent comments about its status should lead to some reflection on what can, or ought, be expected of it. 

Personally I treat the postings to PhilPapers much the way I treat postings to any other message-board I subscribe to, so informality does not bother me (nor do crudities). Perhaps PhilPapers ought to be treated differently; far be it from me to be prescriptive. I read the string like I read an on-line newspaper - quickly - and I respond in the same way. I take this to be true of many of the people who contribute and see evidence of this in what they post. I generally take this to be appropriate or typical or normative for such a board. But from what has been posted recently it seems to be the case that what is expected are more careful scholarly postings. I would love to know how others see it.

I do think that we need to stay on topic. But the topic is a contemporary philosophical divide, and thus questions about the nature and status of philosophy itself are up for grabs. This means that the string is going to naturally pull in different directions. I thought that there were some productive contributions. Although towards the end there I started to worry that the problems with contemporary philosophy were being reduced to the problems with analytic philosophy, or that it was seen as the primary problem. There are problems on the other side too. Ultimately it is my opinion, however, that the divide and many of the problems within contemporary philosophy related back to the nature of contemporary institutional life (which the article posted by Onno gestures at), and problems with contemporary knowledge production. I think we can often blame the divide, and blame those who sit opposite us in it, for problems that lie much deeper.

It is in regard to these issues - the nature of contemporary institutional life and the conditions of knowledge production - that I think many of the issues raised in the latter part of the string are actually worth thinking through. The professionalisation of philosophy certainly needs critical attention, as does the way research and publications are evaluated, and the 'puppy-mill' effect that we see in many graduate programs is also a concern. Certainly one of the things that really worries me about many young people that I have taught and see entering graduate programs is how strategic the whole business has become. This might produce 'stellar careers' but mediocre philosophy. These issues are perhaps, however, too broad for this string. Certainly I think seeing them as issues only for one side of the divide, and thus as a way of differentiating the traditions might be one-sided.

Philip