Exclusive, Expensive, and Inexpensive Philosophy
Inspired by "The Net (75)." Considering three socioeconomic realities which might manifest thought differently.
We are told that it is important to be educated, but then the day comes when we are told that we need to be pragmatic and not believe we can solve all our problems by thinking about them. We are told it is important to attend college, but then we are told that we must be careful to end up in a bubble in which we believe we know more than we actually do. We are told that we are brainwashed if we don’t leave Plato’s Cave, but then we are told that philosophy can make us self-important, arrogant, and lost in abstraction. Knowing this, we are to go and do what everyone knows is best. We are to make the most of ourselves, not waste potential.
In our work on David Hume (found in The Conflict of Mind), there’s a form of “bad philosophy” that leads to “Philosophical Melancholia” and even “Philosophical Tyranny” (which arguably defined modernity). Furthermore, thinkers like Thomas Sowell alert us to the dangers of “The Intellectual Class” and “The Vision of the Anointed,” an admonishment which echoes through the work of Paul Johnson, Julien Benda, and Joshua Hansen. I agree, but at the same time David Hume warned that without philosophy we would prove vulnerable and defenseless to manipulation, tyrants, ideology, and the like. What is to be done? Risk, I fear, which begs the question of how we might take this risk without trouble. Fortunately, that question might be easier to address in a way that doesn’t lead to pathology in our Age of Inexpensive Philosophy.
For a fully playlist with Joshua Hansen, please see here. Also, pick up his book today!
I
In the past, giving logistical realities and the difficulty of accessing libraries of quality information, learning philosophy seems like it required us to attend something like college; unfortunately, such an environment seems especially prone to making people vulnerable to “bad philosophy.” Could we have just visited a library and read the books on our own? Yes, but without a talented guide and teacher, the likelihood of us falling into misreading was high (assuming we even knew what to read). Furthermore, we likely wouldn’t have had much time to study before work, and even if we did, who could we talk with about what we read? Not many people read philosophy, and a lot of the possibility, refinement, and creativity of philosophy comes out in conversation. At a public library or market, who would be around to speak with? Maybe a person if we were lucky, but several? Unlikely, suggesting that a thriving philosophical “social environment” would be hard to find, and without that there seem to be limits to how far we can advance in our thinking and journey.
(Moving forward, please note in “The Net (75)” I used the language of “Aristocratic, Expensive, and Cheap Philosophy,” but after some thought I’ve come to prefer “Elite, Expensive, and Inexpensive” as three categories to focus on. Forgive me for the confusion this might cause.)
Considering all this, doing philosophy (for most and for most of history) seems like it basically required a college environment, which perhaps was fine until college became so expensive, before attending college seemed like it had to be about getting a job, and/or before attending college required taking on such debt. Contributing to “bad philosophy” over the last century, once these changes transpired, to feel comfortable with their decision to study philosophy, perhaps some philosophers had to overcompensate personally and stress the value of their education, which lead to them overstating the importance and “insight” of philosophy (above everything else, feeding into detachment). Hard to say, but if this occurred and college also isolated students somewhat from the world, this could have contributed to philosophy becoming disconnected and even pathological—not that philosophy is unique in this problem (all intellectual fields are so vulnerable, hence the critiques and concerns of Thoams Sowell and others). Also, trained by Capitalism, in a world where we tend to think that it’s silly to do work that isn’t going to make us money, anyone who did philosophy was expected to get a job doing it, and this lead most people who did philosophy plugging into a college environment and/or being defensive—all of which could lead to philosophy becoming pathological. Furthermore, it was highly unlikely to encounter a plumber who also read Hegel, further seeming to justify the association of “doing philosophy” with “not living in the real world.”
All of these associations of philosophy with “disconnectedness” and “abstraction” were arguably justified given the historic epoch of what could be called “Expensive Philosophy,” which is to say “philosophy in and through college.” And before the modern university system, most philosophy was studied by the Elite Class and Aristocracy, which only furthered seems to justify the association of “philosophy” with “privilege.” In the days of Socrates and Aristotle, those who did philosophy likely did not have to work like slaves, and it seems philosophy was more of something which was enjoyed by people who could access leisure. Not always, but those associations seem to follow from “Elite Philosophy”—associations which lurk in the background of “Expensive Philosophy” in modern universities (which is also still relatively elite). And as of 2023, these two socioeconomic paradigms of philosophy seem to have defined the majority of philosophical work and history, but I wonder if something new might be arising.
Thanks to Zoom, writing platforms, and the internet in general, this might be an “Age of Inexpensive Philosophy,” a new socioeconomic reality which might lead to new thought. As we might have shifted from an “Oral Tradition” to a “Written Tradition” and now could be moving into a “Zoom Tradition,” so we might have moved from an “Elite Philosophy” to an “Expensive Philosophy” and now an “Inexpensive Philosophy,” suggesting profound change and possibility. Time will tell, but there is reason to hope.
II
As stressed by Postmodernism, socioeconomic conditions influence thought. As McLuhan taught us that “the medium is the message,” we might think similarly that “the class is the expression.” The kind of thinking which emerges from upper classes can be different from the thought which emerges from other classes, and so philosophy should seek to be expressed by all socioeconomic conditions precisely so that the diversity, range, and creativity of philosophy might expand. For most of history though, such expansion was only but so possible; fortunately, today, a “new philosophy” might be something we could express thanks to Zoom and the internet, which more so make possible what could be called “Inexpensive Philosophy.” No, the internet and Zoom are not free, but they are much cheaper than a college degree, which radically increases access. Where the socioeconomic condition changes, thought can change as well, so perhaps this is an age when philosophy blossoms more fully? Time will tell.
As “the medium is the message” and “the body is the thought” (suggesting we should be active), so we can say that “the socioeconomics are the philosophy,” which though an overstatement, at least suggests a reality we should take seriously. People who do philosophy from wealth will likely have different points, concerns, emphasizes, focuses, etc. than people who philosophize while working in a factory or driving a truck. And that doesn’t mean Elite Philosophers don’t have invaluable contributions to make; in fact, perhaps some contributions were only possible from Elitism and Expensive paradigms, and perhaps a philosophy which only represented the thought of blue-collar workers would be lacking. Hard to say, but the point is that the involvement of multiple socioeconomic conditions increases the diversity and range of philosophy, which together can bring about insights that otherwise would never emerge. This being the case, in our “Zoom Tradition” (which has come after a Writing Tradition, then an Oral Tradition…), perhaps new forms of thinking will prove possible.
Philosophy might suffer if it is only engaged in by colleges or elites, and perhaps philosophy needs to be done by those who work with their hands so that philosophy never loses sight of the centrality of say “tactile knowledge” (Michelle Polanyi) or economics. Regardless, the point is that perhaps our critiques of philosophy as abstract and unconnected with “the real world” are actually critiques of a certain kind of philosophy which is overly-situated in Aristocratic and Elite socioeconomics. Perhaps these criticisms are rightly aimed at Expensive forms, but what about Inexpensive Philosophy? Might there be something different going on? Might a new historic epoch be underway that initiates new possibilities and new “kinds of subjects” who do philosophy?
To stress, my intent is not to suggest any “kind” of philosophy is necessarily superior to any other, and in fact calling the philosophy emerging out of the “Zoom Tradition” an “Inexpensive Philosophy” (or “Inexpensive Education”) might suggest that we shouldn’t be so quick to think of it as superior. However, at the very least, we can say that there are “new possibilities” which before do not seem like they were possible, possibilities which will not necessarily prove better for philosophy or education in general but at least different (their quality will depend on us).
III
That all said, I can’t help but think that a “Zoom Tradition” might expand access to brilliant and creativity which otherwise would have been lost, and that the technological shift might also help us bring about a world where we can more easily observe “the portfolios” of people versus read “resumes,” which basically is to say I can watch a series of videos of a philosopher speaking to judge their quality, versus just read a piece of paper that tells me which universities they graduated from. This doesn’t mean the resume has no place or can’t be an indication of quality, but it is to say that Zoom and video technologies might help us bring about a world of higher quality information for judging capability (“Deep Fakes” could be avoided with law and/or a Zoom setting that doesn’t allow AI, and furthermore the truth would come out when the person gives a live presentation, etc.). Especially if “the college monopoly on credentials” was removed (as often discussed in O.G. Rose), Zoom could increase competition in education and philosophy, likely increasing quality, considering that many more people could access the field and present their work through a “portfolio.” Right now, where basically the only widely accepted way to show credentials is mainly through a resume, those who are in a place to build their resume (which tend to be younger individuals who are yet to start a family, commit to a work, etc.) are favored, limiting diversity and possibility. (Ivan Illich was right to be so critical of “the monopolistic regime of institutional accreditation,” which though perhaps somewhat justified before the internet, now doesn’t seem so excusable.)
To return to our overall theme, this shift from “the resume” to “the portfolio” (if you will) could also help education and philosophy avoid being in, or associated with, “a bubble,” for those engaged in learning and “building their skills” would not necessarily mostly be those who lived on a college campus with their only responsibilities mainly being to learn (which can lead to learning feeling “abstract” and “not concrete”). Following “the resume” thanks to the “Zoom Tradition” (as I’m tentatively calling it), the people learning could be everyone from teenagers to grandmothers to plumbers to Žižek—a radical diversity and equality could be introduced, which would also have the profound change of shifting learning from the classroom to everyday life. As discussed in “Trivia(l)” by O.G. Rose, I fear the classroom as a “medium” currently teaches people to associate “being good at trivia” with “being educated and knowledgeable,” and I don’t think intelligence and education can fully flourish until that association is broken. Hopefully the paper expands on the case, but a “Zoom Tradition” would be a world where “the medium of education” would suggest that learn is mostly done in conversation and creativity versus tests and memorization, which would also add “the human face” back to the educational experience, perhaps helping education be more “human,” empathetic, and relational.
Sometimes, “The Medium Condition” can be as important as “The Material Condition,” which is to say a rich “trivia(l) classroom” creates the same problematic associations as does the poor “trivia(l) classroom.” To change people deeply without being oppressive, we must change “associational logics,” in ways like how brains have shifted between Oral and Written traditions. Likewise, if we want to end the association of education and philosophy with Elitism and “bubbles,” we must change the ways education can be experienced and delivered. This is what Zoom as a “medium” makes possible, which also might train brains to more creative and able to think nimbly, no longer mostly used for memorization and “winning trivia.”
All this suggests Ontological Design by Daniel Fraga, and indeed Fraga’s work suggests that we must become intentional and aware of “design” and “how our tools design us,” or else corporations and governments will do so without us exercising any self-defense or agency. Right now, we are designed to associate education with “trivia(l)”—is that what we want? Is that best? If not, we will have to change “the mediums of our classrooms,” and furthermore I think shifting from “the resume” to “the portfolio” (which also suggests a shift in “medium” and “associational logic”) will increase access, diversity, and creativity. Competition will increase positively between all people and classes of all socioeconomic backgrounds, helping shatter our subconscious associations of “learning with bubbles” and/or “learning with kids in their early twenties.” To realize the fullness of human potential, these associations must be deconstructed.
For more on education:
IV
There are “bubbles” where there isn’t “otherness,” and where the flow of information and opportunities for accreditation are limited to certain periods of life (early twenties) at expensive universities (Elite), then “otherness” will be limited. Ivan Illich warned that Modern Capitalism required “shadow work” outside of wages which wasn’t acknowledged as work or paid for in order for Modern Capitalism to be possible, and I would argue that this has ultimately contributed to the deterioration of both the market and spaces outside the market (for it has limited Rhetoric in favor of Discourse, as Belonging Again (Part II) discusses throughout); likewise, where education has basically lead to a split between socioeconomic classes, periods of life, etc. and access to education, opportunities to improve credentials, etc., this has overall lead to the deterioration of “educational life” and “life outside education.” Learning and “the rest of life” end up divided and unrelating, like “wage labor” and “shadow work,” and as a result both deteriorate, fall into “bubbles,” and social resentment can spread. (Every field is a maze that needs a “golden thread of otherness” to avoid losing itself, and yet every field naturally avoids “otherness”—a problematic tendency.)
If we attend college, most have their logistics mostly taken care of by college, especially if we teach or work there (which please note seems to be our only option if we want to work in and with philosophy). Under these conditions, it’s hard to even have “different spheres” of life for us to experientially put philosophy and education in conversation with, and so gradually and slowly they can cease addressing “concrete,” everyday life. “Bubbles” then form, and those in college can resent those outside of college for seeing them as “impractical,” as those outside college can resent those in college for seeing them as “unintelligent.” Those outside of college can also resent that they can’t get better jobs or improve their socioeconomic standings without returning to college, making universities feel tyrannical and oppressive. If learning and education are then associated with college, the resentment people feel toward universities can then be directed toward learning in general, and at that point, if learning is necessary for humanity, will we be able to keep our humanity?
Many warn of Western “Anti-Intellectualism,” but I can’t help but think that this might just follow from “the associational logic” we arrange in how we design society. Ending “the college monopoly on credentials,” embracing a “Zoom Tradition” with “portfolios” over “resumes,” moving education out of “bubbles” so that it feels more lived and “concrete”—all this could hep us end Anti-Intellectualism. Yes, it could argued that Zoom and the like make us more “disembodied” and remove us from lived experience, but I don’t believe that concern is as great as the problem of negative associations of learning with “trivia” and the formation of “bubbles” which education can fall into (which is arguably a worse form of “disembodiment”). Furthermore, a few hours on Zoom could inspire people before they return to farming or plumbing, and I don’t think the amount of time a person is on Zoom would normally be more than the amount of time they spend off it (or the amount of time someone at a college practically spends in a “bubble” while living at college). Furthermore, we seem more consumed about “disembodiment” when it comes to Zoom, but not so much when it comes to watching movies, being on our phones, or enjoying consumerism, which for me are “disembodying” as well. The question is rather how we might better “disembody” ourselves so that we better be ourselves overall, which requires significant work of our minds for a lifetime.
In closing, this paper has made distinctions between Elite, Expensive, and Inexpensive Philosophy and education to suggest the emergence of a new socioeconomic paradigm (thanks to new technologies) from which new thought might be possible (if only we might shift our “mediums”). No doubt these categories overlap, and there will always be some degree of exclusion in various groups relative to skill and ability in a given field, but “an exclusion anyone can be part of with practice and time” is different from “an exclusion on terms of wealth, age, lifestyle, etc.” Where there is exclusion based on ability, it is more like an “acknowledge of difference” which, under the right conditions, is an acknowledgement we can all be happy to make. It is more like the acknowledgment of a great athlete versus the acknowledgment of a resume—a wonder. In this way, we should seek a society of performance, which is to say (as Thomas Jockin teaches on) we should seek beauty and to be a people who love acknowledging it— a topic which will bring us to why “the fate of beauty is the fate of us.”
.
.
.
For more, please visit O.G. Rose.com. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram, Anchor, and Facebook.