Competitive Philosophy

Competitive Philosophy

There are two kinds of philosophy: competitive and excellent. These are quite different. In the former kind, people are rewarded for being better than other people (by some standard); in the latter kind, they are rewarded for doing excellent work. Clearly, it is possible to succeed at the former while being lousy at the latter. The former has come to dominate the latter in America and to some degree elsewhere. The reason for this is institutional: the scramble for jobs, promotion, professional perks, publications, etc. To achieve these things, you need to perform better than your competitors, whether what you do is excellent or not (whether youare excellent or not). It wasn’t always so, or not to the degree it is now: jobs were generally available, tenure not too difficult to obtain, promotion automatic, publications optional. The result was that excellence was the main aim not out-performing your rivals—and so excellence occurred, if rarely. But now winning the competition is the name of the game and excellence has suffered (not to mention collegiality, moral character, and general niceness). An upsurge of horribleness is the result. And excellence has not accompanied it. The capitalist model has taken over the discipline (everyone for himself, winning is everything, career is God, ranking is what matters). I’m glad I’m out of it.[1]

[1] It used to be called the “rat race” and the term is appropriate; now philosophers are rats. This has deformed even feminism into something less than wholesome. Too much competition, not enough creation. People tend to play the same game, hoping to outdo their rivals.