Philosophy at the University

Philosophy at the University

We are depressingly familiar with the argument that philosophy should not be taught in universities because it has no economic payoff. No goods and services result from it. You can’t make an honest living from it. We shouldn’t use public resources to finance such a useless study. By all means pursue philosophy as a hobby, but don’t expect taxpayers to foot the bill. I am going to argue that this is the opposite of the truth: it is precisely because philosophy is economically useless that we should study it at universities. Paradoxical? Not a bit of it. We just need to remember the function of a university. Many subjects are not studied at universities, though they may be studied elsewhere—comedy and entertainment, waste management, farming, furniture design, plastics, landscaping, cooking, etc. These are all worthwhile subjects of study with clear economic payoffs. Thus, private enterprise makes a point of funding these studies: it pays to learn them. There is money to be made by being an expert in these fields. By contrast, there is no money to be made by studying philosophy—it doesn’t produce anything that is economically viable as a business (intellectual landscaping?). There just isn’t the demand for it—so why use up resources to supply it? Why invest in philosophy if you can invest in plastics or steel or comedy clubs? But that is why philosophy should be studied in universities: because it can’t be justified by capitalist economic incentives. Without their backing it will wither and die, unlike industrial studies. Of course, this is to assume that it has value—just not economic value. It is worth studying, because it is interesting, deep, intellectually challenging, and concerned with real problems. If it were not, there would be no point in studying it. The question is where should it be studied; and the answer is in universities—because capitalist entrepreneurs will not take it on (unless some unprecedented demand for it springs up). Nor is philosophy alone in this: many subjects need universities to exist at all, because they have no economic payoff. History, zoology, literature, pure mathematics, linguistics, political science. It isn’t that these subjects have no economic benefits; it’s that the benefits don’t justify the expenditure, judged economically. They are bad capitalist investments. So, they need another home if they are to thrive. That is what universities are for: studying worthwhile things that won’t be covered by normal economic forces. And this is bound to be so given that not all worthwhile subjects have popular followings—not everyone likes theoretical physics or ancient history, though everyone likes to eat, laugh, live comfortably, etc. A university is an island of uneconomic activity—and that is good. The reason universities should include a philosophy department is that without them it would not exist—and we want it to exist.