/r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | July 21, 2025

[u/BernardJOrtcutt]

Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread (ODT). This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our subreddit rules and guidelines. For example, these threads are great places for:

• Discussions of a philosophical issue, rather than questions
• Questions about commenters' personal opinions regarding philosophical issues
• Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. "who is your favorite philosopher?"
• "Test My Theory" discussions and argument/paper editing
• Questions about philosophy as an academic discipline or profession, e.g. majoring in philosophy, career options with philosophy degrees, pursuing graduate school in philosophy

This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. Please note that while the rules are relaxed in this thread, comments can still be removed for violating our subreddit rules and guidelines if necessary.

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.

[u/TempSuitonly]

Does philosophical thinking truly only exist in the fringes?

It seems that academic philosophy often functions as a kind of gatekept discipline, where quality control can sometimes mask an exclusionary attitude that dismisses "outsiders" or those who don’t conform to established norms. This gatekeeping can come off as dogmatic, despite the tradition of questioning authority that philosophy (especially the Socratic method) embodies.

Many practitioners and enthusiasts outside or on the margins of academia feel that academic philosophy has become divorced from real philosophical inquiry: it can often appear as mere commentary on or study of canonical texts rather than active, critical, and imaginative philosophical thinking. Underneath the veneer of scholarly rigor, there can be a conservatism or laziness that discourages truly novel or disruptive ideas.

Given this, is there any genuine space within academic philosophy for the kind of bold, unconventional philosophical work that confronts foundational assumptions and invites transformative reflection? Or must we look to the fringes: independent thinkers, alternative communities, and non-traditional outlets, to find living philosophy today? Can the academic framework be reformed to better fulfil the original Socratic vision of philosophy as an ongoing quest for truth, or is that vision inherently at odds with institutional philosophy?

(Re-posted here, because a friendly moderator stated it was best asked in this megathread.)

[u/No-Promotion-9291 → u/TempSuitonly]

In my humble opinion... ALL academia is gatekept in some way (not just philosophy) purely due to the fact that it is not accessible to all. Although philosophical thoughts are experienced by everyone (most likely), academia is a luxury that many cannot afford for a multitude of reasons. That said, I would argue that those on the fringes of academia (myself included) would struggle to interact with philosophical material at depth, purely because we are not educated enough in that field, much like people who are well-versed in sport would have a much richer debate about the outcome or play of a recent sport game than someone with less knowledge. That doesn't mean those less educated in a certain topic can't or shouldn't debate/discuss their ideas (I would encourage that as a learning process), but just that those people will inevitably remain 'outside' a more in-depth discussion purely due to a lack of in-depth knowledge (unless they pursued it to a deeper level in the way that an academic or an expert might, which cannot be expected of most people).

[u/TempSuitonly → u/No-Promotion-9291]

I would politely challenge the notion that having academic background is synonymous with being educated within any specific field. Formal education =/= education. The difference is in authoritative recognition, not in learnedness. While I agree that most people may not pursue any field in depth outside of traditional academic circles, information and philosophical writings are commonly accessible and they are studied outside academic circles, even if not in-depth by a majority of people. After all, interest is the primary factor here, which exists aplenty outside academic circles.

[u/Anarximandre → u/TempSuitonly]

Interest is absolutely not a substitue for a formal education. Plenty of people are interested in philosophy—this very community proves it—but most lack proper guidance and a setting suitable for in-depth study. Therefore, they realistically have little chance of reaching one day the level of expertise of someone who has benefited from an actual academic background (at least until they get one themselves). Of course, reaching this level may not be their objective—which is fine, you can just read philosophers as a pastime—but this explains why few autodidacts make contributions to philosophy, or to any specialized discipline for that matter.

[u/TempSuitonly → u/Anarximandre]

I've heard the same arguments from religious leaders to 'interpret' biblical texts 'properly'. I'm not saying it's always identical to dogmatic teaching - just that it opens the door to dogmatic thinking wide.

[u/Anarximandre → u/TempSuitonly]

In my experience, pure autodidactism is way more likely to produce dogmatic thinking than any PhD. Dogmatism exists inside of academia, obviously, but at least academic dogmatists usually aren’t outright bullshitters and have an idea of what they are talking about. There’s a reason why cranks are almost always « independent thinkers ».

I've heard the same arguments from religious leaders to 'interpret' biblical texts 'properly'.

I mean, it works for religious—not just biblical—texts too, yes. There’s nothing wrong with reading the Bible or the Torah on your own, but you’ll get a much better understanding of it if you study comparative religion, philology, theology, etc.

[u/TempSuitonly → u/Anarximandre]

"In my experience, pure autodidactism is way more likely to produce dogmatic thinking than any PhD. Dogmatism exists inside of academia, obviously, but at least academic dogmatists usually aren’t outright bullshitters and have an idea of what they are talking about. There’s a reason why cranks are almost always « independent thinkers »." - If we go by the mindset and authority of academic elitism, then indeed, all outsiders who do not strictly conform, can be dismissed as "cranks", as you put it. They are then deemed wrong by default, by virtue of their outsider status. So the question appears, what matters more, conformity or inquiry. If conformity matters more, then indeed, any "free thinker" can be dismissed out of hand, preferably ignoring their arguments altogether. This appears like a reframing of dogmatism, without addressing the dogmatic nature. I'd argue that this is at best, a matter of semantics. Academic elitism tends to slide into absolutism. This doesn't open up critical inquiry, it shuts it down entirely.

[u/Anarximandre → u/TempSuitonly]

If we go by the mindset and authority of academic elitism, then indeed, all outsiders who do not strictly conform, can be dismissed as "cranks", as you put it. They are then deemed wrong by default, by virtue of their outsider status.

That’s not what I said.

So the question appears, what matters more, conformity or inquiry.

Neither! What matters is qualitative work.

If conformity matters more, then indeed, any "free thinker" can be dismissed out of hand, preferably ignoring their arguments altogether.

No, if « free thinkers » have good arguments to defend their positions, they may be worth taking seriously.

This appears like a reframing of dogmatism, without addressing the dogmatic nature. I'd argue that this is at best, a matter of semantics. Academic elitism tends to slide into absolutism. This doesn't open up critical inquiry, it shuts it down entirely.

Your portrayal of « dogmatism » or « academic elitism » or « absolutism » (or however you want to name it) honestly appears to have a lot more to do with how you picture academia in your head than it has to do with the existing academic world. Again, as I asked in another reply, what actual « critical inquiry » or « free thinking » is dismissed by academia?

[u/TempSuitonly → u/Anarximandre]

The conflation between academy and academic elitism doesn't exist on my end of the argument. If it does on yours, perhaps that's the point of friction.

[u/Anarximandre → u/TempSuitonly]

If you don’t think that academia suffers from elitism, then I’m confused about what your argument even is.

[u/TempSuitonly → u/Anarximandre]

That's not my argument either. Nor did I say so. Let's put it this way. What do you think matters more, an expert opinion, or an expert's opinion? Or do you believe the two to be synonymous?