Stephen,

You said: “I’m completely confused by Jim Sias’ story above, and worried that it might reveal something strange about philosophers’ reaction to non-philosophers… . Maybe Jim’s own research is on some meta-ethical topic far removed from the question about the relationship between broad ethical principles and particular moral claims. However, it’s not obvious that uncle’s response shows a complete lack of philosophical understanding. Furthermore, if we interpret uncle’s statement in this more charitable light, there’s no reason to suppose he might not “get” meta-ethics (at least a sense of meta-ethics) on some prodding… .”

And then J.Y. had this sarcastic interpretation of my story to share:

“Uh, so once I was spending some time with my wife’s family, and her uncle, who never went to college, asked me about what kind of philosophy I do, and we had this conversation:

Me: Oh, I’m just trying to work out the kinks in the causal-historical theory of reference.

Him: So you mean like Kripke’s theory?

Me: Uh, Kripke doesn’t actually HAVE a theory of reference. [My wife leaves the room laughing under her breath]

Can you believe that? What an ignoramus that uncle was!”

I must say, I’m a bit surprised that two people (let alone ANYONE) would react this way to that story. It seems pretty obvious to me (and to the others with whom I’ve shared the story) that the point was not that my wife’s uncle is “an ignoramus,” but rather that I was NOT prepared to talk to my uncle-in-law about the ethical implications of his son being naked in the same room with him and feeling uncomfortable.

J.Y., you went on to say: “Lighten up, people. I don’t know what people in a lot of other departments at my school do either. I don’t expect them to know what I do. Let alone people don’t work in academia.”

Others were posting accounts of humorous encounters they’ve had when the subject of their studies came up in conversation. I did the same.

Gosh, I guess it’s true what they say: For those to whom you have to explain the punchline, all humor is lost. Oh well. Win some, lose some, I guess.

Him: So, what do you do?
Me: I’m a philosopher.
Him: Really? I have a philosophy….
Me (cutting him off): No, actually you don’t.

This very nearly resulted in a brawl. Since this conversationoccurred (and having to attempt to answer the “which came first – chicken or egg?” question at least half a dozen times in bars), I have resorted to calling myself a logician (unlike one of the earlier posts, I can claim this status in good conscience). Fortunately, I have never encountered the logician/magician confusion (although my grandmothe does think I am a physicist for some reason – perversely, I find this one kind of flattering)

Regarding defending the utility of philosophy: As has already been noted, if you actually look at reasearch in most university departments, little of it has any immediate practical applications (some, but not all, of the sciences are exceptions of course). The important question to ask when thinking about whether Mary taxpayer is getting her money’s worth, I think, is not whether this stuff IS applicable, but whether it WILL BE. And the answer would seem to be: we just don’t know (but then, neither do a lot of the scientists).

A nice anecdote illustrating this is provided by the lovely little book “A Mathematician’s Apology”, by Hardy. A number theorist, Hardy defends the (and, in particular, his) pursuit of pure mathematics in terms of the aesthetic pleasures of such pursuits and the joys of knowledge for knowledge’s sake, etc., etc. In the book, he states that he is quite proud of the fact that not a single one of his (rather important) mathematical results has any applications to any aspect of the actual world – all of it was just math for math’s sake, according to him. The great irony, of course, is that his work, a few decades later, turned out to be of central importance for modern cryptography.

Along similar lines, as our world becomes increasingly electronic, and thus information oriented, it does not seem impossible that philosophical research will become increasingly important (especially phil’s of langauge and logic).

Do I think it highly likely that the as-of-yet undiscovered solution to Yablo’s paradox (to just take a random example) will be the cornerstone of some crucial future technology? Of course not. It does not seem impossible, however, and that is enough to justify funding reasearch into it.

As a final strategy, you can always point out that many of the luminaries in the history of ‘science’ were not, according to the job titles of their era, scientists at all (since the term did not exist). Rather, they were philosophers and/or mathematicians (this is the reason that Newton’s most well-known work is titled Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy – or its latin equivalent, and not Mathematical Principles of Physics). And most academic disciplines (arguably all but mathematics) began as subdisciplines of philosophy, and only branched off on their own once they became sufficiently developed.

Elderly lady supervisor: What are you reading?
Me: A philosophy book, about truth.
Lady (smugly): I’m a philosopher.
Me (incredulously): Really?
Lady: Yes. I’m going to Atlantis for my holidays.

(It turned out she was a Rosicrucian, and had signed up for a package-tour which involved flying over a part of the Californian coast from which the remains of Atlantis were allegedly visible.)

Officer: what are you going to be doing in America?

Me: I’m an exchange student

Officer: And what are you studying?

Me: Philosophy

Officer (no reaction): Where will you be?

Me: Down in San Diego, at the University of California

Officer (after a pause): Are the Churchlands still there?

Me (surprised): Yes, they are

Officer: I’m a big fan of their work

… maybe the reach of philosophy is wider than we realise!

She was teaching philosophy at a business-oriented college, where the students all think of themselves as bright young entrepreneurs. One of the students put his hand up in lecture and said that he had some suggestions for changes to the syllabus. In particular, he felt that there was no point in reading Plato. “But Plato is one of the greatest philosophers in history”, said my friend. The student replied, “Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, and I don’t see why we should have to listen to what Plato thinks, just because he has a PhD”.