5 Answers

  1. Non-academic philosophy is not known what it is. As a rule, it is spoken about by amateurs who have not passed academic training, but really want to philosophize. Within the framework of the academic system, any style of philosophizing can be studied and practiced, including the most irrationalistic, intuitionistic, poetic, fictionalized, mystical, and so on. But you need basic training. To be aware of at least the initial philosophizing. Realized – then do what you want. If you don't realize it, you will be angry at the so – called academic philosophy because no one understands you. It is in this rancor of amateurs that the so-called “non-academic philosophy” usually consists.

  2. Non-academic philosophy is most often the real philosophy. Most likely, you will not find philosophy in philosophy departments and the Institute of Philosophy. The degeneration of philosophy in these places occurred because philosophy began to be identified with ideology and knowledge, and it is NOT knowledge, and even more so ideology (modern, deep, non-academic philosophy is primarily anti-ideological). The essence of philosophy is to practice seeing what is really there. Academic philosophers, as a rule, do not know how to do this.

  3. I write my opinion on how the question is asked and believe that academic philosophy does not exist. There is one philosophy and only one. A, so-called academic, this is not philosophy, it is an unfortunate name for a pseudo-philosophy invented by pseudo-philosophers. There is only one philosophy in the world and it is called PHILOSOPHY-the LOVE OF WISDOM. And the study of the works of Great Sages is an acquaintance with their works, and there can be no candidates and doctors of philosophical sciences who are not philosophers. Neither Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, Lao Tzu, etc. were “learned” men!!! The philosopher is from God, and everything else is from the evil one!!! I think so. With respect.

  4. Everything is determined by the motive and task with which the subject approaches the object of research, which determines the focus of his appeal to it.

    It is possible to talk about the content only by defining the boundaries of a particular philosophy (the same postmodernism has a lot of interpretations), a system of concepts, principles used, understood as conditions for operating with it as a special reality, a special phenomenon that requires a certain approach, if the goal is to understand, communicate, and obtain knowledge of a different quality.

    Otherwise, philosophy (and everything that can be said about anything) is an exercise in fine literature, a game on external signs of similarity/difference.

  5. I don't think that such a sharp division between academic and non-academic philosophy makes sense. We have examples from history of non-academic philosophers (F. Nietzsche) or philosophizing classics of culture (L. N. Tolstoy, F. M. Dostoevsky) who have had such an impact on the whole culture in general and on philosophy in particular that their contribution is indisputable. But in general, non-academic philosophers differ from academic ones in their haphazard presentation and lack of strict logically consistent argumentative series (these series will still need to be extracted from their writings independently).As for the content, it will often be some kind of applied philosophy – for example, the philosophy of culture or the philosophy of religion, but there are exceptions (I have already mentioned F. Nietzsche).

Leave a Reply