Update Preface.
Dr Michael Macklin is a former Dean at the University of New England: the Executive Dean of the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Science from 2002 to 2007, and Macklin also represented the University as the Director, UNE Partnerships Ltd. He had previously worked as an Adjunct Professor, Centre for Philanthropy and Non-Profit Studies, at the Queensland University of Technology (2001-2002), and as the CEO at Hall Chadwick Education Consulting (1994-2002).
I work with Dr Macklin and he pointed out the following extract to me, which provides an excellent introduction to thinking on the Lebensphilosophie and this call to be decisive to stop the trend in overspecialization: “Modern universities offer a large number of academic majors where students can pursue research. However, overspecialization is considered to be a serious problem in research because it prevents academics from assessing the relationship between different fields in order to solve certain problems” Wikipedia.
Alexander Jeuk, What Happened to Philosophy? Philosophy Now, online copy, 2024.
Alexander Jeuk says overspecialization, academic debate focusing, and simplistic argument structures, are prominent missteps in modern philosophy. It is likely that most current academic philosophers would agree that there is not remotely a philosopher alive today who matches up to some of the classic philosophers. The last truly great analytic philosopher might have been Wittgenstein; the last great continental philosopher Heidegger. The former died in the 1950s, while the latter passed away in 1976. Probably there are more philosophers working today than ever before, and certainly some of them are very good and interesting, but are any of them great? Will some thinkers working today eventually come to be recognised by future generations as having been great? Nobody seems to have much confidence in this. Of course, ‘greatness’ is an unclear term. Yet, it doesn’t seem controversial to say that ‘greatness’ is a !audible attribute of particularly insightful, creative, revolutionary, or impactful philosophy — usually with a breadth that transcends the narrow specialization of modern academic disciplines with their categories and subcategories.
Dear Jack,
I am at Canberra airport waiting for an early flight to get home, after a week in both Perth and Canberra. I was going to call but with the time difference I was not going to wake you up at 7.30 in the morning. I know how you are.
I got time to kill, so I thought I would tap out the story. Too tired to speak anymore. It feels like the last words and testimony for a writer. Where to start for my best mate, Jack Ford.
You would be interested that yesterday, an academic gave a talk on Warhammer. I will give you the details if and when I get home.
Yes, apparently I am number one in the Council of Humanities and Social Sciences; the most active person in Australian Humanities and Social Sciences this past week. Yes, well, it is corporate bullshit. And it is particularly bullshit given I do not have the dollars to buy a coffee while I wait in the terminal. Yes, very broke but extremely active.
What does that say on how much my colleagues wish to change things from my detailed research on the policy problem. I am attempting to say such is life, but I am a man of peace, and even the institutional thinkers ignored me.
I have done what I could. I say to my dear friends, I am sorry it was not good enough.
Kind regards,
Neville Buch, Dr.
Postscript to the conferences and the flights
One of my colleagues stated, “Sifting BS is a noble occupation, unfortunately the pay is dependent upon knowing how to harvest it. Not that I know how, but we never know what’s around the corner and I smell roses.” Once, after a conference presentation, and getting tired of the silences and non-engagement, I asked one academic whether he was not simply excusing himself by saying he was going to break the conversation, by needing to go to the toilet, rather than just avoiding the conversation. So, I was asked to explain myself. I stated the context of non-engagement. What I was looking for was an genuine engagement on my critique of the academy.
Admittedly, a few conference academics have — just as strongly — engaged with me on the critique. There is a mutual bond because the experiences are so similar. We have been treated as a commodity on many occasions; and that is to be a disposable commodity, and it occurs at academic conferences. This has to do with personality and life position. It is the minority on the margins who are wise in perception; meaning accurate in thinking and judgement. The majority of thinkers, including academics, miss this understanding. Indeed, such academics are irritated by such comments. It means the hard work of rethinking their life position and comprehensive knowledge.
On this one occasion of a patient academic, listening to me, explained the failure of academic cognition, what he offered was his personal observation that I had a significant failure in communication, and I should make an appointment with a clinical psychologist. He could not say what my problem of communication was, except that he could not understand my presentation, and he felt that I had jumped from one point to another without making the linking inferences. I accept his criticism with genuine motivation, but in fairness I had shorten my short 20 minute presentation from a larger and more complex full paper. I will rewrite the paper and sent it to my colleague.
One redeeming facet of the story was that I did give an academic reply of the background story to my critique of the academy, in another group session: that the debate and critique of academic specialization, for more than a century, has been ignored in policy reforms. There is a too bigger distance in the academy for understanding big picture stories; academics hidden in small dark spaces. Too few listen and think about what is happening around them in Australian higher education policy, and if they do listen and care, too few are prepared to change the policy. If the policy changed, it would be an opportunity for more compassionate and kinder academic relations.
This is the change I have lived for, and am living for (2024). But the question is whether it is enough for social change so badly needed.
Featured Image: Neville is the most active person in HASS: Humanities and Social Sciences.
Neville Buch
Latest posts by Neville Buch (see all)
- On just economic and demographic reasons, why persons in government and corporations who disparages those who work in social media are fools - December 3, 2024
- Lebensphilosophie in Queensland, 1 December 2024. - December 1, 2024
- New VCs and the State of Affairs at and in Australian Universities - November 27, 2024