A philosopher in crisis

Dear experienced reader of political theory and philosophy,

I am writing to seek your advice in an intellectual crisis. I write not because you are likely to be interested in my personal crisis, but because I have a feeling that the general question may interest you. I admit that these questions are dauntingly numerous and open-ended. I don't hope for any treatise as long as this email, maybe not even responses to each question, but only the comment(s) that initially come to mind and any discussions of this topic that you can point me toward.

I tend to think that my intellectual sympathies lie with political philosophers and (a bit more loosely) theorists rather than strict political scientists or policy analysts. The reason: I favor the more rigorous argumentation of the analytic philosophers. But after working this summer for a legal scholar who is a former journalist and by no means a philosopher - though with more theoretical coherence than most - I've heard the other side of the story, lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court who have no patience with philosophers who are unwilling to accept political realities and are altogether shunned by the legal practicing community. I've thus stumbled upon the questions below that I suppose are very common. Yet despite how common I imagine these to be, I am ever-stymied in my attempts to find professional discussions of these questions. I begin to fear that, occasional rosy-colored public statements aside, political philosophers write more for their colleagues and their own gratification than to produce any lasting change. I say this not as a critic, but as a concerned fan - for I, too, gain a great deal of insight and pleasure, if you will, from theoretical and philosophical debates. But I am still confused about the following questions:

1. Who is the audience of political philosophers? Most political and legal philosophers freely acknowledge that their work is ignored by practitioners of law. Sometimes they argue about the necessity of informing the public. But I doubt both that they have any enthusiasm for that proposal (I see very few journal authors churning out public pamphlets) nor that their ideas lend themselves easily to public digest. Yet I also do not see them often directing their arguments to policy-makers or the politically influential.

2. What do political theorists and philosophers hope to accomplish with their work? I know they seldom hope to solve the great questions they pose like Why is justice important?.

3. Given the profound importance of legal theory questions, why should we trust this class of thinkers to resolve them for us? Especially given that most arguments begin with certain theoretical premises - whether Rawlsian, consequentialist, etc - but authors of course refuse to pigeon-hole themselves into a school of thought so that members can easily grasp their arguments and non-members can easily reject them, this makes it very difficult to disaggregate the total work out there for the non-member of the philosophical community. Even deciding what one believes requires going article-by-article, deciding, if it meets our test for soundness of logic and argumentation, whether it appeals to our intuitions about what is right. If I plan to write as a legal theorist, how can I take myself seriously while realizing that most people will merely dismiss my argument based on its first premises? If in a pluralistic system we can never hope to base our entire theory of law on one (my) philosophy, why should we adopt it in this aspect? Cleary the reason I favor this approach is because it is the outgrowth of my fundamental principles. But there is a certain disingenuousness in arguing in persuasive dialogue that this is the best outcome for others who do not share my principles, based on outcomes alone.

4. Similarly, as a mere student and a fresh student of political philosophy, can I hope to add anything to the discussion early? The field seems to me to be one for the wise and experienced, mostly for older philosophers who have authority through credence. Certainly one say that . But if I do not come across as a prodigy - the contrary being almost 100% guaranteed - do you think that I can do anything that will be accepted? A mediocre chemistry professor can at least hash out the details of some new formula. But it's not clear to me that the same is true in philosophy because there is no "scientific method" to which you can appeal. It seems you must prove the soundness of your method before addressing the details, or no one will trust you. And therefore all the young people simply seem to be applying the philosophy of an established philosopher to a new question. But if I don't want to merely embrace some such philosopher blindly, must I just consign myself to a career writing about the specific texts of other thinkers, quoting others only?

Can a political theorist do respectable work in political philosophy, and likewise? The very fact that the debate between the disciplines is so stained with contempt, on both sides, suggests that the constructive nature in which they could engage is lost.

Sincere thanks,
Erin Miller