Frank Kogan

i began an argument somewhere -- i think -- in the plato threads, relating the seeming continued need for philosophy (in the sense you're suspicious of) to the desire for the survival of the institution of academia itself

Here's the thread (it was in the first "Relativism: So What?" thread).

What you basically said there is that it's been "bred" into a lot of academics that philosophy is foundational, that a lot depends on it, including academia is we know it (or the revival of academia as we once knew it). The attachment to "foundational" philosophy is essentially irrational, but it's there. And you're implying that someone who feels this is also likely to feel that foundations must be "transcendental," or vaguely feel that foundations must be foundational, or something.

I think you're quite right that some people feel this way. I'll add that there's an antitranscendental argument for the importance of philosophy that goes "the idea of transcendence (and a bunch of Platonic either/or binaries) saturates society and everyday life, and we are special people who can demystify all this transcendental baggage, so give us your money."

But so what? Not a rhetorical question. Yes, some people feel this way, but how important is it that they feel this way? Also, how many of these people even know the argument about transcendence? Not that their potentially not knowing the arguments will make their feelings about the matter necessarily important, but just how important are those feelings, and how would we go about finding out?

Also, how much do you feel the issue is important? Do you consider the anti-transcendental position ("nothing exists in isolation"?) to be a big deal?