Should philosophy be free?

<p>This might seem like an odd question, and maybe it is, but I was prompted to think about this because a philosophy podcast I subscribe to - hosted by a couple of Stanford philosophy professors - will no longer be free as of this coming June. The typical 45 minute weekly downloads will become a "subscriber benefit". <br>

<a href="http://www.philosophytalk.org/about-us">http://www.philosophytalk.org/about-us</a></p>

<p>The philosophy forum here is pretty active, engaging, and regulars have been generous in sharing their point of view, but I bet not many think of these opinions as having any monetary value as opposed to the more common tech-support-type interactions offered in other forums that can often translate to tangible monetary gain for the recipient.</p>

<p>So, if philosophy is just like any other profession and shouldn't be free because philosophers have to eat too, how would one place a monetary value on it? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Can I express the satisfaction of brainstorming more fundamental questions in dollars, euros or yens? No. But neither can I do that for the moments of awe experiencing art, or the pleasant fuzzy feeling after enjoying an excellent meal.</p>

<p>There are plenty of business consultants out there getting paid for delivering an opinion on how somebody else should run their business. The opinion may be well reasoned, backed with scientific or empirical results. Sometimes it's not, just schoolbook advice that may or may not apply for the specific type of business, the market it is in, the company culture etc. etc. Either way, they get paid for delivering advice. Advice that, in my view, should be used critically to further explore and adapt to the actual situation. Yet, nobody really seems to mind paying for that external opinion/advice, even if it only functions as an "external ignition" for further thoughts.</p>

<p>In a way, a good philosophy discussion can be like a business consultant for our lives; an external agent that challenges our thoughts, beliefs and habits, and forces us to think thoroughly. In a same way experiencing art (of any kind) can wake us up and take better notice. We manage to put a price on those things, so why not philosophy?</p>

<p>Now, if you would ask me: how does the market mechanism define this price - that's a lot trickier question. So I am happily avoiding that one :-)</p>

<p>____<br>

<em>P.S.: I am not too convinced of what I wrote here - something about it feels wrong, but that could be because I simply would not like to pay for making me think a bit harder...</em></p>

<p>You're making a good point, Wouter, and maybe philosophy is only valued when served as a companion discipline, but less so as a standalone one. As an example, law is heavily based on philosophy as are many other professions that have philosophy as their foundation. </p>

<p>Well. Lets say, we can start from 10 cents/kB of solid good marketable philosophy and see where this will lead us to, then adjust the charge in accordance with actual demand. Besides, Kants books at Amazon still cost some, however free philosophy may be.</p>

<p>(-:</p>

<p>On the other hand the thought and thuse philosophy is pritty much like a lightning stricke - you can't undo it then it's already occured while it's O'kay to record it into formulated language making it a personal asset hopefuly marketable.</p>

<p>Ultimatelly, phylosophy is free but product [of philosophy] may or may not be free [of charge] circumstantially.</p>

<p>The whole point of market mechanism is to multiply money which means that sooner or later everything is going to be used.</p>

<p>Wow. That's pritty deep thought. How about it.</p>

<p>Nothing's free. But that's just a philosophical viewpoint.</p>

<p>I pay, therefore I am.</p>

<p>"You shouldn't give away your pie with breakfast. Makes you look cheap."</p>

<p>Free podcasts, blogs, etc., were never free. They were subsidized by the creators, usually with the expectation of some indirect form of compensation. Many of us do so based on the original communal and reciprocal value concept of the web. We're repaid in kind by enjoying the "free" content created by others.</p>

<p>To some extent that's always been the business model of philosophy anyway. Like most fine arts (as opposed to practical and commercial arts), philosophy is subsidized directly by benefactors and indirectly through reciprocal value.</p>

<p>Philosophy begins to have some monetary value of its own when it influences the world views of others who in turn directly influence the economy, whether it's the economic models derived from interpretations of the teachings of various religions, or the practical secular ethical concepts of Adam Smith.</p>

<p>We reciprocate, therefore we are.</p>

<p>What is the cost of subscribing to the website?</p>

<p>Are you going to pay it?</p>

<p>If yes, you have the value of the podcast to you. If not, you know the value to you is less than the subscription cost. </p>

<p>Can you post a recent link describing their decision on why it will become a paid program? This link is 7 years old and it implies you already have to pay for it and it outlines all the things they have to pay for.<br>

http://www.philosophytalk.org/community/blog/ken-taylor/2013/12/why-we-charge-downloads</p>

<p>Even if everyone volunteers their time it costs money for the equipment and bandwidth to produce and distribute the show. It doesn't matter if the podcast is about philosophy, car repair, or My Little Pony.</p>

<p>Walt, a screen grab of the recent email they sent regarding the policy change is below.</p>

<p>It has been free for the 5 or so years I've been a member. The new policy seems to be donation-based as opposed to an annual subscription. </p>

<p>It's true that any kind of high quality production cost will be high, but let's compare for a moment with similar offerings by University of California hosting close to 7,000 high quality videos of hour-long lectures and talks on YouTube, each requiring more effort than a simpler audio podcast:<br>

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/UCtelevision/videos">https://www.youtube.com/user/UCtelevision/videos</a></p>

<p>Perhaps philosophers just aren't as good at business as those from other academic disciplines, or they're simply unable to raise funding through Stanford. It's one of the reason why I posted the question - is philosophy in trouble because no one cares enough to pay for it? </p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17758776-lg.jpg" alt="" width="672" height="766" /></p>

 

<p>BY the way, Stanford hosts a huge online Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so it does appear the department is receiving adequate attention:<br>

<a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/">http://plato.stanford.edu/</a><br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Encyclopedia_of_Philosophy">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Encyclopedia_of_Philosophy</a></p>

Philosophy will never be in trouble for lack of

money. Lack of armchairs, maybe.

<p>I think you are comparing apples and oranges. <br>

UCTV is a TV channel collecting programs from 10 large public universities and national laboratories. I even remember getting it in North Carolina on my parents' Dish Network satellite feed.<br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California_Television<br>

Philosophy Talk is a podcast with 2 guys who probably are spending way too much on production budget compared to the number of listeners/viewers. They are using Ben Manilla Productions who has won a Peabody Award. Also, their website looks fairly professional. Who created / maintains it? None of that can be cheap.<br>

http://bmpaudio.com/</p>

<p>This says that for 10 years they got 80% of their funding from Stanford U. Now they aren't getting that much so they are asking for listeners to help out.<br>

http://philosophytalk.org/philosophy-talk%E2%80%99s-community-thinkers</p>

<p>10 years ago when podcasts first became popular I had a couple of friends make a podcast at home. They were in bands so they had good microphones, mixers, sound editing software. Posting files to free file sharing sites and since they were computer programmers made the web site themselves. It sounded pretty professional. Making interesting content is the more difficult thing. </p>

<p>They are are different in their approach, but they are similar in academics looking for an audience. Both were created out of nothing; one is self-sustaining while the other is teetering on the edge whether due to marketing, format, delivery, or subject matter. <br>

</p>

 

<p>Cogitationis redderet. Caveat emptor.</p>

<p><em>(<em>I think therefore I pay. Let the buyer beware.)</em></em></p>

<p>I think it's kind of noblier not to pay or be paid for philosophy - some real good ones could live in the barrel and still enjoyed weather for free. Because, if you start to pay for philosophy the philosophers naturally will start to put up the type of philosophy what pays most and we all know where this leads. Check Buddha and JC for instance - never got paid no money, never even asked for, instead were fully concentrated on the task matters at hand and did their job like we all should.</p>

<p>Philosophy might be free but philosophers still need to pay the bills. I think it would be better to have this service paid for by a large, disparate community which is interested in substantive debates, rather than a conglomerate "sponsoring" content. If you want something, you have to support it or Big Money turns it to crap. Every time I log on to FB now I get told "You best friend has invited you to like "BP; putting the planet first!" Obviously Mark thinks that several billions of dollars is a paltry sum to be expected to live off, which justifies annoying the hell out of several hundred million people to increase.</p>

<p>http://pcasts.in/mlLr This podcast deals primarily with ethical issues and secondly with the philosophy of mind. And it's free. The hosting organization has an entire podcast series - for free. See http://intelligencesquaredus.org. </p>

<p>I choose not to comment on the philosophy for money issue except to say that, after Socrates was forced to drink hemlock, philosophers have drinking hemlock ever since.</p>

<p>Lex - Not sure what you mean by "...for lack of money," unless you are taking the position (with which I would agree) that engaging in philosophy is not limited to the realm of professional philosophers. </p>

<p>Michael - I'm sure that at least some philosophers have the same level of business acumen as business people themselves or as anyone else. My own experience has taught me that colleges and universities in the USA look at academic philosophy and philosophy departments as having less business value than other disciplines or departments or, at the very least, that they offer comparatively little when it comes to high school graduates building their careers. That's quite a different matter than an individual's business acumen, though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Not sure what you mean by "...for lack of money," unless you are taking the position (with which I would agree) that engaging in philosophy is not limited to the realm of professional philosophers."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pretty much, yes. The notion of a professional/academic philosopher is a 20th century conceit, notable mainly for refining ideas about the meaning of meaning - stuff that was incomprehensible to ordinary folks*. Many of the notable society-changing philosophers before the 20th century were either impoverished and dependent on subsistence from family, friends and followers; or clergymen writing in their spare time; or independently wealthy enough to devote themselves to philosophy. Those were the philosophers who changed the world because they influenced, challenged or affirmed deeply held traditional beliefs in religion, economics, government and liberty.</p>

<p>The demise of that 20th century privileged class of professional academicians will shift the development or refinement of philosophy back to the armchair musers and backroom revolutionaries, the types whose ideas actually spur significant societal change because they influence people's most deeply held beliefs about religion, the economy and practical or utilitarian issues that ordinary folks enjoy debating over dinner, beers at a bar or on Facebook.</p>

<p>*Not that there's anything wrong with that. But I'm not sure I'll ever really understand whatever the hell Derrida was saying.</p>

<p>Philosophy is free. The local libraries around my neck of the woods have shelves full of books on philosophy. Just remember to renew your books or turn them in on time. I have trouble doing this myself and it's only a matter of time before a new branch with my name on it will open :-)</p>

<p>The way I look at it is like philosophers do not change the world [proportionally more than anybody else, that is] but the world is continuously changing in various ways and philosophers are the ones who figure the trends first. Probably because they are so smart and cooky. Which can be very irritating. And that's why noone loves them basically and so then they start to lay down to much for free and to show around in moral sense and make all kinds funny schemes and directions we basically put them behind the dollar sign but if they don't behave so usher them to the drinks, just like Lex mentioned - to keep their population under control.</p>

<p>The real problem IMo is not so much in how free philosophy is or should be but in how fast world is changing now. Cos then Rousseau for instance came up with idea that everythig is free and basically belongs to everyone by default they had a hundred years to chew on it not to mention the lots of everything what hadn't belonget to anyone, at least in the sense they had no paper work done to prove it and so on. Plus he had it communicatet to very limited number of closely dedicated friend all of whom were properly positioned in the structures. So, being in a way - resposible, they figured out slowly they can use it back then but now whole thing runs pritty fast and it is all on the paper, pre-paid by the money that doesn't even exist yet, and still all ours as before so naturally folks've been thinking alot again just how to get ahead. But this can be very confusin because of what shell we do, anyway?</p>

<p>Don't philosophers make money on the books they sell to their students?</p>

<p>A bit of clarification, Alan - - Philosophers are not necessarily philosophy professors, and philosophy professors are not necessarily philosophers. Indeed, some philosophy professors may sell books to students in the form of required textbooks for courses, but this unfortunate practice is not limited to philosophy professors.</p>