Primitive Christianity Revived, Again
[SNEC = Synergeticists of the Northeast Corridor ]
Because I went to a fancy school (Princeton) and studied philosophy, I'm used to such as Dr. Walter Kaufman suggesting that "university philosophy" was a subject with zero backbone, a spineless trajectory for dweebs. That was a challenge to us of course, to make it be otherwise. We were the new generation. He told me directly in his office he thought I was best of breed, in terms of my writing.
Wittgenstein too begged his best students to get out of philosophy. He walked his own talk in that regard, serving as a hermit, school teacher, hospital orderly, medical researcher... anything to escape the "influenza zone" of academic philosophers (what he called it).
Anyway, I heard those around me planning to become philosophy professors talking about the "real world" in distant terms, adding to my resolve to get off that boat. I dove in to high school teaching after that, and to this day work with the pre-college age crowd.
My early triumph in the early days of the Web was getting Dr. Suber of Earlham College, then maintaining an index of all philosophy websites, to include mine. He needed convincing that Synergetics was indeed a philosophy, which partly accounts for the quote at the top of my Synergetics on the Web home page. That convinced him:
If anyone in the world of academic philosophy can only find the Derek Kelly paper as "what philosophy has to say" about Fuller and can't recognize that I'm just as qualified (infinitely more so) to have my views, then that just adds to my perception that academic philosophy is a corrupt joke of a department and, like neoclassical economics, is likely not long for this world. If the issue is I am not a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) the way they sell it, then that'd be a problem for Philosophical Quarterly as well. Fuller is just not one of the people they write about, as proved by their sorry track record. How deeply unethical and unprofessional.
It says an awful lot about academic philosophy that the only assessment it managed to cough up was in some obscure journal in 1982. Why should I have any respect whatsoever for such a dead end loser discipline? I'd rather use their negligence as evidence of their incompetence and poorly tuned sense of relevance. I have zero respect for Philosophical Quarterly and would not want to be an author in its pages.