This may seem off-subject, but sometimes what makes a philosophical discussion "productive" (which could mean many subjective things, but generally I'd define to mean "reaching an understanding more comprehensive—and possibly universal— than what was previously understood") is being grounded in survival issues. That includes survival of the spirit as well as the body. I understood Rick's "academic" crit to refer to discussion removed from existential threat or reality. Comfortable and securely positioned people may have the luxury to think and work out ideas, but there often is a certain edge missing, a comprehensive vision, an impetus or urgency to the development of ideas.
"Beauty" and "truth" are much more vital when seen in the light of great difficulties and painful or harrowing circumstances. Many of the great thinkers had periods of wealth/comfort and periods of extreme hardship. Some hardships can be "inner." Emily Dickinson? Or "personal/social." So a "removed" discussion may seem "academic" whereas great ideas came out of vital, urgent issues which thinkers felt compelled to resolve. Having said that, academic work in no way disqualifies one from reaching a high level of vision...as long as one is challenging comfort zones, whatever they may be.
|