Amateur Philosophy

These days, analytic philosophy is almost entirely written by professional philosophers employed in academic posts. In my career as a philosopher, I can remember coming across papers who were written by individuals outside of academia (including people with PhDs who left) only a handful of times. It isn't surprising that the vast majority of research should be written by academics. It takes a lot of time to get up to speed on a subject, and more time still to conduct original research into it. But it is surprising that they should right nearly all of it. There are many examples of highly competent philosophers throughout history who have engaged, even chosen to engage, in other primary pursuits. Why does that no longer occur?

This question bears special importance to me, as I am soon to leave academia, but I do not want to leave behind the rigorous reflection that comes with serious research. It is harder to think carefully in isolation from criticism, and writing for publication is one of the best ways of receiving criticism. I hope that I will not stop writing, but the absence of good models is alarming.

So why are there not more amateur philosophers publishing their work in solid philosophy journals. A couple inadequate hypotheses:

1. The only good reason to publish is to move up the academic ladder. Once that is taken away, there is no incentive to publish, and hence no one does.

This seems to be dubious for the reasons listed above. Publication has some significant value even in the absence of professional incentives. It is good for distributing work and receiving criticism about it. It enforces clearer thinking. People published long before the present professional incentives existed. In other domains, such as fiction or history, people publish without being professionals. It might be that there are better venues for amateur publication than academic journals, but if there are, I don't know what they would be.

2. Everyone who is capable of publishing both desires and is able to get a job in academia.

This strikes me as unlikely on both counts. Academic jobs require a whole lot more than research. A huge amount of an academics time is taken up by teaching and administrative duties. Not everyone who has an interest in research also has an interest in teaching. Furthermore, academic jobs tend to be fairly restrictive in terms of remuneration and location. For many, choosing an academic job requires huge sacrifices by one's family. There should be plenty of people who enjoy academic research but who would rather have other occupations for a variety of reasons.

But even if everyone who had an interest in academic research wanted a job, it is unlikely that they could all get one. The present job market makes it extremely difficult to get a job. There are plenty of reasons why someone who is capable of research might have difficulty getting a job -- their research might be a bad fit for current universities focuses, they might not have gotten along well with their graduate advisers, or they might be terrible teachers.