Jacques Derrida: 'Why is it the philosopher who is expected to be easier and not some scientist who is even more inaccessible?'

Why is it the philosopher who is expected to be easier and not some scientist who is even more inaccessible?

In his thought-provoking quote, Jacques Derrida raises an intriguing question about societal expectations and the accessibility of knowledge. He points out the irony of expecting philosophers to be more approachable and understandable compared to scientists, who often employ complex and technical concepts. This quote encapsulates the commonly held notion that philosophy is more abstract and esoteric than scientific disciplines, which can be seen as more concrete and grounded in empirical evidence. However, Derrida challenges this assumption, subtly raising a larger point about the nature of knowledge, perception, and the role of philosophy in society.At first glance, the meaning of Derrida's quote appears simple: it questions why philosophers, who deal with abstract ideas and concepts, are expected to make their work easier to grasp, while scientists are not subjected to the same scrutiny. However, hidden beneath the surface lies a deeper philosophical concept worth exploring – the notion of accessibility itself.Accessibility, in the context of this quote, could be understood as the degree to which knowledge is easily understood and readily available to the general public. Derrida suggests that philosophy is perceived as less accessible, yet it is often the philosopher who is expected to bridge the gap and present their ideas in a way that is more easily understood by the layperson. Scientists, on the other hand, are given the benefit of the doubt, with their complex theories and methodologies often perceived as inherently inaccessible.This contrast between philosophy and science brings to light an interesting philosophical concept: the tension between abstract thinking and empirical evidence. Philosophy primarily deals with abstract ideas, conceptual frameworks, and logical reasoning, while science is rooted in the systematic observation and analysis of the natural world. Both disciplines seek to uncover truth and expand our understanding of the world, but they do so through vastly different approaches.So, why is it that the philosopher, whose subject matter is already abstract and often metaphysical, is expected to make their work more accessible? One possible explanation lies in the practical applications associated with scientific knowledge. Scientific discoveries often have direct implications for our everyday lives, while the applications of philosophical inquiries are often less immediate and tangible. This disparity may lead to a perception that philosophy is less important or less relevant in comparison, thereby prompting a greater demand for clarity and accessibility from philosophers.However, it is important to remember that philosophy plays a vital role in our society. It challenges deeply engrained assumptions, pushes the boundaries of human understanding, and helps us grapple with complex ethical, moral, and existential questions. Philosophy has the capacity to inspire critical thinking, cultivate empathy, and foster intellectual growth. By delving into abstract ideas and grappling with the inherent complexity of our existence, philosophers provide unique insights that can enrich our lives in profound ways.In contrast, while scientific discoveries undoubtedly shape our understanding of the world, they often focus on more specific areas and can lack the broader scope of philosophical inquiry. Thus, one could argue that the scientific community can afford to be more focused and less concerned with accessibility since their work is often later translated and interpreted by other experts in various fields.In conclusion, Jacques Derrida's quote challenges our preconceived notions of accessibility in knowledge by questioning the expectation for philosophers to be more easily understood compared to scientists. While this quote initially addresses the seemingly ironic situation, it takes on a broader philosophical significance. It prompts us to reflect on the contrasting approaches of philosophy and science, the practical implications of their findings, and the complex interplay between abstract thinking and empirical evidence. By exploring this unexpected philosophical concept, we appreciate the value of philosophy in its capacity to engage with abstract ideas and foster critical thinking, ultimately enhancing our understanding of ourselves and the world we inhabit.