







































Education, Society and Human Studies 
ISSN 2690-3679 (Print) ISSN 2690-3687 (Online) 

Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs 

27 

Original Paper 

The Culture of Philosophy Withering Away 

On the Basis of Hungarian Philosophical Experiences 

Sándor Karikó1* 

1 University of Szeged, JGYPK, Szeged, Hungary 
* Sándor Karikó, University of Szeged, JGYPK, Szeged, Hungary 

 

Received: December 6, 2021 Accepted: December 14, 2021, 2021 Online Published: December 20, 2021 

doi:10.22158/eshs.v3n1p27                       URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/eshs.v3n1p27 

 

Absract 

Philosophy is for itself, in other words, it is an activity for itself by itself. It is one of the most precious 

intellectual treasures and pleasures of a human being. There are many symptoms which show that 

abstract thinking has lost its former glory, its glorious position in society. Unfortunately, the culture of 

philosophy has become a degraded intellectual phenomenon, and this short study analyses the reasons 

for its diminished value. It would like to stress there reasons: the first is: the practicable principle and 

interest as the age symptom. The second is: when the politics intervenes in the philosophy of the 

function (but we know that act of the way of thought is other as the movement of politics. The third is: 

the responsibility or irresponsibility of the philosophers. This study remarks some critical point of views 

in connection of there reasons. In conclusion, I claim that the current state of philosophy is the business 

of everybody; philosophy is a common intellectual property for all of us. In contrast to the public 

awareness, it is not an “aristocratic genre” but a “plebeian” one. 

Keywords 

philosophy, culture, teaching, research, judgement 
 
Many symptoms show that abstract thinking has lost its former glory, its glorious position in society. 

Philosophy has become a degraded intellectual phenomenon. There can be several reasons for its 

degradation, and I would like to present some of them. 

First of all, one should make it clear: the contemporary time period (its general movement and 

tendency) is not very beneficial for the propagation of philosophy. It is not hard to see that reality is 

dominated by the pragmatic perspective, principle of direct and immediate practicality and interest at 

that given moment. Nowadays, we do not have enough time, patience and do not want to endeavour to 

analyse phenomena in their own complexity, their own long-term process and consequences. The 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022 

 
28 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

short-term lucrative investment and pursuit of success have occupied the everyday life of institutions, 

companies and people who work. There is no capacity to process long-term profound general 

correlations, in many cases the competence itself is missing as well. Globalisation, climate crisis, 

modern migration, pandemic etc. occur in scientific, political and public discourses as general problems, 

but the universal thinking with a wide historical contextualisation to understand the above-mentioned 

phenomena is lacking, or at least it only exists as exceptions in society. It is not very surprising that 

there are no epoch-making representatives of contemporary philosophy, as Aristotle, Hegel, Heidegger 

or Sartre were before. Presumably, the last influential philosopher was Adorno who lived in the middle 

of the past century and whose lecture was attended by an audience of 2000 people. We, of course, know 

that exceptional, ingenious think tanks (and thus artists, social scientific researchers, too) are rarely 

born. Nevertheless, it is obvious to me that we are waiting for a new Socrates, new Kant, new 

Heidegger, as psychology is waiting for the new Piaget, or pedagogy is waiting the new Dewey. It is 

obvious that many brilliant philosophers are working in Hungary and the entire world. However, one 

can rarely come across one whose work would hugely determine the intellectual facet of our era. It can 

also be the case that we live in a period when there is no need for a superior philosophical authority 

who tells the ‘truth’, because with the spread of the Internet, mobile phones and other gadgets one 

might have the false impression of being smart and well-informed: as if they could solve the dilemmas 

of the world and their life on their own. 

Secondly, the role of artificial effects on philosophy cannot be disregarded. Above all, I am referring to 

the appearance of politics. One should not think of the scenario when we trust philosopher as the 

elected wise with the leadership of a city (and/or a nation), as they are the ones who understand the 

most the problems the community faces (see Plato’s conceptions), but the other way around. When the 

political will and interest—not tolerating any resistance—penetrate the world of philosophy: its 

institution, research and education. In the former case, it can turn out well, while in the latter one only 

harmful effects come into being. Without discussing in detail the sensitive relations of Hungarian 

politics and philosophy, I highlight that in the political discourse after the change of regime (in terms of 

both right and left wing governments) there were serious abuses and reckless measures. Once one sees 

the opinion that “there are too many philosophers in Hungary”, the other time the so-called “lawsuit 

against philosophers” triggers indignation. In my humble opinion, both political reactions harmed the 

relationship of philosophy and politics. Politics should not intervene in the functioning of philosophy 

(philosophising), because if such attempts are made, philosophy will be degraded and infantilised. 

Furthermore, philosophers will have the illusion of being capable of maintaining their authority and 

reaching their goals, which will sooner or later lead to the decline of philosophy itself. What the 

politician and philosopher should consider (or rather accept) is that politics and philosophy are 

governed by different rules and laws. The activities of the former are ruled by the endeavours for power, 

the latter one’s focal point is the in-depth analysis of phenomena. Politics limits the possibilities, while 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022 

 
29 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

philosophy is creative and without boundaries. 

Thirdly, I emphasize the professional responsibility of philosophers. Philosophers themselves 

contribute to the given state of the culture of philosophy: both positively and negatively. If one has the 

perception that philosophy’s influence on society is gradually degrading, then the professional potential 

and nature of the person conducting philosophy can also be regarded as a cause. In relation to this 

particular aspect let us turn to the self-critical statement of Schopenhauer as an example! Philosophers 

are usually loners and are not really social people. During their long and thorough contemplation, they 

distance themselves from reality. Their thoughts fly above the sky, and they write in a manner that it is 

nearly or completely impossible for average people to understand their train of thought. They reach a 

kind of sublime state of mind in which they feel that they are the only ones who are capable of seeing 

and understanding the dilemmas under investigation. Robert Musil ironically continues the description 

that God was cautious when he ordered the elephant to become a new elephant, the cat to become a 

new cat, but when he ordered the philosopher to be a new philosopher, he did not simply become a new 

one but the follower or opposer of his predecessor. The former one does not have one single authentic 

thought, while the latter tries to demolish the work of his ancestor. To me neither of them is better than 

the other. If philosophers cannot overcome such a weakness, philosophy will lose its convincing power, 

and such a flaw will have negative impact on the state of philosophy in its integrity, even if politics and 

society otherwise supported the free development of culture. 

The above-mentioned objective and subjective processes demonstrate under what circumstances the 

viewpoint of philosophy can prevail. Despite the unfavourable tendencies, philosophy should not give 

up its position; it should not react with resignation and passivity to the occurring problems but should 

respond by offering new possibilities, thoughts and experiments in order to take its former position and 

authority back. It knows the truth, but it should also make society accept the fundamental truth that 

narrow-mindedness can result in thinking that the independent culture of philosophy is unnecessary. 

Although one can live without aptitude for philosophy and can get on without it. What is more, such an 

activity will not bring direct and easily graspable values (not in the same way as numerous sciences and 

practical work), nevertheless, the historical experience up until now is that philosophical thinking, the 

desire to better oneself and conscious and/or instinctive endeavour for bettering oneself cannot be 

eliminated from the life of humans. 

Who question the right of philosophy for existence or at least try to decrease the importance of its 

effects do not know the two-thousand-year-old saying of Aristotle according to which humans being 

started to philosophise due to astonishment. The world is full of secrets, mysteries and unexplainable 

phenomena, in other words, wonders. The human-being of a given period is continuously inquiring 

about things, especially the most exciting dilemmas, in other words, what kind of world it is, what he 

himself is (as a concrete living human being) what the ultimate meaning and task of his life are. It is 

probable that he will not be able to answer these questions. Let us remember the realisation of Spengler: 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022 

 
30 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

philosophy is nothing else but the defence against the unknown. But maybe the ultimate goal is not 

finding the only and undeniable answer but always articulating newer and newer questions or 

approaching old dilemmas in a more sophisticated and differentiated manner. This poses a challenge 

big enough. 

According to my conceptions, I think many other colleagues can share my point of view, philosophy is 

an activity for itself by itself. It is one of the most precious intellectual treasures and pleasures of a 

human being. If we accept this argument, we should do everything for it freely and for the sake of our 

moral and intellectual development. There certainly are many ways to reinforce the social role and 

significance of philosophy. Nevertheless, I must recommend Cicero’s statements that he voiced in 

relation to Socrates: let us bring philosophy down to the face of the earth, bring it into the houses and 

all aspects of life. To relate it to the Hungarian reality: professional researchers and educators dealing 

with philosophy should endeavour to react more rapidly and efficiently to new problematics of reality 

and could furthermore develop more vivid and respectful relationship among one another in their given 

community than the one they currently have. Furthermore, such an education policy does its job well 

which desires to re-establish the compulsory and independent courses on philosophy in higher 

education (it is a painful fact that, for example, in Hungary medicine and teacher training have 

banished such courses!) and orient public education to the goal that teachers of all the disciplines 

should be willing and ready to discuss the philosophical and ideological aspects of the material they 

present to students. Such a publishing house, radio or TV announcer, international, national or local 

newspaper owner or editor acts in an exemplary manner who is capable of taking into consideration 

and discussing the general and profound correlations of phenomena. In fact, the state of philosophy is 

our common business; in contrast to the public awareness, it is not an “aristocratic genre” but a 

“plebeian” one. 

 

References 

Aristotle. (2009). The Nicomachean Ethics, eBook. Oxford Worlds Classics. 

Heller, A. (1982). A Theory of History. London-Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 

Heller, A. (2003). Philosophy is in existence nowadays, how is it possible nowadays? In A. Heller (Ed.), 

Philosophical ball-games. Budapest: Gond-Cura Alapítvány—Palatinus. 

Kiergegaard, S. (2009). Concluding Unscientic Postsrript, eBook. Cambridge University Press. 

Márkus, G. (1997). Antinomies of “culture”. Budapest: Collegium Inst. for Advanced Study. 

Musil, R. (1995). The Man without quality. London: Knopf. 

Plato. (1987). The Rebublic. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 

Russell, B. (1916). Principles of Social Reconstruction. London: George Allen and Unwin LTD. 

Schopenhauer, A. (2010). The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics, eBook. Oxford University Press. 

Spengler, O. (1926-1928). The decline of the West (v. 1. 1926, v. 2. 1928). Alfred A Knopf. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022 

 
31 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Thompson, M. J. (2019). Georg Lukacs and the Possibility of Critical Social Ontology, eBook. Studies 

in Critical Social Sciences, 148. 


