<< The
question is why do such promising young intellectuals get stuck - as you put
it - with this philosophical tradition - a question I'd take folks like
Carrol wouldn't even find interesting.
Maybe it's because that tradition can be translated more easily into an
individualistic outlook - I don't know, perhaps you've been saying this - or
those who aren't inclined to identify themselves with the
mainstream/consensus and who aren't inclined to do (a) or (b) see no other
options in a leftist waste land, and they are sure as hell not going to
identify with the establishment - that would be uncool.
Those who do say they want to be "radical" - for me, this simply means
anti-capitalist where the goal is not reformist - and aren't can have the
discrepancies pointed out to them, obviously. >>
* * *
This is just speculation but I think it is complex. Young people who are interested in big questions are attacted to philosophy in part because it offers answes and perspectives on those questions, as well as new questions. I know from the personal experience of someone who was attracted to philosophy by Nietzsche that that sort of dark, poetic writing appeals to something in the adolescent spirit. The appeal of a more analytical approach is less on first acquaintance, basically you have to be socialized into an appreciation of Hume or Carnap.
If the question is, why not Marx rather than Nietzsche, when Marx is after all a literary master, full of anger and fire and rebelllion, ought to be tailor-made for alienated college kids. By itself, perhaps. But it comes in an ideological context and with a lot of baggage. The context includes a social backgrouynd that tells us (without argument) that Marxism is all wrong, out-of-date, refuted, failed, look at Russia. In a university context, this is reinforced by teachers to believe this and promulgate these ideas. It madea lot of difference to me, in my early development, to have hada smart teacher who was a red, someone I could look up to.
That has to do with the baggage, as well. Nozick says that he felt guilty about going over the right because right wingers seemed like mean spirited so-and-sos while all the nice, interesting peoplew were on the left, but he was persuaded taht the right wingers were right. That was in 1974. Well, today the left is sadly shrunk, and I fear we are not the nicest bunch of people around. You have to ask yourselves, would people want to be like us? Would they want to associate with us? What do we have (except a bit of the truth) that would appeal to someone young? ANd being right, I mean correct, has never been enough. I think a cold hard look at our culture is called for.
--jks