It’s a bit surprising to see Timothy Williamson (2024, Philosophia) start his rather critical review of Philip Kitcher’s (2023) What’s the Use of Philosophy? with a reference to Aristoxenus’ account of an anecdote often repeated by Aristotle about Plato’s lecture on the good. For Aristoxenus’ (second hand) report of Plato’s lecture is an obsession for those interested in Plato’s purported esoteric doctrines. Aristoxenus own purported reason for reporting Aristotle’s anecdote is to teach the art of clear presenting. According to Aristoxenus’ report this involves (inter alia) clearly stating (as we teach our students in analytic philosophy) one’s thesis and main argument at the start of the lecture.
I'm not a huge fan of the military-industrial complex. But I'd assent to the implicit judgement that, on the whole, the US Air Force has been a source of net benefits to humanity, relative to the alternative that its opponents, such as the Luftwaffe and the Soviet Air Force, had prevailed.
So, I don't think a failure to interrogate this point is a decisive argument against a consequentialist view of the role of philosophy, and academic inquiry in general.
I'm not a huge fan of the military-industrial complex. But I'd assent to the implicit judgement that, on the whole, the US Air Force has been a source of net benefits to humanity, relative to the alternative that its opponents, such as the Luftwaffe and the Soviet Air Force, had prevailed.
So, I don't think a failure to interrogate this point is a decisive argument against a consequentialist view of the role of philosophy, and academic inquiry in general.