Philosophy Professor vs. Humanities Editor
I was watching a video where two scholars (a philosopher and a humanities editor) were giving short papers (or, more accurately, contrasting stances) on whether there is philosophical progress in intellectual culture. A couple of other people made summary comments as well.
It was an enlightening polemical contrast, though it seemed like the humanities editor really didn't understand what professional philosophers actually attempt to do. However, he well understood how professional philosophers write badly. Furthermore, he rightly understood how often professional philosophers regularly publish irrelevant B.S (mostly, on my view, as result of publish or perish hiring and retention policies implemented by market-driven universities).
I wouldn't actually say the video was worth a full sitting of an hour, unless one happened to be interested in this issue. But there was a single comment posted below the video which itself made the time investment worth it.
Posted by the nickname "melektaus," it was as follows:
"What did I learn watching this? That journalists are people with no ideas and the ability to express them, and philosophers are people with ideas and no ability to express them."
[image] "Do-Si-Do" maxwaugh.com (Accessed, Oct. 1, 2011)
 Jason Stanley, videoist "Philosophical Progress and Intellectual Culture" at Harvard/ANU Profess conference Vimeo Sept. 21, 2011 (Accessed Oct. 1, 2011) [ Jason Stanely and Carlin Romano were the main interlocutors.]
[*] Philosopher Peter Ludlow gives a more optimisic take on this bifurcation problem, essentially arguing that philosophers need their own technical vocabulary to achieve progress on subtle and hard-to-solve philosophical problems. His response is here.