An apt comment, from the earlier thread, from philosopher Paul Guyer (recently emeritus at Brown University) that deserves special notice:
We have it good in philosophy and other humanities fields: retiring does not necessitate the end of research and writing, as it might for natural scientists dependent on maintaining a lab, including continuing to get grants. On the contrary, it can mean more time for one's own work, if one wants to continue doing that. And since philosophers often think about what we owe to future generations in the abstract, it is good to think about it in the concrete. In a non-expansionary period for philosophy and other disciplines such as we find ourselves in, at some point, which can no doubt not be determined mechanically, one should think about making room for younger people -- if indeed retiring will facilitate that, which is not always the case. This was hardly my only reason for retiring, but I did think that after fifty years of enjoying the benefits of good positions and perks in leading universities, it was time for me to let someone else have a crack at a job and a career (which did indeed happen at my well-off university). Otherwise, what have we been training new PhDs for?
This point seems to me well-taken; does anyone disagree with it? If so, why? Note that it is premised on the thought that one's position will be filled by someone else, which is not always the case obviously.
