The idea of a philosophy as a project is entirely lost, and we get something like a deeply superficial fast food philosophy. I can just imagine what sort of students such a curriculum would produce: students that only know how to argue and that believe that argument constitutes the core and essence of philosophy, that delight in picking apart and nothing more. Spinoza becomes nothing more than a set of arguments to be critically scrutinized and any sense that his work is a sort of therapy and a politics is entirely lost. Such a vision of philosophy becomes the commodification of philosophy. What is lost is the sense of philosophy: of why someone is occupied with these arguments and issues at all, of the problems that led to the mobilization of these arguments and concepts. Instead we approach these works in the most superficial way possible– “Who’s right about innate ideas? Hume or Descartes!” –when we should instead be wondering why people argued so ferociously over what appears to be such an arid topic.