Should Sages Get Degrees?

We tend to think credentials signify expertise, but what credentials fundamentally demonstrate is social proof.

A PhD in Philosophy need not mean that I am a philosopher; only that I am someone whom philosophy professors recognize as “one of them.” Titles exist to reinforce a guild, but excellence for its own sake is indifferent—or perhaps even opposed—to titles.

To the extent that the pursuit of a title is a distraction from excellence—or requires the sacrifice of time devoted to mastery for the social illusion of it—the best will avoid them. At least, in broken fields, in corrupt traditions.

At the same time, in a world where people are reluctant to grant authority to those without titles, in a world where experts create cartels that make it risky to bet on non-validated outsiders (who may be exceptionally excellent, but might also be quacks), perhaps the sage should compromise?

It all depends on whether you think the sage should care about substance alone, or whether the sage should also care about “marketing” and “distribution”.

Is the sage’s pursuit of a credential in sage-hood (whether as a therapist, priest, executive coach, yoga teacher, philosophy professor or some other form of socially validated guru-healer) an act of compassion or a formal contradiction?