Share Facebook

Twitter

Whatsapp

Mail

Whatsapp British philosopher Alain de Botton has become a crossover star thanks to educational projects and bestselling books

Philosophers ask the big questions of meaning, truth and knowledge. But where does that leave the rest of us? Can philosophising for the public save the discipline from its worst academic excesses, or is something fundamental lost in translation? There's a place for both approaches, argues Dr Laura D'Olimpio.

Can philosophy be made accessible to a wide, general audience that has not studied the discipline without watering it down? If we take philosophy out of the Academy, does it become pseudo-philosophy and lose the impact of carefully constructed and painstakingly justified arguments?

Philosophers need to realise that advertising their wares does not dilute the seriousness of their academic work.

Or, is it possible that there is a space for philosophy as practice—doing philosophy at varying levels of skill and competence without being antagonistic to philosophical research and academic teaching in universities?

Pragmatically, I would like to defend both approaches, and I don't see why they can't support and supplement one another.

From a philosopher who is employed at a university, while regularly contributing to public philosophy spaces and running occasional philosophy cafes, that might not come as a surprise.

Yet I also understand the frustration that can result from engaging philosophically with the general public only to be faced with either single-mindedness about a particular cause or relativism.

Under the guise of tolerance and inclusiveness people often merrily reply to divergent beliefs with, 'Well, you believe what you want and I'll have my own opinion,' which shuts down the dialogue as opposed to furthering it.

Selling philosophy to the public

Philosophers are generally fairly bad at publicising what they do. Furthermore, the writing style favoured by academic philosophers is notoriously obtuse.

This may explain why the general public lacks an appreciation for the role of philosophy in the 21st century and why some prominent scientists now tell anyone who will listen that philosophy, having given rise to scientists themselves, is now redundant.

Of course, scientists who think there is no work left for philosophers are simply mistaken. And usually philosophers are cautious when making big claims, particularly given that we're trained to seek out counter-examples for own positions.

There is still important philosophical work to be done, including exploring and theorising about metaphysical claims, which ask the big questions about the meaning of life, how we ought to live and what we ought to value.

The skills of philosophy are careful argument, critique and analysis, applied to dialogues and debates that have stood the test of time and will continue to occupy human curiosity. Some of these debates do not have an answer, or an answer that can be exhaustively proven, yet by continuing the conversation, hopefully we rule out the worst answers and come to better ones.

The questions are huge. Do we have free will? How should we live our lives? Is there a god? Do humans have an essential self or nature?

These questions underpin the empirical investigations performed in many other university departments and research centres. These questions also form the basis for many interesting debates, and philosophers have a unique skill set that can be of great use in public, as well as academic forums.

Share Facebook

Twitter

Whatsapp

Mail

Whatsapp 'What seems to have been forgotten is that philosophy trains you for life—for being a good person and for living well.'

Moving philosophy into the present

It is a shame that philosophers have to defend their subject in terms of its use value and relevance.

These days, philosophers advertise their discipline areas and even employ professional lobbyists in order to market, grow and diversify philosophy.

At the same time, spaces for public philosophy are starting to open up—the BBC has launched a new program called The Global Philosopher with Michael Sandel from Harvard University, while websites like the Daily Nous and magazines such as The New Philosopher bring philosophy news and ideas to a wide audience.

However, it is basically impossible to condense many philosophical debates into an easy-to-read 800 word blog posts or 20 minute radio programs, and you're bound to miss out important ideas and counter-arguments due to time and space constraints.

For exhaustive argument there are still peer-reviewed journals, though, where philosophers can defend their claims using authoritative references.

Moreover, traditional analytic philosophy has often been so narrowly defined that it has missed the voices of women and minorities. And the discipline has only recently been more receptive to works in the philosophy of film or education, for instance.

This is not to condemn philosophers in universities, who do important work. Yet undergraduate enrolments in philosophy are falling, and we need to ask how we can get people thinking and talking about the big ideas (and perhaps even enrolling in a philosophy unit or two).

It may be that different voices will be better suited to furthering philosophical dialogue outside universities, and yes, the conversation may well sound quite different to a top philosophy journal.

That's OK, and not only because not that many people outside of university philosophy departments read academic philosophy journals. Philosophers are working in a climate of research funding cuts, the prioritisation of industry links and the commoditisation of education.

In an era of commercial capitalism, philosophy has a hard time pointing to key performance indicators and utilitarian ends.

Philosophy is a tool for life

What seems to have been forgotten is that philosophy trains you for life—for being a good person and for living well.

Surely this is the most important reason to study a subject. Philosophy teaches you how to think for yourself and how to make informed decisions you can justify to anyone who asks. It teaches you to compassionately consider the perspectives of others who differ from yourself. It teaches you to critique, albeit with kindness, diverse arguments.

In our knowledge economy, we require the skills honed by the study of philosophy.

Yes, philosophy is best suited to the academy. And yes, philosophy is something everyone can and should do, albeit at differing levels of competence.

As ancient philosophers were aware, philosophy is pragmatic and therapeutic; it is self-work in the pursuit of wisdom. For this reason and others, public philosophy is vital, and philosophers need to realise that advertising their wares does not dilute the seriousness of their work.

In fact, public philosophy will support the academic work of philosophers by demonstrating why it is valuable and interesting, leading more people to study philosophy and practice philosophical thinking skills in public forums and schools.

If this raises the level of dialogue online or in coffee shops, in turn inspiring people to reflect on their values and actions, then philosophy does indeed have something to offer the public.

Dr Laura D'Olimpio is senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of Notre Dame Australia, and is a regular contributor to The Philosopher's Zone.

Listen to the full interview Does philosophy lose something by going mainstream?



