Why We Need Citizen Philosophers

a184d-woman2bwriting2c2bgerard2bter2bborch2b5bpublic2bdomain5d2c2bvia2bwikimedia2bcommonsI am a citizen philosopher, and very likely, so are you.

So what is citizen philosophy, why is it a useful concept, and what is its role in the world?

Let’s begin by considering what we mean by philosophy, generally speaking. For a long time, philosophy has been considered an almost exclusively academic pursuit, so highly specialized that only a very few experts can properly be called philosophers. As Eric Schwitzgebel points out, this is a relatively new development. In the Western world, it traces its origins to classical Greece; each region has its own history of philosophy or its analog, from Egypt to China to the Americas, indeed, the whole world. As with all fields of inquiry, philosophy has branched out and specialized until much of it would be barely comprehensible to its first practitioners. Indeed, almost all fields of inquiry we know today started out as a branch of philosophy: mathematics, logic, science, medicine, theology, you name it.

But philosophy, or ‘love of wisdom’, began in the home, the workplace, the market square, and the street corner. As agriculture became more advanced, curious and intelligent people had more time to ponder the whys and hows of the natural world and human experience. These people weren’t originally chosen or designated by some authority as the ‘thinkers’ as opposed to everyone else, the ‘doers’. Instead, philosophy naturally grew out of conversation. Over time, as questions and ideas advanced and grew more numerous, it also specialized, organically, over time. A branch here dedicated itself to figuring out how nature works, first under the name natural philosophy, later science, which branched further into biology, geology, physics, and so on. A branch there dedicated itself to figuring out how we should behave and what we should value, and now we have political theory, aesthetics (study of beauty and taste), bioethics (ethics in medicine), theology, and so on. We began to ask and answer ever more complex questions about how to best live as members of societies, what’s going on within our own minds and why, what are our roles in the universe, and what it all means… including the question ‘what is meaning?’. Over time, certain people were recognized as particularly good at asking and answering these important questions, so they came to be recognized as specialists and authorities. But philosophy, broadly construed, remained a pursuit of many more people than that.

Panthéon, Temple of Reason, Paris, France, Photo 2015 by Amy CoolsPhilosophy has been demystified by re-entering popular culture to a significant extent. There’s an ever-growing audience for popular philosophy books, articles, magazines, podcasts, and blogs. The term itself has also been re-broadened. ‘Philosophy’ has taken on many new shades of meaning as it’s now used to refer to a particular view of life, or personal standards of taste, or set of hopes and dreams, or working theory of knowledge, or organization method, or substitution for the loaded term ‘spiritual’ …even a brand of skin care products! (This one bothers me: it offends my sense of the ‘sacred’ by capitalizing on respect for something I believe shouldn’t be and, and really can’t be, bought and sold.) Some of its newfound popularity is the result of advancing secularization accompanied by our continuing need for meaningfulness. Some is the result of our newly data-centric lives brought to us by the internet, creating the need to make sense of the deluge of new information available to us. And some is the result of the meeting, blending, annexing, and clashing of cultures in a world ever more connected through media and ease of travel, creating the need to find new ways of communicating and living together in an ever more cosmopolitan world.

In short, philosophy is enjoying a comeback in the public sphere. What I’m calling citizen philosophers are all those actively, consistently ask and answer questions about the nature of the universe and how to make sense of our experiences in it, and who aren’t necessarily engaged in professional or academic philosophy. While citizen philosophers tend to spend a lot of time in inquiry and self-education, many find academic philosophy too arcane, too subtle and obscure to help the rest of us navigate our increasingly complex inner and interpersonal lives.

I, for one, love academic philosophy. I am continuously in awe of the work these men and women do, devoting their lives to hard study, to asking the most challenging questions, and to a deep examination of the most nuanced and complex problems. This body of work is breathtaking in its scope, beautiful in the elegance of its arguments and solutions, satisfying in its wit and cleverness, fascinating in its intensive scholarship, and indispensable in its ability to help us figure out why and how to make a better world. I find it highly enjoyable and fulfilling, as well as challenging and frustrating, to grasp and wrangle with the work of academic philosophers. To be sure, academic philosophy has had its share of what David Hume calls ‘sophistry and illusion, fit only to be consigned to the flames’, and what Harry Frankfort more succinctly calls ‘bullshit’. But philosophy is not alone in this: science has had its phrenology and eugenics, medicine its humours and bloodletting, theology its justification for slavery and pogroms, and so on. Like these other disciplines, academic philosophy has some wonderfully effective built-in self-correctors, and continues to be an essential, I think preeminent, field of inquiry.

Marketplace in Duisburg by Theodor Weber, 1850, Public Domain via Wikimedia CommonsBut many of the most important and interesting questions don’t come down to us from on high, so to speak, originating from academia and revealed as if a sort of holy writ. In fact, most of the questions and problems we all wrangle with still originate in the public sphere, in the home, workplace, classroom, hospital, church, courtroom, political assembly, and so on. They bubble up from the challenges and uncertainties of our daily lives, are filtered through conversation and the arts, are swept up in social, legal, and political movements and institutions, and carried into the pool of academic philosophy, where they are further clarified and distilled in treatises, lectures, books, and so on.

And these questions don’t only originate with the public at large, we offer our first answers there. The answers range from fragmentary to nuanced, from intuitive to well-considered, from repetitions of received wisdom to original, from off-the-cuff to well-informed. They’re offered by people from all walks of life with their own areas of expertise and unique capabilities of understanding born of particular experience. These citizen philosophers are on the first line of discovery and inquiry, and called so because they don’t participate in this process as a profession, but as a matter of personal interest and as members of society at large, not subject to the demands and constraints of academic philosophy. Of course, the category of ‘citizen philosopher’ doesn’t exclude academic philosophers, because of course they, too, participate in the same process of question-creation and question-answering in the course of their everyday lives as well as in academia.

It’s the very lack of the demands and constraints of academic philosophy that gives citizen philosophy an important role to play in the public life. The world as it is offers so many varieties of human experience, so many ways of seeing the world, so many challenges that academic philosophers, like the rest of us, never have the opportunity to confront directly. Yet the scope of academic philosophy, at least potentially, is as broad as the possibilities of human (even, perhaps nonhuman?) experience. So how can it be that academic philosophers can possibly access enough information, and consider things from enough perspectives, to ask and answer all the important questions that could be addressed? If academic philosophers were endowed with almost limitless powers of comprehension and imagination, they might in theory take in all the available information  and then truly understand what it’s like to be a coal miner in China, a cardiologist experiencing a heart attack firsthand, a one and a half year old who just created their first sentence, a person with frontal lobe epilepsy experiencing a supernatural vision, or a terrorist who became so after their entire family was killed by a bomb, and then conceive of all of the social, epistemic (relating to the study of knowledge), metaphysical (relating to the ultimate nature of all that exists), political, and every other sort of questions that may arise from these experiences. (À la the mythical Mary in Frank Jackson’s black and white room.) But of course, this is impossible in the real world. Sometimes, raw data is the fodder of academic philosophical inquiry. But more often I think, academic philosophers inquire into the questions, morals, stories, works of art, aphorisms, dogmas, memories, narratives, and all other products of the human mind after they’ve undergone the first round of questioning and examination in the public square.

Group discussion in the camps of Nirman (cropped), by Abhijeet Safai, Public Domain via Wikimedia CommonsI, for one, am glad to see philosophy ever more present in the public square. That’s because I perceive philosophy as the great quest for understanding that academic and citizen philosophers all engage in, and, as I see it, each gives something of immeasurable and irreplaceable value to the other. We need only recall some philosophical forays that have failed, from scholastic hairsplitting quibbles to postmodern navel-gazing-verging-on-masturbatory obscurantisms, to recognize that academic philosophy benefits enormously by its give and take with the public square. To remain relevant, honest, exciting, and dedicated to truth and beauty, philosophy as a method of inquiry must include robust discourse with the broader community of activists, artists, reporters, bloggers, protesters, workers, political actors, discussion groups, and all who care enough to question. And these, in turn, are kept honest by academic philosophers, who challenge all of us to subject our passionately held convictions to critical thinking.

The discipline and expertise of academic philosophers, and the broader set of experiences, challenges, and opportunities for new questions and unique ways of understanding the larger community that citizen philosophers offer, each serve to keep the other more honest, more challenged, and more informed, in the great world conversation we’re all having.

~ An earlier version is also published at Ordinary Philosophy and published in Darrow in a version nearly identical to this one. My thanks to Darrow’s editors for their very helpful comments, critiques, and suggestions, especially in pointing out that the original version often read more like an obscure academic philosophy piece and less like the conversation in the public square it promotes!

~ Also published in The Fifth Floor Polish philosophy magazine

Ordinary Philosophy and its Traveling Philosophy / History of Ideas series is a labor of love and is ad-free, supported by patrons and readers like you. Please offer your support today!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sources and inspiration:

‘Mary’s Room’, in Philosophy Index

Schwitzgebel, Eric. ‘What Philosophical Work Could Be‘. Published in Ordinary Philosophy and in the author’s own The Splintered Mind

O.P. Recommends: Two New Articles on Philosophy’s Value in Daily Life

Statue of Arete in Celsus' Library in Ephesus by Carlos Delgado, Creative Commons Licence CC BY-SA 3.0

Statue of Arete, ‘Wisdom‘ or ‘Excellence

Yesterday, NPR’s 13.7 Cosmos & Culture blog published a piece by University of Rochester astrophysics professor Adam Frank. ‘The Greatest Philosopher You’ve Never Heard Of‘ is about Eihei Dogen, a ’13th century Japanese Zen teacher who is considered by many to be one of the world’s most profoundly subtle and creative thinkers’. Dogen thought a lot about what it means to experience the world as an aware, thinking, acting self. And he communicated his thought in language both obscure and poetic, which is perhaps the only ways we can express something so ineffable as what it’s really like to be you or me. I was delighted to be introduced to this fascinating thinker. Thanks, Mr. Frank!

Then there’s an article published in the Chicago Business Journal this morning by Peter DeMarco and Chris Morrissey. In ‘The Sword of Damocles: The Value of Philosophy to a Business Leader‘, DeMarco advises undergraduates to opt for more classes in philosophy instead of business. That way, subsequent education in business or indeed, any other subject, is built on the bedrock of training and experience in moral and intellectual thought necessary for success and fulfillment in any endeavor. Morrissey goes on to provide examples of lessons in moral reasoning from the writings of great thinkers from ancient Greece.

Ordinary Philosophy and its Traveling Philosophy / History of Ideas series is a labor of love and ad-free, entirely supported by patrons and readers like you. Please offer your support today!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sources and Inspiration:

DeMarco, Peter and Chris Morrissey. ‘The Sword of Damocles: The Value of Philosophy to a Business Leader‘. Chicago Business Journal, Jun 1 2016.

Frank, Adam. ‘The Greatest Philosopher You’ve Never Heard Of‘. NPR’s 13.7 Cosmos & Culture blog, May 31, 2016.

The Philosopher’s Drinking Song

Good morning! Feeling a bit irreverent and impish today, so I’m sharing this little gem with you all. Thank you, Monty Python!

Ordinary Philosophy and its Traveling Philosophy / History of Ideas series is a labor of love and ad-free, supported by patrons and readers like you. Please offer your support today!

Happy Birthday, Bertrand Russell!

Betrand Russell in 1938, image public domain  via Wikimedia CommonsBertrand Russell lived an extraordinarily long life, in which he did an extraordinary number of extraordinary things.

Encyclopedia Britannica introduces him thusly: ‘Bertrand Russell ….born May 18, 1872, Trelleck, Monmouthshire, Wales- died Feb. 2, 1970, Penrhyndeudraeth, Merioneth, [was a] British philosopher, logician, and social reformer, founding figure in the analytic movement in Anglo-American philosophy, and recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950. Russell’s contributions to logic, epistemology, and the philosophy of mathematics established him as one of the foremost philosophers of the 20th century. To the general public, however, he was best known as a campaigner for peace and as a popular writer on social, political, and moral subjects. During a long, productive, and often turbulent life, he published more than 70 books and about 2,000 articles, married four times, became involved in innumerable public controversies, and was honoured and reviled in almost equal measure throughout the world…’

For myself, he was particularly influential to my younger freethinking self, disenchanted with the religion of my youth and seeking new and more satisfying ways of viewing the world. I read his great History of Western Philosophy and Why I Am Not a Christian each several times over. I admire his clear, precise thinking and his principled anti-war stance which came at a significant cost, including jail time and loss of a prestigious job at the University of Chicago, and it’s always so enjoyable to watch him speak (you’ll find plenty of videos on YouTube) in his oh-so-aristocratic accent with a pipe often tucked into the corner of his mouth. He was not a perfect man, but oh man, he was never a less-than-fascinating one.

Read more about Bertrand Russell:

Bertrand Russell‘. In Encyclopedia Britannica

Irvine, Andrew David, “Bertrand Russell“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

~ Ordinary Philosophy and its Traveling Philosophy / History of Ideas series is a labor of love and ad-free, entirely supported by patrons and readers like you. Please offer your support today!

OP Recommends: A Piece About How All Rivers Lead to Philosophy on Wikipedia

River, by Brandom Lam, Creative Commons via Pixabay

In ‘All Wikipedia Roads Lead to Philosophy, but Some of Them Go Through Southeast Europe First‘, Nathan Collins writes about a University of Vermont study on how knowledge is structured on Wikipedia, following the observation by webcomic xkcd that following hyperlinks in this giant e-encyclopedia seem to lead almost inevitably to the Philosophy page.

Makes sense to me. The ‘major organizing principle’ for the world’s largest online forum for sharing knowledge turns out to be philosophy, literally the ‘love of wisdom’?

Surprise surprise!

An enjoyable read.

Ordinary Philosophy and its Traveling Philosophy / History of Ideas series is a labor of love and is ad-free, entirely supported by patrons and readers like you. Please offer your support today!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sources and inspiration:

Collins, Nathan. ‘All Wikipedia Roads Lead to Philosophy, but Some of Them Go Through Southeast Europe First‘, Pacific Standard, May 2016.

xkcd: A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language

 

The Tale of the Magic Toe – Superstition? Or What?

Two years ago, I was in Edinburgh musing about what David Hume would think of people rubbing his statue’s toe for luck…

Amy M Cools's avatarOrdinary Philosophy

I attended a meeting of the Humanist Society of Scotland the other day, and some of us were chatting about my David Hume project. They recommended sites to see and people and ideas to add to my research, and I was telling them what I had seen and discovered so far. They also regaled me with some Hume anecdotes. Such a friendly group of people, so engaged with important issues of the day, and so welcoming and ready to chat and have a good time!

One thing that came up was the classical statue of Hume on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh’s Old Town. I noticed that the left toe of the statue is polished to a bright brassy shine, from the tradition of students and others rubbing it for luck, so as to absorb some of his wisdom.

Some who I was talking to laughed, as if at a friendly…

View original post 740 more words

O.P. Recommends: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify… A Critique of Philosophy’s Lack of Diversity

School of Athens by Raphael [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons (cropped)

‘Old dead white guys’ – yes, we should study their great contributions to human thought, but what about the rest of the world’s great thinkers?

In this New York Times op-ed for the Stone (NYT’s philosophy forum), Jay L. Garfield and Bryan W. Van Norden critique philosophy’s lack of diversity, and point out the serious problems with calling an academic philosophy department simply a ‘Philosophy’ department while focusing almost exclusively on European and American philosophy.

Their point? If academic philosophy departments want to imply that their students will receive a thorough education in philosophy department by using the broad term ‘philosophy’, then the education they offer should likewise be broad. If not, then they need to be up front and call it what it is: ‘European and American Philosophy’ (…’with a smattering of Islamic Philosophy’: in my undergraduate philosophy courses, Eurocentric as they were, we inevitably received some, if severely limited, instruction in Islamic philosophy, given its strong influence on medieval European thought).

I, for one, look forward to the diversification of philosophy departments. It’s not only desirable but necessary, if philosophy is going to remain the relevant and dynamic pursuit it could and should be.

If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is‘, by  Jay L. Garfield and Bryan W. Van Norden. New York Times: The Stone, May 11, 2016

Ordinary Philosophy and its Traveling Philosophy / History of Ideas series is a labor of love and ad-free, entirely supported by patrons and readers like you. Please offer your support today!

In Memory of Hypatia of Alexandria

Detail of the death portrait of a wealthy woman, c. 160-170 AD near modern-day Er-Rubayat in the Fayum, public domain via Wikimedia CommonsHypatia’s birthday is somewhere between 350 and 370 AD; a range of dates indicating great uncertainty, to be sure, but clear original sources this old are hard to come by, especially from a city as turbulent and violence-torn as the Alexandria of her day. The day of her death is better known, sometime in March of 415 AD. Since the latter date is more precise, we’ll break with our tradition here and remember Hypatia in the month of her tragic and violent death instead of on the date of her birth.

She’s a mathematician, astronomer, teacher, and philosopher, who writes commentaries on important works in geometry and astronomy with her father Theon, likely contributing original work of her own. Hypatia is a Neoplatonist, a philosophy with mystical overtones which posits that everything derives its being from the One, an ultimately conscious yet nonmaterial, non-spacial entity which is the pure ideal of everything that is. She is a scholar and teacher in a field and in a world that’s male-dominated, and historians from her day to ours emphasize her extraordinary talents and her femininity with a nearly equal mix of awe and bemusement.

So let us remember and honor Hypatia for her great contributions to human knowledge and to the history of women’s liberation, living proof that women are equals in intellect and courage.

And let us also remember her sad death as a cautionary tale against those who inflame popular sentiment to seize power for themselves. Hypatia meets her death at the hands of a Christian mob caught up in the anti-pagan hysteria of the day; Alexandria itself was caught up in a power struggle between civic and religious authority. The mob of extremists who drag Hypatia from her carriage, torture and kill her with roofing tiles, and defile her body are inspired by their partisanship with theocratic bishop Cyril to kill this pagan philosopher, this mathematician and astronomer (then often equated with sorcerer), this woman who dared teach men, this friend of Cyril’s rival Orestes, civic leader of Alexandria. As Hypatia scholar Micheal Deakin quotes: “Cyril was no party to this hideous deed, but it was the work of men whose passions he had originally called out. Had there been no [earlier such episodes], there would doubtless have been no murder of Hypatia.”

From the current presidential primary race, in which a certain millionaire is whipping up populist support* with extremist racial and religious rhetoric, back to Hypatia’s time and beyond, power-hungry opportunists plead innocence from the very violence they inspire. Yet it appears hard to justify that plea when reason and the lessons of history plainly reveal the nearly inevitable results of fomenting sectarian strife. Extremism in the defense of liberty or anything else is a vice** because of the way it drives away reason and sympathy, and after all, nothing is as liberty-destroying as mob violence and death.

Ordinary Philosophy is a labor of love and is ad-free, entirely supported by patrons and readers like you. Please offer your support today!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read more about Hypatia:

Deakin, Michael.’Hypatia of Alexandria‘ from Ockham’s Razor radio program of Radio National of Australia (transcript), Sun August 3rd 1997. (click ‘Show’ across from ‘Transcript’)

O’Connor, J J and E F Robertson. ‘Hypatia of Alexandria‘, from the School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St Andrews, Scotland website.

‘O’Neill, Tim. ‘“Agora” and Hypatia – Hollywood Strikes Again‘. Armarium Magnum blog, Wed May 20, 2009

Zielinski, Sarah. ‘Hypatia, Ancient Alexandria’s Great Female Scholar‘. Smithsonianmag.com, Mar 14, 2010.

…and about Neoplatonism

Wildberg, Christian, “Neoplatonism“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

* ‘What If Trump Wins?’ by Jeet Heer in New Republic, Nov 24, 2015

** in reference to the quote ‘Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice’ from Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential nomination acceptance speech 

Communitarianism, Writ Large

Amy M Cools's avatarOrdinary Philosophy

I listened to Bill Moyers’ discussion with Michelle Alexander recently, about her book The New Jim Crow and her activism against the over-incarceration of black people here in the US. Something she said really struck me, as it relates to a problem I’ve been mulling over for some time. She said:

I realize that as well-intentioned as all that work was, it was leading me to a place of relatively narrow thinking… If I care about a young man serving, you know, 25 years to life for a minor drug crime… If I care about him and care about his humanity, ought I not also care equally about a young woman who’s facing deportation back to a country she hardly knows and had lived in only as a child and can barely speak the language? And ought I not be as equally concerned about her fate as well? Ought…

View original post 1,483 more words

O.P. Recommends: Bettany Hughes on Three Intellectual Giants of the Ancient World and Their Practical Wisdom

I’ve been listening to this wonderful new series by the always delightful historian and documentarian Bettany Hughes, as she delves into the origins of philosophy.

She tells us the story of three ancient thinkers who remain among the world’s most influential: the Buddha, Socrates, and Confucius. These men, who all lived within one hundred years of each other, formulated their groundbreaking philosophies at a time when new technologies in food production, housing, and travel allowed human beings, for the first time, to form sophisticated, specialized societies. This enabled people to spend a lot less time devoted to mere subsistence and to divert much of their energies into the arts, into thought, and into figuring out how the world works. It also made people ready and able to think of life as something they could improve and control, not merely subject to the whims of nature and of capricious, mysterious gods.

Hughes is not only enamored with these three great thinkers because they are fascinating in their own right, but because she thinks of philosophy as I do: a deeply practical pursuit, in which we puzzle out how to go about living as good a life as we possibly can, as individuals and as societies. As I’ve heard her say, we need to bring philosophy back to the street where it began, where Buddha, Socrates, and Confucius first confronted the world with their ideas, and where it also belongs.

Check out the series, which originally aired on the BBC, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCv20Z1q7eI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2cI9LfKKqo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zfENJlVz-g