Hit the road, philosophy

Philosophers need to follow Socrates’ example and get back among the people, say John Kaag and David O’Hara

February 20, 2014

Source: Paul Bateman

In some of its earliest and most famous incarnations, philosophy was something practised in public, and for the public good. Socrates spent so much time engaged in conversation with his fellow citizens that when Aristophanes ridiculed him in his play The Clouds, everyone knew who Socrates was. The Stoic philosophers got their name from the stoa, the public porches that covered the ancient marketplaces of Athens. Today we might well have called them shopping-mall philosophers.

But today’s philosophers are not in the malls, and this impoverishes both the malls and philosophy. Philosophers once had wide-ranging interests, including politics, education, natural science, God, the soul, drama and poetry. But during the last century or so in particular, the subject has largely come to ignore this public, wide-ranging calling as it has migrated to the ivory towers of the academy.

Some of this has happened quite organically: as philosophy has given birth to specialised disciplines covering many of its former concerns, philosophers have found themselves tilling smaller and smaller intellectual plots. Aristotle would probably not recognise what we philosophers do if he were alive today, such is its narrowness and technicality.

Another reason for philosophers’ move away from the public sphere is the professionalisation of the discipline. More than a century ago, William James complained, in an essay titled “The Ph.D. Octopus”, that universities were so interested in prestige that they were unwilling to hire brilliant teachers who lacked a PhD. These days, nearly every academic has earned a doctorate of some kind, which has made it necessary for universities to invent new standards for assessing how good their faculty is. So today’s philosophers are preoccupied with the need to gain peer-reviewed publications.

For the record, we both hold tenured positions at US institutions – otherwise it is extremely unlikely that we would be writing an article like this one. (It is also rather unlikely that we would have chosen to write this together, since co-authoring is frowned upon in modern humanities.) But we are grateful, in a sense, that we have not since moved to more prestigious institutions, because that might require us to devote ourselves to ever-greater specialisation, which would make reaching out beyond our academic discipline even more difficult.

If philosophy is, as the name suggests, about loving wisdom, then it shouldn’t be something that is practised by only an erudite few. The argument that wisdom is valuable for everyone, and the life spent pursuing it is itself a good life is not some sort of Pollyanna idealism, but a pragmatic hope that philosophical reflection (what academic and novelist David Foster Wallace simply called “choosing what to think about”) can and does give life meaning.

Kierkegaard, who wasn’t known for his cheery idealism, once quoted, approvingly, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing’s view that “if God held all truth enclosed in his right hand, and in his left hand the one and only ever-striving drive for truth, even with the corollary of erring forever and ever, and if he were to say to me: Choose!—I would humbly fall down to him at his left hand and say: Father, give! Pure truth is indeed only for you alone!”

Reflection has the tendency to produce more and better answers to the questions we ask, and this is undoubtedly a good thing. But philosophical reflection has a more basic, more interesting value. On most days, we enact dozens of beliefs – in being a friend, a citizen, a professor – without giving them a second thought. When we think again about these beliefs in hard and sustained ways, some of them strike us as wrong, or more immediately, wrong for us.

In his book Log From the Sea of Cortez, John Steinbeck talks about the curiosity that drove him and his friend Ed Ricketts to the Gulf of California: “We search for something that will seem like truth to us; we search for understanding; we search for that principle which keys us deeply into the pattern of all life; we search for the relations of things, one to another, as this young man searches for a warm light in his wife’s eyes and that one for the hot warmth of fighting.”

Sex and fighting – there’s nothing boring about that. This is what philosophy, at its best, is like and what more of it needs to be about: a response to the most personal of our animal, erotic drives, our deep desire to find things out, our grappling as Menelaus grappled with Proteus, refusing to let go until the way forward is clear. And if that fails to draw crowds at the mall, then we’re all in deep trouble.

Times Higher Education free 30-day trial

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 6 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Reader's comments (3)

I completely agree with Kaag and O'Hara, but I think that philosophy is starting to wriggle free from the stranglehold of academia and seep into the wider culture (at least where I live in the UK). There are a number of organisations here that are intent on bringing philosophy to a broader audience. Some are beginning to have an international profile, like Alain de Botton's School of Life, and Nigel Warburton's Philosophy Bites. Others, have begun to put on events that meld philosophical discussion with the more visceral and less boring aspects of culture, like theatre, comedy and music. Two of my favourite are HowTheLightGetsIn Festival (http://howthelightgetsin.iai.tv/) in Wales and Salon Festival (http://www.salon-london.com/) in London. Both of these offer an experience that goes beyond the typical classroom encounter with philosophical thinking and into the cultural sphere that's inhabited by the rest of the world.
I have to disagree with Kaag and O'Hara. In the article above the term "philosophy" is used in two different meanings. First in the one it had in ancient Greek times (philosophy_1) and second in the modern sense since Hegel (philosophy_2). I highly disagree with the view expressed by: "as philosophy has given birth to specialised disciplines covering many of its former concerns, philosophers have found themselves tilling smaller and smaller intellectual plots." Since it is highly post idealistic influenced and distort. Sure philosophy_1 divided into parts with different methods and interests because philosophy_1 grew further and further. But after the division the parts were not less philosophical_1 as they where before, since the chances in methods where caused naturally by discussions about problems in the particular fields. It is only a matter of organisation that they have different names and it is only caused in a particular view on philosophy_1 why philosophy_2 is still called “philosophy” while other subjects are not. In fact I do not see a significant difference to the ancient times. The article mentioned Aristotle. Those philosopher_1 who introduced the term “esoteric texts” (technical texts for the philosophers_1) and “exoteric texts” (texts for the public) and still we stick to this division as we did 2300 years ago. While philosophers_2, physicists, political scientists, mathematicians and all the others produce the esoteric parts of philosophy_1 journalist take up the exoteric part. There are still philosophers_1 on our marketplaces, we just call the marketplaces internet and the philosophers_1 journalists. Consequently I do not see a reason to refocus philosophy_2.
Oh, philosophy… My apologizes to all philosophers, ancient and modern! But it was boring to study for me. The course of philosophy was required for study at the university, when I studied, it was not elective. But when you are the 1st year student ( of 17 years old) and should study - which came first, matter ore consciousness - you could not follow the lector more then 20 min. So, the dream was to pass the exam and forget about it forever. A lot of philosophers graduated from the classic universities annually and perhaps they were the same lectors who made boring the next generation of students. So, if smb’s reasonings are tiresome or have too little common with practical using, perhaps, the person is philosopher. But why not to assume that the reason for such kind of opinion is not in philosophy at all but rather in nonsatisfaction, disappointment and it is not easy for smb to find right the practical way out.

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Most Commented

question marks PhD study

Selecting the right doctorate is crucial for success. Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O'Gorman share top 10 tips on how to pick a PhD

India, UK, flag

Sir Keith Burnett reflects on what he learned about international students while in India with the UK prime minister

Pencil lying on open diary

Requesting a log of daily activity means that trust between the institution and the scholar has broken down, says Toby Miller

Microlight pilot flies with flock of cranes

Reports of UK-based researchers already thinking of moving overseas after Brexit vote

Portrait montage of Donald Trump and Nigel Farage

From Donald Trump to Brexit, John Morgan considers the challenges of a new international political climate