What could 'public philosophy' do for philosophy today?
"As someone who has never seen Philosophy as a job or a vocation, but a tool and authority we all need, I recognise the importance of Philosophy being 'public' - meaning relevant, essential and gripping. We can’t afford to let Philosophy be done only by those with letters after their name, and this journal should be part of a fight against mental apathy, depoliticisation and the destruction of public intellectual spaces.
'Philosophy' compels us to spot potential in an argument - everyday, academic, conversational, artistic, musical - as much as refining argument; reshaping it to offer as many possibilities to those willing to interrogate and articulate the nature of our world. Our world is all we have, and reality we can’t avoid: so why shouldn’t we find questions about it, throughout it - beyond the cold stone walls of our universities?"
“No philosopher claims philosophy is contained to the fireside musings of an individual on an armchair (such a philosopher can't come forward to tell me otherwise and be correct). Philosophy survives through discussion. Public philosophy, through its inclusivity, has the potential to increase the scope and merit of philosophical discussion. Philosophy survives not because we think, but because we rethink.”
“Philosophy is often thought of as a love of ‘wisdom’ or a certain domain of theoretical ‘knowledge’. But what if we cannot love wisdom, and wisdom is something which we attain and share as an act of loving other people? That is, what if the ‘love of wisdom’ is more like the ‘love of a hug’, where the love is something that is expressed by or maintained through the activity of hugging. This is how I think of philosophy: Where metaphysics is something like writing poetry or painting, and what we are attempting to do is disclose the world for/with others. We must create a new language for our joys as well as our pains and remind ourselves that meaning and magic are the same thing. I would like to one day see theatres with improv philosophy troops, where the truth is — if the conditions are right — performed every night.”
“To some extent, I’m reluctant to view myself as a scholar of Philosophy with a capital P. I’ve studied degrees in English Literature with a specialism in theory, which I am aware means I don’t tackle, say, Adorno in the same way I might have done if I’d done a BA and MA in Philosophy. Still, I find the varied traditions of different subjects’ approaches to the same (or different!) thinkers fascinating. I’ve heard theory being described as “bad philosophy”. But I suppose I’m quite excited by the idea of being a bad philosopher – I’ll take it.
I’m writing a DPhil thesis on Adorno’s interest in Anglophone modernist literature and I’ve often been surprised by the reaction to this. Some scholars have even asked whether I find it easy reconciling literature with a “difficult” subject like Philosophy, as if philosophy is this transcendent space that I would never reach as a mere literature student. If anything, I was quite influenced by Raymond Williams’ beautiful essay ‘Culture is Ordinary’ as an undergraduate at Warwick, which discusses how nurses have just as many interesting questions and ideas and as much of a culture as the Cambridge students in their tea houses.
I’m moved by this focus on a particularly 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 philosophy at Oxford. I believe strongly in the value of free education, especially a free life-long education, which in this case would include a publicly funded, accessible and shared yet prismatic culture of philosophy - which necessitates finding value in the questions of those who aren’t traditionally viewed as ‘doing’ philosophy (especially academic philosophy) just as much as facilitating those who are viewed as ‘doing’ academic philosophy to reach outside of the Oxford city walls. We can learn from each other.”
"aim to cast some hexes
in an impetus of asking for recognizable participatory learning
to work on becoming stylistically literate, or open, to reflect on what we’re doing
when we enter this discourse
located (by whom) locatable (we say) on maps of drawn relations categorised
an effective discourse with ramifications on the dimensions of its flickering constituents and voices
this philosophy
in ongoing conversation.
what could public philosophy do will tell in application (and so i asked and ask). I’m eager to see and listen. seriously, i want to watch this space and acknowledge that we make it. come come come, still."
“Philosophizing depends for its value on its dedication to withstanding the scrutiny we apply when we ask whether it is adequate to the messiness of the world, with all of its confusions and illusions, its unfathomable horrors and entrenched injustices, and in all of its splendor and sometimes breathtaking beauty.”
"I don't think in precisely philosophical terms. However the philosopher's ethical responsibility has a role in educating us all in ethics vis-à-vis other people, the climate, and society.
"Public thinkers have a real role in encouraging the public to debate vital issues and bring us alive to them. At the moment, I see the need for public thinkers in discussing public trust, in institutions, and the absence of trust. Also, to help us with technological advances and ensure that ethical implications are thought about."
"The issue of migration questions philosophy and the use we want to make of it. A 'public philosophy' should address issues of discrimination and racism in the access to public services or the physical segregation of migrants in detention centres across all the western world. And more importantly, a 'public philosophy' should aim at unveiling these contradictions not only in the English-speaking academic setting, but also in the actual places of discrimination, encouraging militant and intersectional practices."
“Philosophers can unfortunately treat truth as both a cheap acquisition and a sign of superiority, as a profession and a pedestal. Truth is often conceived as a product of a talented few, and has, at its worst, been used to justify domination. By making truth too analytically difficult, philosophers have made truth too spiritually easy. Public philosophy, in my vision, could refill the love of wisdom with the content of love, and all the sacrifice and devotion that love requires. In the process it could break the distinctions between ‘philosophy’ and ‘religion’, between ‘scholarship’ and ‘spirituality’. Metaphysics, then, would be a way of deepening ourselves, not heightening our stature. We could start waking up tired concepts and using them as the background for meditation and as fuel for protest. I am optimistic for a discourse where truth is still central, but truth transformed — not as a view from nowhere, reserved for the elect, but as a view from everywhere, in which we all participate. ‘Public philosophy’, could be this way forward.”
“Maybe the question is more what couldn’t public philosophy do for philosophy today. For philosophy is in every increment of time that seems to pass and it’s in every choice that we potentially make. Philosophy is a part of us; it is these essential questions that have been asked ever since we stopped to think. The idea of ‘public’ philosophy, philosophy open to everybody and not just restricted to a select world of academics, allows it to be accessible to all for what it inherently is: a study of life. There is so much public philosophy could do for philosophy today. It allows us to evaluate and question the everyday and stop living life as if it’s mundane - it gets us asking questions, probing, wondering, hoping… In my view, oxford public philosophy through its critical and inclusive aims allows a human discussion on who we are and why we are here and what it is that matters, and it brings these questions onto paper and into the hands of people through prose, poetry, art and academic articles. The searching never stops.”
“Philosophy is something life moves us to do. For me, it’s about articulating our intuitions and communicating them with other people, to compare the ways we see the world, the things we find important, and try to fit them together.
I always come back to the idea of conversation. A good conversation is something built in collaboration, where we listen and allow someone else’s words to move us. Conversations can go anywhere and be very abstract, but they’re never totally detached from the lives of the people talking. Philosophy could be something we build together that helps us make sense of our differences… But powerful, material forces shape our conversations, as they shape philosophy: who gets to talk? who has time to listen? what they want out of it? To do either honestly, we need to pay careful attention to power dynamics, and to why we think what we think. I hope we can practice this in public, and change the dynamics of the conversation(s), to help reconnect philosophy to life as it is lived.”
''Public philosophy' is an acknowledgement that asking wide-eyed questions of the universe is a task that belongs to everyone who lives in it—and a reminder to academics that the universe doesn't end at the walls of the university.”
