Public Philosophy

The public, by and large, are not sufficiently motivated to spend the time necessary to thoroughly understand complex philosophical issues. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, since any kind of expert level knowledge requires time, energy, and money, and most people usually only have enough of those things to become an expert in one area (and there are lots of areas to choose from, most of which have a much more obvious financial and social pay-off than philosophy). Actually, to be clear, most people don't have the time, energy, and money to become an expert in any area.

So the experts of the world are left with a challenge: Not only do they need to make discoveries in their area of expertise, they also need to come up with ways to translate those discoveries into products which benefit the non-expert public (if only to acquire the funding to continue their research). Furthermore, they need, essentially, to sell people on the worth and utility of those products. The point here is that just making the discoveries is not enough - be it the theory of evolution, the invention of the automobile, or the development of psychotherapy. The public has to be able to manage a rudimentary understanding of it, the public has to get excited about it, and the public also has to be able to see some clear application for it.

If they can't understand it, they can't get excited about it or see its worth. If they can't use it without becoming experts themselves, then they won't be able to see its utility. This is why most fields of expertise are supplemented by two important agents: the Evangelist and the Entrepreneur. Sometimes there are individuals who are exclusively one of the three, expert, evangelist, or entrepreneur, but more often the people involved are some mix of the three.

I see no reason why the above wouldn't apply to philosophy. Philosophy does have a few problems, though. One is that it deals exclusively with ideas, often the extremely abstract ones. Another is that questioning axioms themselves is part of its process, whereas every other field accepts at least a small number of axioms without question. A third is that its usefulness is directly tied to its tendency to second-guess the common-sense intuitions of the public.

But I think most people who are passionate about philosophy see something (or some things) valuable in it, so there must be some kind of potential product there (I suppose there are probably some curmudgeonly folks who just want to do philosophy for its own sake, or for their own sake, and who don't care at all whether society could or should benefit from it, but those individuals exist in every field). The questions regarding public philosophy are "What is that product?" and "How can it be transmitted to the public?".

This article by Aikin and Talisse definitely addresses the second question. I called them "evangelists", because that's how they're referred to in the technology world, and because I like alliteration, but it's the same thing as a "spokesperson". Philosophy has a handful of these - names like Michael J. Sandel and Slavoj Zizek come to mind, and they are without a doubt experts as well as evangelists  - but obviously it could use a lot more of them. The entrepreneur is also necessary, though. Public forums like Seattle's Town Hall and podcasts like "Philosophy Bites" turn contemplating philosophy into something that fits neatly into our lives. Affordable or free online courses and lectures offer reasonably brief excursions into some of philosophy's deeper waters. Philosophically themed meet-up groups also serve an entrepreneurial function, in that they combine philosophical discussion with inherently appealing activities like socializing and informal debate (Personally that is neither the reason I started my own meet-up group [Drunken Philosophy], nor why I've kept it going, but I thinks it's fair to ascribe that potential value to it, however small). I'll bet there are all sorts of other entrepreneurial possibilities that people could come up with.

It's the first question, I think, that might need a more clear answer. It's also the more difficult question, because philosophers tend to get all philosophical about it. Speaking very loosely, though, I'd say there are a few good candidates. One possible product is the philosophical questions themselves - not providing answers or solutions, as experts in other fields often do, but instead "merely" highlighting the many important unanswered questions in the world. Another possible product is the tools to argue and examine - philosophers have made a science of argument and counter-argument, and a lot of those techniques can be taught to non-experts, potentially introducing more critical thinking into public discourse. A third possible product is the packaging and terminology which chop up muddy human confusions into manageable boxes - ideas like "Dualism vs. Monism" and "Consequentialism vs. Deontology" can help to simplify and standardize concepts which people might otherwise approach in a sloppy, careless, or misleading manner.

A fourth possible product, one that I like a lot, is thought experiments, or Daniel Dennett's intuition pumps. These are the word problems of philosophy, and I think they've proven incredibly useful - and viral - throughout the history of philosophy. The Ship of Theseus, the Ring of Gyges, the Veil of Ignorance, the Trolley Problem, the Chinese Room - these are puzzles that "the public" can easily grasp, and it can lead to a deeper appreciation of the loose sand that many common-sense assumptions and unquestioned societal norms are ultimately founded on. Obviously many or most philosopher's don't need to produce these kinds of thought experiments - there's definitely a lot of philosophical investigation that just can't be reduced to thought experiments, and some thought experiments whose import can only be appreciated by those already familiar with highly developed philosophical concepts. But creating publicly digestible thought experiments is clearly possible, and furthermore it's a concrete goal. There's always room for more thought-experiments, and there's always a need for new or updated ones since society is constantly shifting. Political, cultural, and technological changes mean that very decade brings with it a new set of questions and a reexamination of old questions.

There's probably a lot more thought that could go into this, but there are two very important prerequisites for a successful dissemination of whatever it is that philosophy has to offer. The first is the need for "the profession at large to acknowledge the need for such spokespersons, and to find ways to recognize the scholarly importance of public outreach", as Aikin and Talisse state at the end of their article, and I would expand on that to include the kind of "entrepreneurial" outreach I described above. The second is a clear understanding of who the public are, and a generous stance towards the philosophical ignorance and even stubbornness of most non-philosophers. There is a special kind of arrogance in philosophy that is counter-productive to any desire for a more philosophically enriched public perspective (Ironically, or perhaps just sadly, this arrogance has probably been exacerbated by the public's frequent [and historic] unwillingness to take philosophy seriously). But any philosopher who is committed to understanding the world in all its complexity needs to understand how most human beings function - specifically, that most human beings are not naturally philosophical, or at least that they are only as naturally philosophical as they need to be, and no more. To expect anything else - without encouragements and incentives - is to be willfully blind to the actual facts of reality, something that ought to be anathema any self-respecting philosopher.