I've just noticed that 'The Stone', the philosophy section of the 'Opinionator' blog of the NYT, will go on a break. With his usual (and to my mind quite irritating) verve, Simon Critchley announces that there will not be any new 'The Stone' entries for the time being; he says the section will be back, but he does not say when.
As I noted in a previous blog post of mine, the section has been severely criticized, for example over at Leiter's blog (he truly dislikes Critchley to start with). There have been indeed some terrible pieces, but there have been some very good ones too; to mention but a few, the Priest piece I commented on, but also the one by Andy Clark, the one by Tyler Burge (with which I thoroughly disagree, but it is surely interesting), the one by Frans de Waal, the one by Martha Nussbaum, and a few others. So overall, I think it was a valuable attempt, even if it could have been much better perhaps.
More generally, the most interesting thing about this enterprise has been the massive amount of responses it generated in the form of comments left by readers. The number of comments invariably went beyond three digits, and sometimes even four (predictably, with Peter Singer's piece). Apparently, the idea was that of 'putting philosophy back in the public arena', a goal which has, at least to some extent, apparently been attained. In fact, it's great to see philosophy attracting so much attention from readers.
But is it possible at all to truly include the general audience in philosophical debates? As remarked by a reader in Critchley's farewell piece (comment number 20): "Some of the posts were good, some bad, and some in between. The readers' comments were consistently awful." (I did not get around to reading the comments on most pieces, but the ones on Priest's piece were in general indeed quite off the mark.) On the other hand, other readers complained that the contributors often failed to engage in real debates with those who were commenting (e.g. see comment number 4). Fine, but how do you reply at all to 400 comments on your piece, while still maintaining your daily occupations under control?
Philosophy is and has always been a highly technical discipline: feelings of nostalgia for the time when philosophy "really made a difference" in public life are for the most part idealizations. Which is not to say that the questions raised by philosophers are not relevant in 'real life' contexts, in fact much to the contrary. But the way in which these questions are treated within professional philosophy presupposes a particular methodology and a significant repertoire of technical concepts. This has always been the case, and why should it be any different? Why should philosophy be more accessible to the general audience than, say, physics or biology? Of course, science journalism may do a good job at explaining crucial concepts in these fields to a general audience, but in such cases obviously the goal is not to create a venue to 'debate' these concepts with the general audience; there is an explicit asymmetry of knowledge which is recognized from the start. The same would hold of other disciplines within the humanities, e.g. history, so it is not a matter of sciences vs. humanities either. However, the idea of 'bringing philosophy back to the public arena' seems to suggest that we are all equally knowledgeable participants in the debate.
Naturally, this does not mean that the reader without specific training in philosophy will never be able to 'see' something that professional philosophers themselves fail to see (in fact, outsiders are often the ones who introduce innovations in a given field, e.g. Frege the mathematician who knew almost nothing about philosophy). But generally, the idea that it should be possible to 'debate' philosophy with the general audience is simply naive. I for one am an avid reader of popular science, biology in particular, but in such cases I overtly accept the asymmetry and put myself in the position of somebody who is learning something new, not somebody who is in a position to 'debate' the contents in question.
So, to sum up, I do hope The Stone will resume its activities soon, as at least some of the pieces published were very interesting, but I suggest that the general concept of the enterprise should be clarified: it should not be a forum to debate philosophy with the general audience, but rather a place where the general audience may learn something about the latest developments within professional philosophy. If all goes well, the (often top-notch) philosophers invited to contribute will be able to explain these developments in accessible terms (which is far from easy!), but I don't see why they would be under the obligation to engage in active debate with the general audience.
Much more could be said on the relations between philosophy and 'real life' concerns, but for now let me leave it at this. I hope I will not be interpreted as defending an elitist conception of philosophy; my point is simply that, as with any other discipline, professional philosophy is highly technical, and that's not a bad thing.
Recent Comments