Lots of good articulations of the 'purpose' of philosophy.

I came to TPF as a lay philosopher, rediscovering interests I had set aside due to no longer teaching a high school intro to philosophy class.

When I taught said class, I needed to connect to a discipline I had little experience with. So I read a lot - including back issues of "Philosophy Now". Some of it was beyond me, but I found myself drawn to discussions of AI. Fifteen years later, I find so much of that reading validated by what is happening with AI, and how those readings help me understand the issues today.

Which leads me to ask - what questions of an urgent / topical nature today can be best addressed, or perhaps just effectively addressed, with philosophy? Are there discussions on subjects now that will seem just as urgent in 15 years as discussions of AI have proven to be? I would love to hear some predictions, or be pointed towards urgent current topics in philosophy.

Canadian philosopher Joseph Heath noted on his substack that many of his colleagues seem to be 'sitting out' many fraught contemporary subjects. I imagine a lot of TPFers are closer to Heath than myself in terms of contact with this academic world - is he correct about this?

So much of what we know and do is unstated and unconscious. For instance, we use language fluidly, and so clearly we all 'know' the rules of grammar, but when asked to explain them we are often at a loss. Words too: we 'know' what they mean, as we use them with ease, but we grope for definitions. The same goes for concepts, purposes, ideologies, worldviews.

And so goes the majority of our lives, acting without knowing why, doing without quite knowing what we do. This is the unexamined life. Philosophy remedies this: it can make the implicit explicit, the unconscious conscious.

As we bring the unconscious to light, more often then not, we realize that these implicit beliefs we've carried with us don't really make sense. Then we have the opportunity to replace the unconscious and irrational with the conscious and rational. This is growth, the transition to true adulthood that so many make all too late, or never at all. The conscious cultivation of a worldview which is consonant with the world, rather than an artifact of upbringing.

This is the purpose of philosophy. — hypericin

:100: :fire:

Which leads me to ask - what questions of an urgent / topical nature today can be best addressed, or perhaps just effectively addressed, with philosophy? Are there discussions on subjects now that will seem just as urgent in 15 years as discussions of AI have proven to be? I would love to hear some predictions, or be pointed towards urgent current topics in philosophy. — Jeremy Murray

I don’t think any question requires philosophy, and certainly not if it’s to be settled by an educative political process. Seems to me all matters are settled by the ongoing conversations societies have with each other. These are, of course, based on philosophically derived notions, but not in a systematic or deliberate way. And our values will change as the older folk die off and the younger, more progressive types dominate (they in turn will be the conservative fogies of tomorrow).

I have to confess to not caring about AI. There’s a lot of alarmist verbiage written about it. My view is that any reading or tentative understandings of the matter will do nothing to manage or deal with any changes coming.

Canadian philosopher Joseph Heath noted on his substack that many of his colleagues seem to be 'sitting out' many fraught contemporary subjects — Jeremy Murray

I'm a big fan of sitting out controversies and pseudo problems. Many either go away or are integrated into culture as the old folk and their values die out.

Which leads me to ask - what questions of an urgent / topical nature today can be best addressed, or perhaps just effectively addressed, with philosophy? — Jeremy Murray

My apologies on my late reply.

Philosophy will always be needed to dive into linguistic assumptions. Good, evil, God, knowledge, etc. As for the modern day, I see a few. Granted, I could be completely wrong as assessing the important things of today is notoriously difficult, while hindsight is usually 20/20.

Trans gender issues. This was literally made for philosophers to tackle. What are male and female is science, but cultural associations with sex, aka gender, is a goldmine of philosophical discussion.

AI 'life' and mind. AI is going to challenge us to start thinking what a life and a mind are. As it continues to evolve, we're going to find AI that will be remarkably intelligent. Of course, it won't have feelings. Does that mean we treat it as a life, or do are things that cannot feel exempt from fair treatment?

Interpersonal connections in an internet world. We still have much to discuss and think about in regards to internet behavior and human evolution.

What are male and female is science, but cultural associations with sex, aka gender, is a goldmine of philosophical discussion. — Philosophim

Imo, "trans issues" are psychosociological or anthropological much more so than "philosophical".

Notice how in traditional culture, but also in many situations in modern culture, asking questions is the domain of the person who holds the higher status.
— baker

I’ve not noticed that. Certainly, in the cultures I know here, people of all status commonly ask difficult questions and are sometimes insolent while doing so. — Tom Storm

Ask questions of whom?
And yes, they are insolent: because being of lower status, one isn't supposed to ask questions, at all.

In Australian culture low status workers habitually question and sometimes harass the management and ruling classes.

There you go: they harass.

Of course one may very well be cognitively and physically able to ask a question. But whether it will be considered appropriate to do so, in any particular instance, is quite another matter.

You may very well come from an enlightened family where such questions are common. In many families such questions are off limits, yelled at, and discouraged. — Philosophim

Sometimes, the only appropriate place for a particular person to ask about the things that concern them is the privacy of their diary.

It's naive to think that one could talk about just anything with just anyone in just any situation. Even professional philosophers are not keen to discuss just anything with just anyone in just any situation.

Does that mean that philosophy is a fool's enterprise? No, its an ideal that every human being struggles with. We all have a bit of ego, and we all fail at thinking at times. The point is to get back up. Yes, the pressures of the world and yourself may have won today, but there's always the next day. Never stop thinking and never stop questioning even basic assumptions and outlooks. That is what pushes us forward. That is the purpose of philosophy. — Philosophim

People who merely think a lot, to the point of thinking too much, tend to end up in institutions with white padded cells.

While I sympathize with you when it comes to noticing how limited the opportunities for open discussion are --


philosophy comes down to knowing the right time, the right place, and the right people with whom to bring up a particular topic (whether the topic is specifically "philosophical" or not).

Imo, "trans issues" are psychosociological or anthropological much more so than "philosophical". — 180 Proof

And issues of mind are more neuroscience, but that doesn't mean philosophy doesn't have anything to contribute.

Trans has philosophy of mind, ontology, ethics, and rights to say the least. If trans gender is not a philosophical issue, nothing is.

Sometimes, the only appropriate place for a particular person to ask about the things that concern them is the privacy of their diary. — baker

But you are asking them. That's the point.

It's naive to think that one could talk about just anything with just anyone in just any situation. — baker

Certainly. But you don't let other stop you from asking those questions on your own. And sometimes you get answers that need to be spread to other people bravely and without cowardice.

For me intellectual loneliness is about wanting deep philosophical talks. The idea that "I'm so smart and everyone else isn't," is immature and an ego trap. I talk to people all the time about ideas that they may not be comfortable hearing. I give everyone a chance. I am surprised more than not that most people actually want that, they're just afraid to do it first because they're thinking like the ego trap above.

If trans gender is not a philosophical issue, nothing is. — Philosophim

Well, at lease since Parmenides, "nothing" certainly is a "philosophical issue", we agree on that much.

Well, at lease since Parmenides, "nothing" certainly is a "philosophical issue", we agree on that. — 180 Proof

Ha! Clever reply 180 Proof.

Well, at lease since Parmenides, "nothing" certainly is a "philosophical issue", we agree on that.
— 180 Proof

Ha! Clever reply 180 Proof. — Philosophim

Das nicht nichtet.

Ask questions of whom?
And yes, they are insolent: because being of lower status, one isn't supposed to ask questions, at all. — baker

No.

1) Lower-status people = unemployed, homeless, First Nations, gig workers — ask tough questions of their bosses, or of police, or other authorities, local government workers, welfare workers, etc.

Insolent = rude — e.g., “Hey, you fuckin' pig, why don’t you do some real work instead of bothering us? You're a fuckin' dog!” (Food delivery guy on a bicycle to policeman.)

There you go: they harass. — baker

I’m not sure why you write “there you go" as if you believe that you are indirectly 'proving soemthing. Say what you mean.

Philosophy will always be needed to dive into linguistic assumptions. Good, evil, God, knowledge, etc. As for the modern day, I see a few. Granted, I could be completely wrong as assessing the important things of today is notoriously difficult, while hindsight is usually 20/20.

Trans gender issues. This was literally made for philosophers to tackle. What are male and female is science, but cultural associations with sex, aka gender, is a goldmine of philosophical discussion.

AI 'life' and mind. AI is going to challenge us to start thinking what a life and a mind are. As it continues to evolve, we're going to find AI that will be remarkably intelligent. Of course, it won't have feelings. Does that mean we treat it as a life, or do are things that cannot feel exempt from fair treatment?

Interpersonal connections in an internet world. We still have much to discuss and think about in regards to internet behavior and human evolution. — Philosophim

Thanks for the reply Philosophim. Three points that all seem "made for philosophers to tackle". Am I correct in thinking that philosophers are generally 'sitting trans out' due to the fraught nature of the conversation in universities and other institutions?

The AI issue was a landmark for my personal interest in philosophy. Can you point to anyone doing good work here that I may not know?

Interpersonal connections in an internet world. We still have much to discuss and think about in regards to internet behavior and human evolution. — Philosophim

To me this is the top underdiscussed issue. It certainly feels like online norms have been downloaded IRL. That the 'medium is the message' means that this medium (smart tech+social media) spreads a message of 'cognitive dissonance'. That we all live a panopticon, or a "village" with its "cage of norms" as Yascha Mounk put it recently - a village without the "genuine sense of community" brought about by daily face-to-face contact.

https://yaschamounk.substack.com/p/we-all-live-in-a-village-now

I think the medium is the screen, and that each screen makes the view slightly more opaque.

The screen can serve to 'freeze' one image or concept as well. I think the trans issue is an ideal example - it seems to me as if 'best practice' sort of froze around trans affirmation and care around concepts of best practice common in, say, 2012 or whenever the smart phone first became ubiquitous.

The Dutch Model of affirmative care dates back to the 80s, and had some small-scale successes behind it when applied to the most highly motivated trans population seeking out such care in the 80s, 90s and 2000s.

But as the client population changed rapidly over the next decade, the model of care seemed to solidify in place? This is just an idea I've been considering, but it also seems to apply to other progressive concepts (like safe-injection sites when the real crisis is largely pill-based, or broad, open-door attitudes towards refugees in an era when the demographic reality of this is much different than originally conceptualized).

(I am not trying to pick on the left - I am simply more familiar with examples in the left-wing context I have long lived in).

How do you see tech impacting social connection?

I'm a big fan of sitting out controversies and pseudo problems. — Tom Storm

Sorry for the delayed reply!

Yours is a personal choice I can get behind.

Collectively, though, it strikes me that philosophy is MIA in some areas that philosophy seems uniquely suited to address? It certainly feels that philosophy might have more resilience than other disciplines to withstand the sort of attacks we see from the left on social scientists who differ from progressive orthodoxy?

I don't think philosophical thinking can limit the Trump attacks on universities though.

Issue-wise, I am most worried about free speech, as we see both the left and the right using the topic politically, while refusing to commit to principles, and with social media and AI further muddying the waters. Do you or others have recommendations for philosophers on the subject of free speech, in particular that can shed light on free speech in our online world?

And I wonder if philosophy can point to ethical approaches that are more agile and less calculated than consequentialism, yet less rigid than deontology?

It feels to me that there is a growing interest in issues such as these among younger people than there was in my gen X youth. Who should younger, early-interest-in-philosophy types be reading today?

1) Lower-status people = unemployed, homeless, First Nations, gig workers — ask tough questions of their bosses, or of police, or other authorities, local government workers, welfare workers, etc.

Insolent = rude — e.g., “Hey, you fuckin' pig, why don’t you do some real work instead of bothering us? You're a fuckin' dog!” (Food delivery guy on a bicycle to policeman.)

There you go: they harass.
— baker

I’m not sure why you write “there you go" as if you believe that you are indirectly 'proving soemthing. Say what you mean. — Tom Storm

Like I've been saying all along: Speaking up, when one is the wrong person, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, can have grave consequences for one. Like your food delivery guy above: he's very lucky if he didn't get arrested for saying what he said to a policeman.

I can't conceive of it being anything more than personal satisfaction of understanding difficult concepts across a lifetime.

Am I correct in thinking that philosophers are generally 'sitting trans out' due to the fraught nature of the conversation in universities and other institutions? — Jeremy Murray

I know you didn't ask me, but this is true of conservative or middling philosophers. Only a couple, like Stock and Lawford-Smith publish on the subject. On the other hand, there is plenty of writing about trans issues painted as entirely positive, or somehow a foregone conclusion conceptually, and then discussing things like social implications of hte 'fact of trans' or whatever. No comment on merits, but illustrating that its hard to find one side - but not hard to find the other.

Now comment on merits: Stock's papers are probably the best on the subject, imo.

like I've been saying all along: Speaking up, when one is the wrong person, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, can have grave consequences for one. Like your food delivery guy above: he's very lucky if he didn't get arrested for saying what he said to a policeman. — baker

Like I've been saying all along: it's different here. You would be unlucky to be arrested for that or other behaviours of putative disrespect.

Issue-wise, I am most worried about free speech, as we see both the left and the right using the topic politically, while refusing to commit to principles, and with social media and AI further muddying the waters. Do you or others have recommendations for philosophers on the subject of free speech, in particular that can shed light on free speech in our online world? — Jeremy Murray

I’ve never found a book of philosophy that’s assisted me with any real-world issue, to be honest. But philosophy is not my go to. I’ve read a bit of Chomsky on power, imperialism and freedom, but I’ve mostly preferred novels: Swift, Eliot, Orwell, Bellow, Dickens, Flaubert. I’m more interested in culture and have never taken much interest in politics. Apart from this site, and youtube I don't do social media. I think once people become radicalised by their social media bubble, it’s probably all over.

I’ve never found a book of philosophy that’s assisted me with any real-world issue, to be honest. — Tom Storm

That, alone, is interesting. I have no formal philosophy background, but perhaps naively came here looking for a new way of looking at current events. "After Virtue" is the one recommendation here that has shaped my understanding of real-world issues today.

I think once people become radicalised by their social media bubble, it’s probably all over. — Tom Storm

I'm with you here, and like you, I avoid social media. I don't even have a cell phone. Nice list of novelists, BTW!

I know you didn't ask me — AmadeusD

I always enjoy your comments Amadeus, and welcome input from all. So thanks!

Stock I know from her (excellent) writing at Spiked and Quillette, so not the actual philosophy papers. This may be a dumb question, but can you recommend places to access these without a student / educator membership?

It certainly seems like other countries are ahead of mine, Canada, on critically addressing the radical affirmation approach.

Lawford-Smith has her own website with writings posted, so I'll start there with her.

No comment on merits, but illustrating that its hard to find one side - but not hard to find the other. — AmadeusD

Telling ....

That, alone, is interesting. I have no formal philosophy background, but perhaps naively came here looking for a new way of looking at current events. "After Virtue" is the one recommendation here that has shaped my understanding of real-world issues today. — Jeremy Murray

I have no background in philosophy; I’m here to see what I might have missed and to find out what others think. This is fascinating in itself. Philosophy is far too complex and fraught a subject for an amateur like me. I’ve done plenty of reading in other subjects. I tend to think philosophy is most appealing if you’re trying to shore up a belief system, if you’re searching for truth or a foundation for morality, or if you’re unhappy and looking for consolation. I’m a fairly frivolous and cheerful person and more of a simple-minded pragmatist, so those sorts of big themes are of little use to me as I go about my business.

Am I correct in thinking that philosophers are generally 'sitting trans out' due to the fraught nature of the conversation in universities and other institutions? — Jeremy Murray

I can't speak for all, but I would guess this. The introduction to trans rights was a coordinated effort built off the success of the gay rights movement. Instead of debating from the ground up, it brought from the top down. If you were educated, why wouldn't you support trans rights? Its just like gay rights...right? Kathleen Stock, a philosopher in England, left the position after pressure for her views on trans gender and gender rights.

Early on, you could not even question the issue in many places on the internet. You would be banned for even saying something like, "I don't believe a trans woman is a woman." It was a secular religion and saying anything against it was blasphemy. The life of a philosopher in modern day is hard. Underpaid, untenured, and immense competition for positions as there are far more students than teaching positions. Why risk your livelihood on debating the issue?

The AI issue was a landmark for my personal interest in philosophy. Can you point to anyone doing good work here that I may not know? — Jeremy Murray

No. I do not keep up on modern philosophy. I'm much more interested in the scientists doing the work and the psychologists doing the analyzing.

That we all live a panopticon, or a "village" with its "cage of norms" as Yascha Mounk put it recently - a village without the "genuine sense of community" brought about by daily face-to-face contact. — Jeremy Murray

Yes, the online world and the real world are completely different. See how many people talk like a$$holes online? They're likely quite polite face to face. The presence of a human being brings a different dynamic than a faceless wall of text.

But as the client population changed rapidly over the next decade, the model of care seemed to solidify in place? — Jeremy Murray

The model of affirmation is profitable. Clients will come see you to be told the things they want to hear, and the promise of a magic drug that will fix their problems. Far fewer people want to pay money to be told they need to do work to fix their problems, or that their problem doesn't make them special in an attention seeking way.

(I am not trying to pick on the left - I am simply more familiar with examples in the left-wing context I have long lived in). — Jeremy Murray

The left and the right both have positive and negative qualities. Each offers different approaches to solving problems, and neither side is right all the time.

"Thinking in the face of the pressure not to." P — Philosophim

Going back to your OP, I increasingly like this definition of the 'purpose' of philosophy.

Early on, you could not even question the issue in many places on the internet. You would be banned for even saying something like, "I don't believe a trans woman is a woman." It was a secular religion and saying anything against it was blasphemy. The life of a philosopher in modern day is hard. Underpaid, untenured, and immense competition for positions as there are far more students than teaching positions. Why risk your livelihood on debating the issue? — Philosophim

Why indeed. I should frame my questioning to reflect just how hard it is to challenge orthodoxy. Personally, I was cancelled for questioning woke dogma, and I was super naive to have failed to recognize my precarity. That was in high school, so the pressure in a university faculty, where the divide between workers with 'institutional power' (tenure, visible woke status) and those just embarking on their careers is much worse.

What is the history of your calling woke a 'secular religion'? I started hearing it referred to that way maybe 3-5 years ago, and the idea has spread - because it is compelling. I certainly agree, after having thought it a superficial take when I first heard it. "Woke Racism" by John McWhorter is the best articulation of this I've found. I've used his term 'the elect' to describe the priestly class since reading him.

The bait-and-switch that allowed the trans movement to claim the same moral status as MLK and early gay rights activists and others seems tactically brilliant, but maybe reflects no 'tactic' at all, rather a natural evolution of thinking in a belief system shared across wealthy campuses and woke institutions globally. McWhorter talks at length about firm wokists that he is friends with, or admires - many people operating in this sphere are true believers, or (more often) moral relativists happy to defer to standpoint epistemology. Their intentions are generally good (if naive, or self-serving, or willfully blind).

I'm much more interested in the scientists doing the work and the psychologists doing the analyzing. — Philosophim

Me too. The divide between disciplines strikes me as another part of the problem though. In our complex world, 'expertise' is in the hands of the specialist, rather than the polymath. I see so many fertile fields left untended. I would love to read philosophical takes on morality, or gender, or liberty that are grounded in anthropology and evolutionary biology, for example.

And philosophy would be a good tonic for some of the ill-considered orthodoxy you often
encounter in the social sciences.

The model of affirmation is profitable. Clients will come see you to be told the things they want to hear, — Philosophim

Absolutely part of the problem, but this doesn't explain why, say, community-based 'safe consumption sites' for addicts still operate with outdated models based on different drugs? (assuming my premise that there may have been an ideological 'freezing' into place once smart phones became ubiquitous)?