September 2002

There was a lot to chew on in the last issue of Philosophers on Holiday —Kierkegaard, the Nature of Philosophy, the Nature of Our Teaching.

I was excited by the idea of philosophers laureate but think that you were too timid in your proposal. I have thought for a long time that philosophy is not really about "truth" but, at best, about ways of understanding the world or little bits of it. The understandings we present to each other are often interesting but our social role, our contribution to the well-being of our society strikes me as minimal. If we do contribute, it is surely as teachers if we manage to have interesting conversations with our students. If they gain some new views of the world in our classes, if they feel affirmed as thinkers, and even loved, we are doing something good.

How much more useful could we be if we functioned regularly as consultants in our city at times when members of the community face problems. Philosophers have good skills at clarifying notions, they know a good deal about the different ways in which one may think reasonably about a particular subject. If they are good, they have some skills in talking illuminatingly about some rather abstract issues. We could be functionaries in the community with the training we have plus some training in mediation and an internship in consulting to community groups.

Obviously the philosophers would not produce a "correct" solution to these many disagreements. But they could, by clarifying the issues, make sure that everyone talks about the same thing rather than talking past each other. They could help a group to agree on what the real alternatives are and state clearly what are the conflicting opinions, in order to forge some sort of compromise that is least harmful.

Here are some examples: Two of the local colleges in Worcester are having conflicts with their surrounding communities about plans to expand. Meetings between community people and officials of these colleges have been acrimonious and unproductive. Everyone concerned could profit from someone who would help to clarify issues, to lay out the meaning of key concepts, to offer, where needed, some empirical information such as: will property values go down if this college builds an athletic field on its land?

This city has a shelter for homeless people. Many people say that it causes disturbances in the neighborhood where it is located and the neighbors want it to move. That has been a rather bitter debate for a long time. A facilitator skilled at laying out and clarifying issues and arguments might have helped the process of resolving this particular controversy.

There are debates over withdrawing certain books from school libraries, or from public libraries because the subject matter is deemed, by some, to be unsuitable for children. There are comparable debates about using screening software on the computers in the public library to protect children from pornographic material. These are difficult issues but they are the meat and potatoes of philosophers.

Our local peace group has held weekly vigils against war for almost a year. The Police Department has come around to take pictures of us from time to time. Sustained protests have not had any results. The police chief sticks to his guns and no one makes him change his policy. There has been no real discussion at all to speak of. An expert in arguing issues could certainly help to initiate a genuine discussion of the issues and help to clarify what is going on.

Someone’s dog attacks a child. What should happen to the dog? Should it be put down, or simply moved to a different location? A philosopher could help try to clarify the relevant issues.

In this state it is now mandatory for grade school and high school students to take periodic tests. Many teachers and parents object strenuously to this shortcut to improving school quality. But as far as I can see the matter has not been discussed in public forums the way it deserves to be. Help, get a philosopher!

Then there is the whole issue of making welfare recipients work. What a hornets’ nest!

Clearly philosophers would have to have a different position in their community than they have now in order to be effective. If we did well as philosopher laureates and managed to gain the confidence of our neighbors for being helpful, respectful, and truly clarifying we could fill a very important function in conflict resolution, and in enhancing the quality of our democracy. We would be able to teach to everyone what we try to teach in our class rooms, namely to be as reasonable as the human condition allows us to be.

This is not about philosopher kings but much more about philosopher-public servants. Plato was quite wrong with all his search for a crystalline truth and the Sophists on the right track when they thought that what matters is to argue well. But of course they would have to be feminist sophists—not the male types that try to argue opponents into the ground but ones who want to share the excitement of a good conversation. I suggest that you go down to the St. Peter’s City Council immediately to make your proposal.

Well, as long as they don’t have to be local, and can be genuinely wise individuals, how about:

1. Hilary Putnam.

2. Jaakko Hintikka. (OK, he’s Finnish. Maybe he can be a halftime time PL when he’s over at Princeton, or whenever the next issue of Synthese arrives at the library.)

Cheers!

Would a Platonist philosopher laureate have spelunking included on the job description? Would a Socratic philosopher laureate be asked to raise questions about proposed plans of action? Would a Cartesian philosopher laureate be assigned the task of taking a census (how many people in this town really ARE)? Would Luce Irigaray, if awarded this coveted post, be responsible for the specular health of the community—or just of other women? (and as a side note, don’t you think Luce probably hawks either optical fashions or gynecological supplies for doctors?) Would a Derridean be in charge in unbuildings and grounds? Would John Dewey be an ex officio member of the school board? Or just responsible for progressive dinners?

Dear Philosopher Laureate,

I understand that you are looking for real life tasks that a philosopher laureate could attack. As a close observer of the computer industry I watch with interest the "race for the moon" that is the contest to see whose computer can execute the most instructions in a particular time interval. Thousands of people in dozens of companies work ridiculous numbers of hours each week to achieve a particular goal. While these goals (i.e. the "benchmark") were once loosely associated with a piece of practical science, the science has gotten lost in the competition. Just once I’d like to read that COMPUTER COMPANY XYZ has produced the computer that allowed the Department of Energy to solve a particularly crucial piece of science that will eliminate "knotty problem ABC" much more quickly than originally expected. Simple examples like "the 55 mpg car" come to mind but there are so many more.

Signed,

A concerned, anonymous citizen wearing a peace sign.

Fall, 2002
Dear Philosopher Laureate,

A recent SUNDAY MORNING (CBS) segment (Salinas (CA) finally embraces its most famous native, John Steinbeck) talked about how John Steinbeck was pretty much ostracized from his home town for coming down hard on the upper class’s treatment of laborers (he himself was upper class). Now that his name is a lucrative element of their "tourist traps" they have "embraced him." The story doesn’t indicate whether they have started to treat their laborers any better. So, dear Phil Laur: Should Salinas be able to make a buck on someone they shunned?

Signed,

A concerned viewer