I came across this paragraph over at Lars Iyers weblog Spurious. It is a paragraph from William Large's review of the Routledge Thinkers in Action series.
I quote in full:
"Even if these books were written for the public, who are the public anyway? Can one take philosophy to the public? Is this not a profound misunderstanding of philosophy? To take philosophy to the public: is this not to destroy everything that would be possibly philosophical about philosophy? In this instance, philosophy is perhaps quite different from the sciences. It might be possible to take science to the public by simplifying the explanations, but philosophy is not about explanations, it is about problems that cannot be explained. It’s goal, therefore, is to leave the reader or the listener absolutely perplexed and bewildered, atopos, as Socrates describes himself. How can you take this to the public? Even, let us imagine, that being bewildered and perplexed became the latest public fashion, then being bewildered or perplexed, would no longer be bewildering or perplexing. Philosophy cannot be taken to the public not because of some kind of esoteric elitism, (as an academic discipline it is like any other, sometime interesting, but mostly appalling), but because it is the relation to the unknown itself, the limit, the apolis. Does not Socrates take Phaedrus outside of the walls of the city to talk to him about philosophy? Philosophy does not take us to the public, no more than it can be taken to the public; rather it tears us away from the public, and thus the public from itself."
And Montaigne? Is that not philosophy within public life?
It is possible to scratch democracy where it itches from within democracy ito help foster a flourishing democratic way of life. We try out the public opinions (about public health or the market) to see whether they work.
Oh, I almost forgot. Remember John Locke in the 17th century, Adam Smith in the 18th century and Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 19th century.