|
May 8, 2005
I have often advocated that philosophy can, and should, have a greater involvement in public life on the grounds that the broader presence of philosophy in public life is important both to our society and to the profession.
This line of thinking highlights the personal value and social usefulness of philosophy engaged in public life; holds that the tradition of philosophy in public life has been eclipsed and the field of philosophy suffers from it being almost entirely dominated by professional academic philosophers who are paid to philosophize.
The internet enables philosophy's engagement with public life to begin with little startup or operational cost. It opens up the potential for philosophy to be otherwise to an academic practice of philosophy.
Tennesse has some comments on the philosophy and internet radio talk last Friday here and here. His first comment, written before the show, says that he saw it as:
"...a chance to finally give philosophy a public voice, the Internet is doing amazing things....While I believe that traditionally important philosophers are ignoring the internet, I also believe they are being left behind. Those of us who inhabit the digital realm don't care about those who are left behind, but about those who are with us."
Two examples of a digital academia in Australia are Borderlands and Contretemps.
This raises the following questions: 'What sort of public voice should philosophy have in a digital age? Would it have diverse voices?What would a public philosophy look like in Australia? Is economic rationalism Australia's public philosophy? Is not neo-liberalism a public philosophy that has emerged as an effort to address the ills besetting the modern Australian polity?
We need to address these questions because public philosophy is often seen as a moral substitute or replacement for a decayed Christian religion in a secular liberal polity.
Tennesse's second comment, written after the show, says that the content of the radio show became:
"...a critique of Academy's lack of engagement with technology, and why this might have been...As traditional forms of information distrubution have moved online - budgetary reports, commissioner's reports from government, news from the major parties, the treasury, newspapers - the Academy has remained stagnant. The technical barriers are trivial, and this can be seen as nothing other than a refusal to engage."
Why so? Tennesse highlights the cultural conservative response to the world of the internet by the Australian philosophical academy:
"The loathing of the internet is, hopefully, only a generational one. Many lecturers struggle to properly manage their email, yet alone having the mental objects in place for understanding user accounts, blogs, web-pages, online identities, information distribution channels and so forth. For many of these people, research means the books in the library, and the journals to which they publish. Efforts like wikipedia, while accepted amongst tutors, are hated for their free nature and ad-hoc publishing regimes."
'Loathing' and 'hate'. Australian academic philosophers sound like a bunch of grumpy old men without the saving grace of humor. It is yet one more criticism of the conservatism of the Australian academy.
My argument is that the internet enable philosophy to step outside the walls of academia to engage with issues of public concern to citizens. These issues often have an important philosophical dimension and that a philosophical examination of these substantive legal, social, and political problems/issues can contribute to their clarification and to their resolution.
This kind of public philosophy would adopt a critical questioning mode that highlights the presuppositions of what is often called the policy framework of government(neo-liberalism),or models of health (biomedicine), or the limits to environmental reform, keeping new policy pathways open; addressing the democratic deficit.
|
No doubt academic snobbery has always been with us: wasn't that a main theme in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"?
Fortunately, there are academics, such as Paul Vincent Spade of Indiana University, who freely share their work across the internet. I am deeply appreciative. I also like Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, among others.
Several blogs exist which give voice to the otherwise unheard in the traditional publishing world. This is such an amazingly FREE forum, and should (of course) be encouraged by the traditional academics. The caution always exists in carefully scrutinizing what is presented - be it off a web site or a journal. Philosophy is for everyone. This is Socrates' dream come true.