More Public Debates about Philosophy, Please!

Yesterday was a good day for philosophy. Shortly after I read Joe  Komonchak's post on Commonweal, which was reposted by Rick Garnett here on "Mirror of Justice" (and the interesting comments on both blogs), the NYT posted Stanley Fish's op-ed which also dealt with a reply to Paul Bohossian's July 24, op-ed on moral relativism. So much public discussion of philosophy in one day is unusual, but I think it is a promising development.

What strikes me in these posts is the diversity of views of philosophy that are represented: philosophy as reason, philosophy as wisdom, philosophy as technical discipline, and even philosophy as cognitively meaningless discourse. All of these views are represented forcefully and each is viewed as respectible within the bounds of particular discourse communities. John Paul II offered a diagnosis, which is still relevant:

It should . . . be borne in mind that the role of philosophy itself has changed in modern culture. From universal wisdom and learning, it has been gradually reduced to one of the many fields of human knowing; indeed, in some ways it has been consigned to a wholly marginal role. Other forms of rationality have accquired an ever higher profile, making philosophical learning appear all the more peripheral. (Fides et Ratio 47)

This is why he called for the recognition that "The parrhesia of faith must be matched by the boldness of reason."  John Paul II believed that the challenge facing Catholic philosophers is to develop a discourse that is genuinely metaphysical in range, uniting faith and reason in harmony.

Stanley Fish makes a point worth considering. He argues that high levels of abstraction are not necessary for "doing the right thing," and in most circumstances that is enough. We mostly don't need to consider metaphysics to act morally. He is correct about this and it is useful for political debates to keep this in mind. It is often counterproductive to seek agreement at higher levels of abstraction than are needed to reach consensus.

Philosophers, however, have a higher burden, it would seem, since it is their call to work at the very highest levels of abstraction. That is at least part of the reason that public discourse on philosophical matters rarely occurs in a pluralistic liberal democracy. But even if it is rare, it is work of critical importance. It exposes fidism and encourages the creation of common communities.