I wake up most days and doomscroll.
Terrible decisions by powerful men – most notably Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump – have pushed us to the brink of global economic chaos and are edging us closer to world war. Conditions are ripe for the further rise of the far right and a descent into self-destructive nationalism and xenophobia.
Meanwhile, the climate catastrophe continues. The Doomsday Clock is 85 seconds from midnight.
Bad choices are at the heart of these impending disasters. Better choices, even at this late stage, might still limit the damage.
Can philosophy help? Could better critical thinking and logic – together with insights from several thousand years of brilliant minds grappling with the deepest questions we can ask ourselves about the nature of reality and how we should live – offer us hope? Do we need more philosophy in education, and in public life generally? Perhaps, but it depends what kind of philosophy and from whom.
You could easily have missed it, but British Philosophy Fortnight ended on March 29. The British Philosophical Association (BPA) has been pushing the theme “Philosophy Matters”. In a video on their site, Emma Swinn, co-director of Sapere, an organisation that champions teaching philosophy in schools, puts the case for more philosophy in the curriculum:
“…in an increasingly complex world and interconnected world the ability to think clearly and to engage in reasoned dialogue is absolutely essential… Philosophy matters because it makes a difference to how young people think, feel, speak, and act in the world.”
I agree. The kind of philosophical dialogue that she advocates and teaches also encourages a willingness to listen to and engage with other people’s positions and arguments. Encouraging young people to think well, to give reasons for their beliefs, and to discuss their ideas and values with one another while showing mutual respect will surely contribute to a better future.
If we want a functioning democracy, and voters who will make informed decisions, we need citizens who are skilled at analysing what they are told, and who can see through rhetoric, false generalisation, and poor reasoning. And teaching philosophy through structured discussion in schools looks to be one of the best ways to increase the number of critical thinkers. I am an enthusiast for bringing more philosophy of this kind into early education and encouraging students to think for themselves.
But when it comes to bringing more philosophers into public life, I have some qualms. It matters which philosophers get to contribute.
Those advocating for their subject tend to speak as if all philosophers are similar in what they can bring. The idea of co-opting an academic philosopher to give a “philosophical angle” on a committee then looks sensible. But different philosophers start from very different places.
Suggested Reading
Jürgen Habermas – brilliant, influential and stupefyingly tedious
The philosopher Mary Warnock (1924-2019) famously did an excellent job chairing the committee set up in 1982 to investigate ethical questions about embryology and IVF; but imagine if that committee had been chaired by another eminent philosopher, Elizabeth Anscombe (1919-2001).
As well as being famous for her work on intention, Anscombe was a Catholic pro-life advocate who believed that abortion was murder (she was arrested outside abortion clinics) and that IVF should never be permitted because reproduction ought only to occur as a result of sexual intercourse (an intrinsically procreative act) within marriage. You don’t have to go so far as accepting Friedrich Nietzsche’s claim that philosophers just rationalise their prejudices to see the problem.
We should also be cautious about the idea that bringing more philosophers into public life would enrich debate because of their expertise in logic. As a logician might say, that’s not the case.
It should be more widely recognised that good logicians can espouse the worst values. Impeccable reasoning from false premises doesn’t guarantee the truth of your conclusions. It can lead to some very dark places.
Take Gottlob Frege (1848-1925), allegedly the greatest logician since Aristotle, who made original contributions to our understanding of the logic of language and the nature of maths. His diaries reveal he was a fascist sympathiser with extreme antisemitic views: an outstanding philosopher of logic, but a very nasty man.
In contrast, another important logician, Michael Dummett (1925-2011), an enthusiast for Frege’s philosophy of language, devoted much of his life to campaigning against racial intolerance and for the rights of immigrants.
