This is the videorecording of my presentation at the 2023 Wisconsin Philosophical Association conference, titled What is Public Philosophy? A Pluralist Proposal?
My abstract for the presentation is:
"“Public philosophy” and other associated terms (e.g. “public-facing philosophy”, “philosophy in the public sphere”) have come into significantly more prevalent use in recent decades. It is often contrasted against traditional academic philosophy, as being more relevant to or more engaging to the lives of non-philosophers, and as serving important functions, including contributing to public discourse about important topics. As with other disciplines within the humanities, public philosophy is sometimes positioned as necessary for the discipline and its practitioners.
There are a number of different characterizations of what public philosophy is or should be, but there is clearly no consensus within the broader discipline of philosophy, including among those who claim to be. My paper will review several common definitions or characterizations proposed for public philosophy and examine the degrees to which they are sufficient or adequate, too general or restrictive, and (in some cases) self-serving of a portion of the philosophical community. These include those offered by the American Philosophical Association, The Society of Philosophers in America, the Public Philosophy Network, and The Institute for Philosophy In Public Life (and their spokespeople), among others.
I suggest that inquiry into, discussion about, and advocacy for what we can or should consider “public philosophy” remains a meta-philosophical matter (or mess). Instead of holding out for (or assuming/asserting) consensus on one main understanding of public philosophy, I argue that it would be better to adopt pluralist approaches (plural) to the matter, and I outline what one such approach would look like, specifying and examining multiple interconnected senses of “public philosophy” associated with determinate activities, organizations, programs, and movements. Without claiming that these comprise the totality of “public philosophy,” I discuss six main dimensions of what we should include in it, considering paradigmatic examples for each.
These are: philosophy deliberately carried out in the public interest; philosophy done (mostly) side-by-side (the SOPHIA model); philosophy applied within broader public or professional contexts; philosophers popularizing philosophical arguments, problems, positions, and themes for non-philosophers; philosophy produced, provided, and engaged in largely by non-philosophers (perhaps with philosophers); and, discussion of public functions of philosophy in writings of academic philosophers.
Aiming to promote discussion among attendees, I will close by opening one inevitably arising issue, namely that of whether (and where) we can still draw boundaries between public philosophy, as still remaining within the scope of philosophy, and potential claimants to “public philosophy” which should not be considered to be philosophy or philosophical."
#Philosophy #Public #Academic #Professional #popular #talk #wisconsin #presentation #pluralism
