Not a bad attempt, although I am obviously superior to Mr. Philips
Socrates Café
Part A
Christopher Philips in the Socrates Café has not succeeded in “returning philosophy to the people” because it has never been for the “people.” Although he was surprised at the depth of people’s insight and knowledge, especially that of children, he is blind to two points that he fails to address in his book. The first is that “philosophy” is not meant for the “people.” Secondly, he fails to grasp the religious dimension of philosophy, and how religion is important to many Americans in particular.
The first point tends to sound elitist, and it is, to a point. The word philosophy has such a stratified meaning. I tend to have a dualistic approach in classifying philosophy. There is the “low” philosophy, which deals with problems as they are presented in life, such as ethical decisions or human responses to situations. It is empirical in nature, in that everyone participates in this type of philosophy. People can do this type of philosophizing poorly, or they can do it well. Further, it is based in, as Plato thought, “temporal things,” or things that are not eternal. As pointed out earlier, the views of these things are constantly being redefined, and we drop certain ideas when they no longer seem to work (or when we conveniently ignore them when they do not suit our interests). The second type of philosophy is “high” philosophy. The more formal aspects of modern philosophy are in the “high” philosophy: Epistemology, Ontology, Metaphysics, etc. These tend to deal with the more abstract, eternal qualities that affect humanity and the world. Everyone, with a small percentage of people being able to understand its subtlety and complexity, does not understand this “higher” philosophy.
This second definition of philosophy is how I interpret the word “Philosophy.” Therefore, Mr. Philips idea to bring the words of Hegel, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant and others to the people is an impossible task. Most people are unable to understand their ideas. Although I place greater value on the second philosophy type that does not mean that the first philosophy type is unimportant. The duty of every individual is to understand either type to the best of their ability. The main differences between Mr. Philips and myself is his definition of what philosophy is. It is an argument in semantics, but an important distinction. It is important because communication and dialogue is an integral part of the human being. Rather than exacerbating any interaction with imprecise terms, my definition, although not definitive, does clarify the layered meanings of philosophy.
Leave the philosophy to the philosophers. This is a harsh statement, but one which is pragmatic. There is so much knowledge and information in the world, whether from politics, religion, sociology, psychology, biology, or any other of the thousands areas of study that to have an informed opinion on matters in that category, it requires vast amounts of time. Most people, and this is especially prevalent on the Internet, do not devote the necessary time into their subjects. A half-truth is a very dangerous thing. This creates an opinion that contradicts exactly what Socrates wanted. It builds pride, which closes any reasoned discussion. It creates intolerance, which creates resentment, which creates hatred. That is not what Socrates, or Christopher Philips, wants.
Socrates Café is remarkably silent on the religious dimension to the philosophical life too. As I read the book, I discovered a close parallel between philosophical searching and religious searching. I cannot help but think that is because Mr. Philips has little interest in formal religious teaching or thought. The reason why I think this is because he freely quotes Nietzsche. Nietzsche is infamous because of his hostility towards religion, especially towards Christianity. Mr. Philips (apparent) ignorance in religious dialogue will hamper his goal to bring philosophy “to the people.”
The people Philips is attempting to reach are the American people. The American public is remarkably religious, more so than any other Western nation. The so-called “religious right” has millions of people associated with it, and wields considerable political and cultural influence on American public life. Ignoring this growing minority is not an option. I recognize that Mr. Philips may have intentionally not written about religion because it is a cantankerous subject. Yet, I still think that he does a disservice to Socrates when religious discussion is removed. If Mr. Philips truly wishes to create greater understanding, invariably he will discover that religion is important to the “common person.”
I strongly feel that the near future will see a resurgence of religion in American public life. This will be forced upon Americans from two fronts. First, from the growing number of Evangelicals, Catholics, and Pentecostals among racial minorities within America will cause changes in domestic policies regarding religion. President Bush has already made some changes, mainly through the bill allowing “faith-based” charities to compete for federal funding. The second factor is the huge explosion of Islam and Christianity in “third-world” countries. Many of these countries do not have separation of church and state, leading to internal strife and civil war in these countries. Some “Muslim” countries legally have the death penalty for people who convert from Islam. Religion is an important social affiliation, and will affect relations with countries that differ from their professed religion. Religion, especially of the “conservative” type, is becoming a greater voice within society. Mr. Philips may wish to acquaint himself with the similar understanding that his work has with religious practices and beliefs.
In any discussion of philosophy, religion will inevitably come up. Historically, the two intertwine so often that it is sometimes difficult to separate the two. I cannot imagine discussing philosophy without discussing religion, or discussing religion without discussing philosophy. Mr. Philips undervalues the religious experience, which is analogous to the philosophical experience. Experience has taught me that religion and philosophy are indivisible. Both are enigmas, both plead to reason that humanity is ignorant. And that is why I think Mr. Philips will fail, because he only has half the question.
Part B
Early on in my life I discovered one of the most endearing joys in my life: reading. It opened up brand new worlds to me, both factual and fictional. This has had a profound affect on me by forcing me to see other people’s worlds. Whether I agree with them or not, I noticed that they (oftentimes) viewed the world in fundamentally different ways than I did. I realized that much of what we think we know is based upon our narrow perceptions. This is why I apply Jesus’ words “judge not, least ye be judged” beyond the scope of individuals. Many times, if I did not, I would come to hasty conclusions that were erroneous. I believe that Socrates would approve this caution in decision-making because it prevents haste and the ruling of emotions in decisions.
As stated in my formal critique, I do not necessarily follow a strictly philosophical life. I am sure I do so more than the average person, but I view my ethical conduct to have a greater emphasis on traditional religious practice than philosophy. It is a mixture; a blending of religious-philosophical thought that attempts to have some cohesion. Therefore, I do not think on the Socratic method, but on Christ and his words and how they are interpreted within the community of faith. Consequently, I do not actively use the Socratic method when problem solving. I question myself, to used the cliché, “What would Jesus do?” as to how I problem solve.
Part C
To be honest, Socrates Café did not offer any substantial “new” learning. This is because what Mr. Philips writes about is not exactly “new” in method. It is incredibly ancient, but it has been lost through the years. As a student of history, this text was not a revolutionary discovery. It is something I have known about for some time. I cannot consciously recall anything “new” that I learned.
Yet, I think I am an exception to the rule. I have been interested in formal philosophy for years, thereby differentiating myself from my peers. As an introductory text to philosophical inquiry, I would grade it B-. Mr. Philips is repetitive in his examples without any significant depth to his revelations. His similar writing of his cafes causing each issue raised in them to merge together into a heap. This causes confusion later on in the reader because it is difficult to remember specific instances. Altogether, Mr. Philips gives a valiant attempt at introducing philosophy to the laymen, but falls short of the mark with a reader who is moderately acquainted with general philosophy.