Analysis and Synthesis: Informal philosophy

1. Introduction

Public philosophy comes in many forms. This post is about discussion groups with topics set in advance. It is based on experience with one such group in Cambridge in England, which I have been involved in running for a few years. The hope is that others who would like similar groups in their areas will take the initiative and set them up.

2. Format

The group meets for two hours each Sunday morning, in a café in winter and by the river in summer. We normally get about 20 people, and we limit the group to this number when we are in the café. We arrange meetings on the Meetup website. That site charges group organisers about £200 ($250) a year. We invite optional small contributions to this cost from members, but otherwise make a point of not charging members at all.

Each week there is a topic announced online in advance, with a short description that may identify specific aspects and include links to other material.

We divide into two or three groups of about 10 people each, so that each group is small enough for everyone to have their say and for everyone to hear what others say.

One person in each group will speak for a couple of minutes to introduce the topic, and then open up the discussion. The format is thus almost entirely discussion, not a lecture followed by discussion. The person who introduces the topic may do some light moderation, and may deliberately introduce new aspects of the topic at various stages in order to move the discussion forward, but otherwise will simply be an ordinary participant. And the aim is to discuss and discover, rather than to win an argument for a particular point of view.

3. Members

The people who attend come from many professions and educational backgrounds.

Few have made any formal study of philosophy, although some rapidly acquire knowledge in specific areas by making online searches for things to read and joining online discussion groups. Their knowledge can be both substantial and sound. At least at the student level, although perhaps not at the professorial level, philosophy is not a discipline in which someone needs a wide area of competence in order to have a narrow area of specialization. And in many areas of philosophy people can say novel and useful things early in their involvement, in marked contrast to the natural sciences and even some of the humanities. This should not surprise us. Much of philosophy, especially ethics and political philosophy but also some of epistemology and even metaphysics, is close enough to everyday life that understanding derived from living, or at least from living in a way that involves reflective thinking, is a large proportion of the understanding one needs. Philosophical concepts and styles of argument are needed too, but only in the immediate area of concern.

The format of meetings, a brief introduction followed by open discussion, means that there is no hierarchy of expert and students. Some members of a group will have expertise in the relevant area of philosophy and knowledge of the literature. The person who proposed the topic and wrote the online introduction may well be in this position. But the expertise of others, derived not from the study of philosophy but from their own professions, can be just as significant in taking the discussion forward. In philosophical questions that concern the legal system, we need to hear from lawyers. In questions of aesthetics, we need to hear from art historians. And so on.

4. Topics

All members are invited to propose topics, reflecting their own expertise or interests. We have for example had "What could unite humanity for the common good?" from someone who had had a career at the United Nations, and "Could we tell if we were characters in a video game?" from a computer games developer. Anyone who proposes a topic is encouraged, although not required, to write the online introduction and to look after one of the groups of ten people, introducing the topic and gently steering the discussion.

While all members are invited to propose topics, much of that work is in practice done by two regular organisers who commit to ensuring that there is a topic every week. But a request to members can yield good results. Six people came forward with topics the last time we asked.

There is a preference for topics to which all can contribute. Ethical and political topics are among the most popular. But many topics in epistemology and metaphysics can work, and even moderately technical topics in the philosophy of science. One just has to think of how to define the topic in a way that will keep it open to contributions from a range of perspectives.

5. Results

What do we get out of our meetings, aside from a pleasant couple of hours on a Sunday?

As so often in philosophical discussions, we do not get a single agreed conclusion. A topic may well be put in the form of a question, so there would be such things as specific answers. But not only do we not progress smoothly towards any particular answer. We treat the question as a way into the topic, a trigger for thought rather than a task for the day.

We can stray off the topic, although we need not always be fearful of that. Sometimes what looks like a diversion turns out to open up a new aspect of the topic. But when a diversion leads to a debate between two or three participants on some narrow issue that is far from the topic, it can be necessary for other members of the group to step in and bring us back to the topic.

What we certainly do get from discussions is a better sense of the shape of the topic, how far it reaches, the issues involved, and how the topic connects to other things in our intellectual lives. The ethics of wealth distribution will link to economics, the epistemology of testimony will link to how web searches are developing, and so on. And we also get plenty to think about individually afterwards.

I mentioned above the contributions of expertise from different backgrounds. Combine the role of those contributions with the fact that we are largely exploring in a spirit of adventure rather than being driven by a desire to find agreed answers, and we find that there is not much sense that philosophy is in charge, with other expertise being brought in merely in its service. The aspiration is to make progress on the topic, in whatever ways may work. We discuss topics in a philosophical style, putting forward examples, making deductions, and considering the use of alternative ways to look at questions. But we do not exclude any contribution on the ground that it is not really philosophy.

6. Practical conclusions

The main message I can give to anyone interested in doing something similar is, just do it! It does require a modest amount of work, but it is quite straightforward and it will be popular.

Those who come from a university context should not expect the technicality that may be found in academic seminars. But that does not render the philosophy that is done inferior. It remains intellectually robust, and does not descend into mysticism.

It should be a great relief to those who have to spend time chasing grants that no funding at all is needed. Even if one uses a service like Meetup, the annual fee is low enough that it can easily be covered by asking members for minimal contributions. On the other side, this is not a way to make any money. Some people have tried to make such groups into business ventures, either by charging for their services as organisers or by arranging meetings at restaurants which then pay them a commission for the customers brought in. But that really would change the ethos of a group.

There are only two challenges to be faced, and they are both small and manageable.

The first challenge is to find a venue that is free of charge, especially one indoors when the weather demands it. But plenty of café owners will be happy to see a larger number of customers than normal, especially if meetings are held during what would otherwise be slack times such as midweek evenings or Sunday mornings before the large shops open, and especially if one promises to limit numbers so as not to overwhelm the venue.

The second challenge is getting people to propose topics. Once there are enough regular members, volunteers should appear. But sometimes the burden can fall on a few regular organisers. Online philosophical discussion groups can be a good source. So can past examination papers from universities, some of which are freely available online.

That's all for now. I wish good fortune to all who create or join groups like this.