This is a great conversation. I've been doing "public" philosophy for awhile now (by that i mean private conversation with non-philosophers who don't know im doing it) and it is real tricky to say the least. i would attempt to explain a method that i have come to over time in the following way. One of the things i think that happens once you recognize yourself as a philosopher in the real sense, is that you are no longer grounded in individual consciousness. Like Plato's republic you are in a sense, a guardian of the social, the social good, you may not have a position of authority as in the ideal state of the republic, like a politician or professor etc. but you are in a sense a guardian nonetheless. A guardian of the world soul, so to speak. So in that sense you find yourself interested and always drawing attention to the social good in the course of conversation. Over time i have noticed that i have started to do this almost unconsciously. In fact the better i am at it, the less conscious i am doing it which has the following effect: If a friend is telling me about his problems, i will find myself asking him questions that lead him to think about how his problems are connected to "our" problems, or collective social problems or contexts. The more unconscious i am about my line of questioning the more genuine my interest in him appears and becomes. In reality, there is a perfect correlation between his problem and my better understanding of the social, i will be asking him questions not only for his sake but for my own, because i always want on the ground first hand understanding of the theoretical problems that i am always thinking about, as a philosopher. So i am at once interested in him and the whole at the same time. So its less a conscious socratic dialogue attempting to lead one towards "aporia", but a relaxed dialogue that deepens the interlocutors relationship to their own issues and also helps ground my understanding in the real world experience of others. This sounds complicated but its not. I think one aspect of being a philosopher is "knowing what one is talking about", both yourself and the interlocutor. And not in the authoritative sense, just that they know what the basic subject at hand is, that is being discussed, they have a familiarity with the fundamental questions of that subject etc. In that sense they are really listening, hearing and responding. "Ability to respond", is literally, responsibility. Responsibility in discourse is the sign of good public philosophy. I think...

Great conversation and food for thought, thank you both

Shout out to John Dewey! Sometimes I cannot help but imagine him laughing at us after 100 years he wrote his stuff. I always recommend anyone to read his stuff especially if you're interested in education.

This was great, you guys have a great chemistry

Inspiring. Thank you.

39:30 The word 'populism' doesn't necessarily mean conservative demagoguery, or demagoguery of any sort. There other varieties of populism, including progressive populism. What they share is a certain hostility to elitism of various kinds. With this in mind, the academic use of the word 'philospher' to mean a person with specialized advanced training in a professional 'discipline' strikes many people who consciously philosophize as bizarre. I've heard it said that Paul Feyerabend used to insist he wasn't a philosopher but only a professor of philosophy.

thanks guys

When we're talking about the wideness of accessibility of a philosophy, would a better term be "popular" philosophy when talking about a philosophy that is designed to be able to be digested by those wide reaching "publics"? I know this falls a little outside of the topic in this video (& I'm not well versed or studied in philosophy), I'm just curious & interested. This is a great discussion & I enjoyed it a lot :)

I'd love to see you two do a video on Dworkin

Updated audio? W

We need to have “we've got talent" in many more fields.

20:28 ...because The Medium is the Message. 😮

Hm, a podcast on film? I wonder if Deleuze comes up.

Great convo. I was kinda surprised not to hear Hannah Arendt mentioned - but she is not strictly a philosopher (at least she didn't think so) As I (a novice) understand her, philosophy is inevitably part of the vita contemplativa and the public space is inevitably part of the vita activa; hence there will always be a disconnect between a philosopher (a singular entity) and a public (even a " public" of other philosophers as you suggest). Politically, the public space is associated with a common world, which is supposed to be agreed upon, but which seems to be highly vulnerable to opinion as opposed to fact, which led a mass society to develop a new form of government: totalitarianism. Conclusion, the philosopher ceases to be a philosopher at all as soon as they take a side in the public space. Again - as I understand her (which is tenuously) thanks for the chat.

I was about to say that they should be more public lectures then I realised that this is also a sort or lecture, be it a dialectic one. Dave is right about you guys not being payed for your papers while the public has to pay to access them, it's exploitation

twice

Public philosophy should extend to teaching beings to reason, identify fallacy and compose syllogisms. Everything else is devolves into criticism. We have too many sheep clothed in philosophy whom utter but critique.

public philosophy would be a casual study of philosophy, as soon as it becomes highly specialised then it's no longer public regardless of where it is done and who is doing it

I wonder what the creators of the idea of philosophy (love of wisdom) would think about these University types. Unintelligent yet highly intellectual constantly attempting to specify and argue for nonsensical classifications. The constant attempts to prove their inner circle who is more intelligent while the general public has a better grasp on reality, and arguably a superior and more grounded way if taking in information and processing it.