Garden-type Research and the Public Life

Al Mele has a nice piece on drinking, taking responsibility, and self-deception. It was written in the context of a campaign against drunk driving and is therefore very accessible to non-philosophers. The campaign was launched by Pernod Ricard USA. This fact may strike some as odd, but I think that every decent attempt of philosophers to get involved in the public life is commendable, and I applaud the fact that a first-rate philosopher (and Gardener :)) has taken this step.

I don't mean to imply that philosophers in general or Garden-type philosophers in particular have never been involved in public issues -- off the top of my head, I can remember Joel Feinberg's piece on equal punishment for both failed and successful attempts to commit a crime (which, I'm told, is being discussed by Canadian legislators), Bonnie Steinbock's piece in which she argues that deaths caused by drunk drivers should constitute 2nd degree murder and not merely manslaughter, and a couple of pieces by Gary Watson on responsibility and addiction -- but still, the (more or less direct) involvement of philosophers in public issues is less widespread than what I believe would be desirable. It might be interesting to discuss, then, a set of interrelated questions, which I put forth below. (I'm afraid these questions reveal my ignorance rather than setting up the issues in an interesting way, but at least they might trigger some discussion).

1) What are the implications of philosophy in general, and Garden-type philosophy in particular, for public life? (I know, this is a monstrously broad question, but still... Also, I know there's a post, with a long thread of comments, about whether there are any straight implications of Garden-type philosophy for the public life -- or at any rate, for the notion of legal responsibility, if I remember correctly -- but I can't seem to find it now. Pointers?)

2) Are there any institutions that attempt to bridge the gap between academic philosophy and the public life? 

3) Related to the last point, In what ways could philosophers get more involved in the public life?

4) What Garden-type philosophers are (more or less directly) involved in the public life?

Some caveats: I'm aware that the expression "Garden-type philosophy" is too broad. One may argue that, for instance, research on the Consequence Argument has no practical implications, whereas research on self-deception and control does. Also, the kind and degree of "involvement in the public life" are left unspecified above. I mentioned Steinbock's paper on drunk driving. But that was a paper published (I think) in Philosophy and Public Affairs. Is that to count as an intervention in "the public life," or should this expression refer to something a bit more tangible (e.g., working with legislators)? One last thing: perhaps this post sounds a bit more skeptical than it should be. I have to acknowledge that, among other things, with the increasing acceptance of experimental philosophy -- alongside increasing Garden-related news in the mainstream media -- perhaps the situation is not as bad as I assume. However, I think that the questions above are still worth discussing.

Comments

[Alan]

There was this guy Socrates--pronounced SOW-KRAYTES, by excellent adventurers--who seemed to think the reflective life and public life were indistinguishable. I know--hackneyed caricature by an over-enthusiastic follower.

But Gustavo's post is close to my heart. I've always believed that the privilege of being a professional philosopher encompasses the responsibility of being involved in public affairs. Our own Joe Campbell writes a column for his local newspaper, as I recall. Gustavo mentions Mele and Steinbock, and the archetypes of social involvement for us all are people like Chomsky and Russell.

A philosopher who does not write letters to newspapers, who does not serve on a civic panel or committee, or at least does not actively challenge students to live more involved public lives as engaged thinkers--is an embarrassment to the tradition of SOW-KRAYTES. Knowing yourself is to know yourself as a social and political being--not as someone self-interested in mere notoriety in the profession.

[Tamler Sommers]

I try to use my interviews for The Believer as a way of bringing philosophy to the public. The subject's views are voiced more than mine, but that's probably just as well. My focus is almost always on issues that are pretty central to social and political life.

(By the way, the interviews with Galen Strawson, Michael Ruse, Jon Haidt, and Frans de Waal are all linked to on my website under publications. Self promotion, yes, by not shameless. I feel very ashamed.)

[Al Mele]

Thanks, Gustavo, for the nice post. My main hope for the campaign is that it will save lives. I've also done some radio and TV interviews to promote it. BTW, I just returned from a great conference at Indiana University -- "Agency at the Intersection." It was good to see so many gardeners there.

[Eddy Nahmias]

Nothing to do with free will, but here was my latest foray outside the ivory tower, an entry in the Atlanta Journal Constitution's cartoon contest which managed to get published (my concept drawn by my mom):
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/ajc/opinion/tooncontest2007/EddyNahmias.jpg

[Alan]

Now THAT'S what I call a contribution outside the ivory tower!! Congrats Eddy!!