Notes towards an Ethos for Philosophy Island

Preamble

 

These notes are intended to help The Committee of Philosophy Island (PI) to take the first steps towards realising that project. I am not attached to them and if the good and wise committee thinks they should be trashed, that is fine by me. If, on the other hand, they help stimulate the necessary debate on fundamentals then, of course, I shall be delighted.

Firstly, a few thoughts on the Philosophy Island project: Philosophy House has already given us vivid glimpses of both what is possible and what the difficulties are for philosophical activity in virtual reality. For this we have much to thank Theophila Hegel for.

 

In my judgement, the possibilities are great and the difficulties can be overcome and therefore we should try and move the project forward. I also think that getting as clear as we can be about the foundational ethos of the project at the very outset will provide the fertile soil out of which the governmental, structural and cultural detail will grow and grow in a coherent way.

 

The project offers an unprecedented opportunity for philosophers from all across the world, of every persuasion, of every level of experience to meet, debate, educate and learn and for the “conversation of humankind” to be augmented by moments unconstrained by geography and the limits of the printed word.  Who involved with philosophy, (especially those acquainted with both the delights and limits of international conferences), could not want this?

 

The meaning of “ethos”

 

According to my Oxford Dictionary, “ethos” is Greek for “character”. It was used by Aristotle in Rhetoric (11. xii – xiv) to denote “the prevalent tone of sentiment of a people or community” and this, it seems to me, is the sense of the term we should use.

 

“Sentiment” here should be taken to mean a mental attitude which is rather deep-seated and to which (perhaps) there is an emotional commitment. So, we are seeking the shared mental attitude that will ensure the coherence of the community that will live (or second-live) at Philosophy Island and of its activities.

 

And, to be sure, this is the right thing to seek. For, notice that it is not a shared ideology or set of dogmas that we need to determine, but a shared attitude. We are, after all, not seeking to build Marxist Island, or Objectivist Island, or Islam Island or Free-market Island, or even Idealist Island or Materialist Island or Pragmatist Island…. but Philosophy Island.

 

Clearly, there is no ideology which is proper to the domain of philosophy, but there is a distinct philosophical attitude and that attitude needs to form the basis of the ethos of PI. (Here I’ve nailed my colours to the mast and the rest of what I say flows from this contention.)

 

The ethos

 

So what is the philosophical attitude? At this point I can only make suggestions. The question is too vast for an argued response here.

 

1. Following Socrates, the philosophical attitude is one of commitment to free and open enquiry. This in turn means that no presupposition can plead to go unexamined, no dogma can ask to go unchallenged and no prejudice can escape questioning.

 

2. Free and open enquiry proceeds partly through dialogue. For this reason, philosophy generates a community and dialogic practices which are utilised within that community, (though the nature of those practices might be at issue like everything else!) There is therefore a commitment to debate which is central to the philosophical attitude. Debate entails both speaking and listening.

 

3. A philosophical community will have an appropriate way for its members to relate which will facilitate enquiry. I’d like to suggest that that mode of relating is the “agonistic friendship”. This is a willingness to regard difference of views as being essentially fruitful and an aid and stimulus to enquiry rather than as reasons for animosity. This means that one has an attitude of gratitude to one’s opponents in debate. Further, friendship can be expected to grow out of a common commitment to enquiry and a “comrades-in-arms” sharing of the considerable challenges involved.

 

4. Dialogue in philosophy not only takes the form of conversation and debate within a living community, but also involves interrogation of the philosophical canon. On this basis, scholarship is valued and respected.

 

5. Dialogue in philosophy also has an educational aspect as, for instance, when scholars help those setting out on their philosophical journey to get acquainted with the canon, and when those who have exhaustively followed a particular line of enquiry engage in conversation about their work. In both of these instances, questioning and challenge can and should be expected.

 

Summary of ethos

 

PI is a community of philosophers living a philosophical life, albeit a virtual one! It’s central commitments are to free and open enquiry, supported by the dialogic forms of debate, scholarship and education. The “agonistic friendship” provides the basis for community solidarity whilst facilitating and encouraging ever more rigorous enquiry.

 

Some practical ramifications

 

1. Visitors should be welcome but they should expect, and be advised as much, that their cherished dogmas might well be challenged.

 

2. It follows from the commitment to dialogue that PI will want to see itself as a resource for philosophers everywhere. It could, for example, host international conferences that could be quite difficult or impossible to organise in RL. It could also allow new philosophy students to be immersed in a philosophical community where they might well experience a variety of challenge and stimulus not likely in RL. (We can be creative with the endless possibilities of “outreach”.)

 

3. The governance of PI needs to flow out of its ethos and not the other way round. We need to think out what governmental forms will nurture and uphold the ethos.

 

4. The nature of the actual island environment needs similarly to flow out of the ethos.