Offering multiple perspectives from many fields of human inquiry that may move all of us toward a more integrated understanding of who we are as conscious beings.
From Bookforum's Omnivore blog, another collection of philosophy links to drag us down the rabbit hole. Included is a review of Mary Midgley's Are You an Illusion? and an article on Midgley's efforts to defend human consciousness against the likes of Richard Dawkins.
There is also a good interview with John Searle, one of the current elder statesmen of philosophy and consciousness.
The Chronicle Review posted this article a while back by Adam Briggle and Robert Frodeman on the need for a new philosophy for the 21st century - and they offers a series of reasons for this. They also offer three broad suggestions for reform and a new model for philosophy in the future, a return to a public role that philosophers once held:
By the beginning of the 20th century, we had abandoned the public
role. Like biologists or economists, we embraced expertise. We burrowed
down into ever-smaller niches, coming to know more and more about less
and less.
It was a model that became self-justifying, by defining its own goals
and standards and creating a closed market for the supply and demand
for philosophy. Decrying this development in his 1906 presidential
address to the American Philosophical Association, William James argued
for the recognition of both technical and general roles for
philosophers. James lost that battle. Yes, 20th-century philosophy dealt
with issues of perennial importance. But this work came at the cost of
increasing cultural insignificance. The specialist's task was not
counterbalanced by an equal emphasis on the public role of the
philosopher.
It is time to reclaim the public role of philosophy.
I think they would like to see a more interdisciplinarity model for philosophy, although they do not spell that out very well.
Areas of reform: We see three broad, interrelated areas in need of reform.
First, we need to reconsider what counts as expertise, rigor, and
excellence—the single-minded model of specialization that keeps us
writing philosophy papers for each other. We should develop new, more
interactive models of rigor that take account of the need for
timeliness, sensitivity to context, and rhetorical skill in
communicating with multiple audiences. And we should rank philosophy
departments on measures other than publication counts in philosophy
journals; other factors would include grants, for instance, or mentions
in the press.
Second, a new philosophy calls for new types of philosophers trained
with the skills necessary for being successful "interactional" experts.
Interactional expertise means knowing enough about another field so that
one can engage others in conversation and raise penetrating questions.
The pedagogical challenge before us consists in educating students so
that philosophy is understood not as an isolated body of ideas, but as
indistinguishable from human existence and interwoven throughout
contemporary social issues.
Students need to learn how to identify and create opportunities for
integrating philosophy outside of the discipline. Undergraduate students
need courses that draw out the philosophical dimensions of everyday
life—what a colleague of ours has called "found philosophy." Graduate
students need training in grant writing and multimedia communication;
policy and budgets; and rhetorical skills in how to make ethical theory
relevant to different audiences within severe budgetary, time, or
political constraints.
Third, the case for reform made here involves an appeal to prudential
self-interest—devising ways to survive in a harried, impatient, and
increasingly market-driven age. Philosophers have broad social
responsibilities that require directly engaging social problems. This
can mean activism, but in a bureaucratic age it is more likely to mean
working at the project level with scientists, engineers, and policy
makers. Rather than philosopher kings, our future is more likely to lie
in becoming philosopher bureaucrats.
Of course, everyone hates bureaucrats. But they serve us well in
keeping the trucks and trains and planes running on time and our food
and medicine safe. As philosopher bureaucrats the two of us have helped
the U.S. Geological Survey think about acid mine drainage; the city of
Denton, Tex., rewrite its ordinance governing natural-gas drilling and
production; and the European Commission devise better criteria for peer
review of research grants.
Such work raises the worry that philosophy may compromise its
essential function as social critique and become captured by powerful
interests. In seeking to adapt, might philosophy risk selling its soul?
Or, in speaking truth to power, might we be forced to drink hemlock?
These are real concerns. But such concerns simply highlight the need
and opportunity for serious philosophic work. We must recognize that
clinging to the status quo in the name of academic freedom is not just
unsustainable but also irresponsible. Philosophers, like any
professional group, have a moral responsibility to serve the community.
We need to embody our own professional code of ethics.
New models: What new approaches to philosophy should
we develop? Fortunately, we need not start from scratch, as alternative
models are springing up daily. Individual philosophers, and
occasionally whole departments, are striking out in new directions. The
recent launch of the Public Philosophy Network is one indication of the
growing interest in bucking the status quo. This past October, PPN
hosted a conference on "Advancing Publicly Engaged Philosophy" in
Washington.
I just started listening to these, but my interest is piqued. There are 9 parts, a keynote and 8 panels - the keynote is near the end of this playlist, which is presented in the order of the program below the video.
Description: The Religious Norms in the Public Sphere (RPS) international scholarly network will analyze the call by people of all faiths for greater recognition of religious norms by governments, legislatures, and schools.It is a joint initiative of iGov and the Robert Schuman Center. It has been made possible thanks to the support of the Partner University Fund, the Carnegie Foundation and the Social Science Research Council.
Here is the program:
Opening Remarks: Heddy Riss, Olivier Roy, David Lieberman.
Religious Norms and Public Spheres: The Challenge Chair: David Lieberman Olivier Roy: “Muslim Democrats vs. European Populists” Silvio Ferrari: “A European Perspective” Peter Danchin: “Islam in the Secular Nomos of the European Court of Human Rights"
The Debate of Islamic Norms in Arab Countries Chair: Hatem Bazian Enrique Klaus: “Scandals in Egypt and the Manufacturing of Religious Norms in the Public Spheres” Belkacem Benzenine: “The Challenge of Secularism in the Political and Religious Spheres in the Arab World”
Discussant: Charles Hirschkind
The Debate on Religious Norms in the Public Sphere
The Case of European Countries Chair: Leti Volpp Poland: Geneviève Zubrzycki: “Debating the Place of Religious Symbols in the Public Sphere in Poland, 1989-2010” UK: Matthew Francis: “Return? It never left. Exploring the ‘sacred’ as a Resource for Bridging the Gap Between the Religious and the Secular” France: Valérie Amiraux: “Burka Bashing in the European Union: the Racialization of Muslims” Romain Sèze: “Standardization of the Exercise of the Islamic Religious Authority in France” Christian Joppke: “Limits of Restricting Islam: The French Burqa Law of 2010” Discussants: Prof. Sarah Song, Berkeley Law
North American Countries Cases Chair: Ron Hassner USA: Pasquale Annicchino: “Mosques Controversies in the U.S.: Emotions, Politics and the Right to Religious Freedom” Canada: David Koussens: “Catholic Rituals and Symbols in Government Institutions: Juridical Arrangements, Political Debates and Secular Issues in Quebec” Discussant: Sr. Marianne Farina
Asian Countries Cases Chair: Pradeep Chhibber Sophie Lemière: “Cracks in the Mosaic: The Rise of Right-Wing Ethno-Religious Groups in Malaysia” Marco Ventura: "You Shall Go to Hell: Legal Arguments on Forced Conversions Before the Supreme Court of India" Discussant: Nargis Virani
Keynote Lecture Ebrahim Moosa “Norms in the Madrasa-Sphere: Between Tradition, Scripture and the Public Good”
Conclusions Panel: "How to face the Challenge of Religious Norms and the Public Sphere?"
Partner University Fund's "Transatlantic Network of Scholars on Muslims' Religiouus Identity, Secularism, Democracy, and Citizenship" Presentations
Chair: Mahan Mirza
Elise Massicard: “When heterodoxy Challenges the Public Place of Religion: The Case of Alevism in Turkey”
Munir Jiwa: “E Pluribus Umma: Secularism and the Mediation of Islamic Norms”
Soraya Tlatli: “The Separation of Cult and State in Colonial Algeria.”
PUF Presentations Cont. Jo Gardner: "Religious Nationalism and the Westphalian State” Alexander Rosas: “Diversification of the Republic: Cultural Diversity in Contemporary France” Sheherazade Kahil: “Institutionalization in France of the pilgrimage to Mecca” Mary Hoopes: “Asylum Claims Before the Federal Courts of Appeals: Considering the Role of Religion” Akasemi Newsome: “Immigrants Before German Administrative Courts: Do Islam and Gender Matter for the Application of Foreign Legal Regimes in Germany?” Zehra Sahin: “The Diyanet -Program of International Theology: Adjustment to Western Norms or Aggiornamento from Inside?”
