Sharon and Ellen, thank you for putting together such a wonderful report. This definitely makes me wish I had been able to spend the entire day with the group. I have a couple of suggestions related to the morning session that I’ll throw out for consideration, although both may simply reflect misunderstandings on my part:
1. On page 11, first paragraph, regarding obstacles, I understood that when Elizabeth was talking about “failing to recognize the non-rational aspects of our lives” and “confusing precision with accuracy” she was referring to economists/social scientists/public policy folks rather than to philosophers? What I took away from this was that these were areas where philosophical work could inform public debate and therefore be of direct benefit to the public. The way these references are described in the report makes them sound more like problems internal to the field, when maybe they could be used as examples of what philosophy has to offer in a deeper engagement with the public?
2. I wonder if the discussion re: the distinction between being a "public intellectual" and “doing public philosophy” should be raised to the level of one of the questions listed on page 9? I didn't leave with the impression that this had been resolved and it seems important to recognize that the tension does exist. I've had a few interesting discussions about this with folks from other fields and this tension seems to be of interest to them as well.
Thanks for providing the opportunity to comment on this.
Dan |
