One of the tasks of philosophy is to both seek and inspect the creation or discovery of a knowledge-base that is solid (with foundations) and at the same time fluid (with its willingness to agitate those foundations).
Pardon my level of discourse. I'm only peeking out of the cave for a glimpse of that "world of forms."
It's a classic, and you've probably heard the question a million times from students such as me: “Do philosophers really live up to the stereotype of being confined to ivory towers with their brows arched, writing their scholarly volumes?”
Is it the snobbish air hanging around Philosophy which easily dismisses popular culture with a bad reputation, denoting the absence of good foundations? Have we examined at all what purveyors of popular philosophy had in mind? What could Bryan Magee have done differently in his philosophical TV show in BBC, if he should have had one at all?
We live in a time where the information is readily available, if not nearly-effortlessly accessible. While this is good in many ways, the inevitability of information dissemination leaves too many stones unturned. Too many details are left unchecked. "Popularizing" philosophy may easily backfire into misinterpretation or misrepresentation. Even more perilously, popularizing philosophy can lead to intellectual indolence. It can also breed its own monsters and create its own convenient fictions or totalizing narratives. Can we simply describe it as their participation in the beautiful mystery of life in the universe?
Even with so much imprecision, the dispersion of Popular Philosophy will persist. An angsty teenager is likely to look up Nietzsche when he sees "Fight Club" or Schopenhauer when s/he sees "Antonia's Line." A talented artist will call their art "postmodern" and will popularize that philosophy thorough its icons - Warhol-style. Someone will ask, “What are the metaphysical issues expressed in T.S. Eliot’s poetry?” “Is there a touch of nihilism in the lyrics of Radiohead or The Smiths?” Whoever reads Camus' The Stranger will easily warm up to Existentialism.
Our world is understood or misunderstood in many, blended forms of learning. One of the tasks of philosophy is to both seek and inspect the creation or discovery of a knowledge-base that is solid (with foundations) and at the same time fluid (with its willingness to agitate those foundations). Philosophy should be able to clarify concepts, question truth claims, and examine methods - perhaps even in popularized forms. Maybe it's worth the time?
Popular or not, I'd like to believe that Philosophy will reign as the mother of all disciplines. Popular or not, philosophy will prevail. This gives us a little room for excitement - to find out how it’s being played out there, outside its circles.
