Philosophical Society of England - History

From The Philosopher, Volume LXXXVIII No. 1 Special History Issue

The History of the Philosophical Society

 Editorial

by

Martin Cohen 

Following the reconstitution of The Philosophical Society, on December 8th 1948, Earl Russell agreed to be the first Patron, and Lord Dunsany (the well known fantasy writer) President. The first 'new' Philosopher appeared in March the following year with an article by the Hon. General Secretary on the reorganisation, stating that the Society existed 'for the propagation of practical philosophy.' Its main object was stated in the Memorandum of Association as: 'the encouragement and promotion of philosophical studies and the furtherance of philosophical investigation and research in connection with the sciences, literature, the fine arts, and theology'. 

Here, Martin Cohen takes up the story.

——

This is a very special issue, celebrating over 75 years of publication. It represents the culmination of a considerable research effort both by the authors of the 'official history', poring over dusty 'Philosopher' tomes in the British Library, and by the Society itself in funding what is, for a small organisation, an ambitious publication.

And it is an historically significant one. For, in these past 75 years, the Journal has consistently promoted 'philosophy for all'. A glance at the index will show the range and breadth of subjects treated over the years. There are articles on Eastern and African philosophy, on applied and theoretical philosophy, on philosophy for children (long before Lipmann was even in short trousers!) on clothes, on sport, on speech, on civilisation - on just about everything. And that is how it should be. For in philosophy, the whole world should be there. 

There is evidence too, that the authors have been drawn not just from the anglo-saxon fraternities of traditional academe, but have included other cultural traditions and backgrounds, and a good proportion of women. It should be noted that the key figure in the history of the Journal is not G.K. Chesterton, 'philosopher of fun' (although he is a worthy exponent of its values) but Ada Sheridan, "whose keen and earnest endeavours were so successful" and to whose "memory and sweetness of character" the Society happily gave thanks. These days, though, philosophy has become big business. Whilst, for most of this century, there was only one popular philosophy publication, our own, now along comes Philosophy Now, The Philosopher's Magazine (not only in paper form, but on the Internet as well) and 'the philosophy news sevice' in America. But why should anyone bother? One philosophy magazine is happenstance, two is coincidence, three, surely is overkill.

For ours is a bizarre, not to say unwise business. Take the recent crop of articles, which trickle in here, as if by magic, by word of mouth from around the world. One begins, unpromisingly enough, by declaring that their theory came to them "whilst in the bath with my wife". (This article, actually, is quite good, and probably reflects that practical achievement of a philosopher who manages to successfully maintain at least one human relationship.) Another announces that the author, after nine years of research, "now knows exactly what caused creation to take place" as well as "how the mass of the universe was created and what caused the Big Bang and many more important discoveries". This in itself is a remarkable achievement by any standards, but not to be undersold, the author adds: "My theory is 2106 words long, and could be reduced." Which seems to rather takes away from the significance. (Theories of Creation should, on balance, I feel, be at least 2106 words, and incapable of being reduced.)

From out of a grubby much re-posted envelope comes 'The Theory of Inevitability'. This it transpires, is a rather depressing theory that everything (to paraphrase, losing the author's subtlety) is for the worst of all possible worlds. I quite like it, and am half inclined forward it to a referee, when I see a covering letter. "Dear Sir", it reads, "Please find enclosed my article. It is, I know, rather long, and probably unsuitable for your journal. Please do not bother to reply.")

What motivates these people? Authors, readers and editors alike? The retired thinkers with their theories of everything, the young, thrusting researchers with their rehashed versions of the philosophical 'big names', the anti-social philosophers with their individual campaigns against wickedness, science or business? The Philosopher has seen them all (many times) over its century. 

I find there are several motivations. There are the academic researchers, with their carefully footnoted collections of historical references and inconsequential verbal dance of pigeon-steps. These are the stuffing of a philosophy journal, dry, indigestible and ultimately forgotten. We have had their contributions too, particularly in the post-war period shadowing the growth in the universities, but few stand the test of time.

Then there is a type of contributor, from the hard core of cranks who are characterised by the firmness of their convictions. Their theories will rarely reach publication. Invariably too long at the outset, often accompanied by a letter handwritten in green block capitals warning that this is 'only chapter one', these authors are philosophers from hell - their theory has become their personal burden and all too obviously their grief.

But most are indeed just lovers of debate. Their theories are not intended to be taken very seriously, and often, if published, will be followed up with another five, all prepared, like good Blue Peter decorations, earlier. It is a great game of truth, life, the universe and everything. These are the true philosophers.