A selection of the best from recent issues of the Philosopher

 Alas, like too much of the philosophical content itself, these thumbnails are often bland and conventional. Bland for example,. is the description 'French philosopher and social activist', for Simone Weil, or that of 'Ghanaian philosopher who received his PhD in philosophy from Harvard' (for Kwame Gyekye); or 'renowned Christian apologist, author of the children's classic Chronicles of Narnia series, Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge' (for C.S. Lewis). Not to get too excited about the 'Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University' which ushers in the thoughts on love of Robert D. Putnam, who additionally we learn is the author of 'what many consider to be a groundbreaking work'. 

The emphasis on US 'skolars' is evident in the sketch of one Walter Kaufmann as the 'late social philosopher from Princeton noted for making Friedrich Nietzsche an official member of the academic philosophic canon' or the little eulogy made for Martha Nussbaum as 'the one Western philosopher today devoted to a comprehensive examination and understanding of emotions from interconnected conceptual, functional, and empirical standpoints'. 

And what of Nietzsche himself? He is introduced as 'the existential philosopher renowned for his investigations into the genesis of human values and morality' and a quotation praising Socrates as 'the genius of hearts' is then given, rather than one of the long sections of Nietzsche ranting against women, the disabled and the poor: 'everything weak sick, ill-constituted, suffering from itself, all that which ought to perish - the law of selection crossed, and ideal made of opposition to the proud, and well-constituted, to the affirmative man'. These, on the other hand, were the sort of sections that prompted the Nazis to include extracts of Nietszche in their hate-filled propaganda packs.

Speaking of which, Phillips enthusiastically co-opts for his project 'the German philosopher who was devoted to the question of being and the implications of human existence' . This being Martin Heidegger - but not of course the Heidegger who publicly declared his 'love' for the Nazis and their project. 

 But perhaps Phillips does not know of these unpleasant aspects of some of his favorite philosophers. or more probably, he does not wish to think about them. Instead, Phillips, we learn, likes to travel the world, (New Orleans after the flood, Hiroshima, Baghdad and Belfast in search of reconciliation) putting up a tattered sign which says 'Socratic Café' and sharing his love of philosophy with a random mix of friends and passers-by. As in a sense with his Ancient Greek mentor, Phillips simply prompts discussions. Starting, it seems with questions like:

'What is caring?'
'Will you be willing to risk it all again if you are going to have a Cuba that is worth dying for?'
'Is parent love simply accepting the values that one's child chooses, even if they conflict with yours? Or Should a loving parent also be open to his conflicting or at least different values, and receptive to the possibility that they might even be 'better' ones?'
'How do you live love, share the love?'
'When you don't show love to others, are you a child of God?'
'Why are we here?'
'What should we have learned?' (this one he just 'blurted out', after a guided visit to a Nazi Concentration Camp).

'In what way might others consider me detestable? If I turn a blind eye to the hurts of the world, am I contributing directly or tangentially to the types of inequalities that prevent others from having adequate housing, healthcare, education? If so, would those living in society's margins have a right to hate me? If I am in any way culpable, should I hate myself?'

The same imposition is made with his Socratic guests: Alexandros, we told early on, lied about his age so as to fight the communists in Korea. This (it is implied) is a form of love. And Alexandros represents the enlightened thinker. But towards the end of the book, Phillips dispenses with his 'members of the public' in any case, and simply asserts things. On page 299 (and that is a long trudge through these 'opinions' to get there) Phillips' account of 'love' is amply summed up:

'A lover in the mold of Socrates believes: I think I'm right in loving that and not that, in loving in this way and not that, but I could be wrong; I do not believe that my philosophy of love and lying is necessarily best.'

Socrates, he explains, 'believed that if we were going to do justice to your universe, we had to quit thinking in Manichean [a curious Catholic adjective to have chosen], black and white terms and think instead in colors, entertaining objections and alternatives, passionately examining what speaks for and against each, then coming to warrantable truths that could be tested further.' He continues: 'To Socrates, 'not hating' is not sufficient. Rather, we should love even the most hateful. He practised what he preached, loving even those who had demonized him and orchestrated his death. If he didn't, how could he expect others to do so?'

Or so says Phillips. But this is not Socrates, this is Jesus. And this is not a Socratic dialogue - this is Bible study class. The evangelical activity is harmless, but the pretensions are to be regretted.
 

 
Reviewed by Martin Cohen