Christopher Phillips gave up a
career as a journalist to offer himself as a facilitator for ‘Socrates’ Café’,
a forum for free discussion that can be held in any kind of environment, from
seniors’ homes to schools, from bookstores to prisons, as well as in coffee
shops.  The book is an account of
Phillips’ experiences.  He claims that
the kinds of discussion that occur in the cafés he hosts can help people to
reach a wider perspective on life and give meaning to lives that hitherto
lacked it.  The writing is at a popular
level, and there are no essays into deeper metaphysical or political questions:
ethical questions tend to be kept at a personal level.  The exception to this is the final
discussion "Why ask why?" in which more justification is given for
the ‘Socratic method’ as it is practiced by Phillips and Socratic virtue.  This discussion takes place in an elementary
school.

Phillips
believes he is doing something important for popular culture in America. He
gives a picture of his activities in several ways. First, his own personal
journey towards starting his Cafés; second, his accounts of what goes on in
various cafés with various populations; third, his views on the intent and
effect of his work for himself and the participants. He places himself in
opposition to academic philosophy, as bringing philosophy back to the people,
providing opportunities for people to discuss questions and problems that arise
for them in a situation propitious for this endeavour. This is to be seen as an
extension of the work Socrates undertakes in Plato’s portrayal. Phillips thinks
that there is a real need in society (he speaks only of the US), to provide
means by which people may learn to engage in questioning. I am not sure if the
material he cites supports his claims for either the need or the success of
what he offers, and indeed, he does not press the point as more than a
journalistic claim. However, I sympathise with his view, and agree that
critical and questioning discussion is one of the most important freedoms that
help to secure democratic societies against fascist tyranny.

The general tenor of Phillips’
observations is that people given the opportunity to attend a Café will raise
questions of a kind thought to be philosophical.  The cafés involve diverse characters and views in the discussion
of well-known philosophical questions, portrayed as arising from ordinary
people encouraged to question and to respond with conviction and honesty.  It is difficult to know how typical the
discussions are of those that Phillips has facilitated, the more so as he
admits that they are not recorded at the time, but are rather his own
reconstruction.  He walks in the shadow
of Plato, whose own works do not record the exact words of Socrates, but are
rather dramatic set pieces for the discussion of philosophic themes, and so are
to be read and discussed as arguments and not as historical records.  The names of the participants and sometimes
the Café locations have been changed to protect anonymity, so there is an
additional layer of fiction in addition to Phillips’ own use of his memories
and reconstructions rather than actual reports of the discussions.

What does talking do for
people?  Clearly, it can help them to
appreciate other people’s point of view and to have others give them back
responses to their own expression of views. 
In some cultures, this kind of discussion is found in cafes, pubs, or
other gathering places, such as marketplaces or public gardens.  It is very important to a free society that
people feel able to converse about topics of mutual interest, to share ideas
and find where they agree and disagree. 
It also matters that they can learn to disagree with some amity and do
not regard their own views as fixed and unchallengeable.  If group discussions of any kind serve to
encourage people to take their cognitive commitments more seriously and to
become open to alternatives and to the requirements of reasons open to others,
then these provide a service that is essential to true democracies.

How can people learn to converse
dialectically?  The interpersonal part
is not prominent in Phillips’ descriptions. 
The reported conversations mostly develop between the facilitator and
individual participants, and only occasionally does a conversation develop
among many participants.  The reports
may make the proceedings seem like vaguely connected comments, rather than
developing discussions, but good discussions often are like this.  Phillips ends with the claim that
philosophical discussion is the road to a truly virtuous life, in which the
good of others is as important as one’s own good.  There is thus a general advantage to be gained from the attitude
to belief that is gained in open-ended unprejudiced discussion.

I am a philosopher who helps to
facilitate Philosophy Cafés in Canada, but I also teach Philosophy courses in
Universities and Colleges.  My major
interest is in the work of Plato.  I
found this book very difficult to review. 
I admire Phillips’ emphasis on the need for free and honest public
discussion, and sympathize with his aversion to the way some academic
philosophers narrow the scope of discussion to what fits the needs of large
classes in humanities teaching, or view their own prejudices as dictating what
philosophy should be.  However, this is
not the only kind of philosophy to be found in universities, and when our
experience is simply rejected, this does not help us to teach philosophy.

Two main points: the exercise is a
useful one, but you might not know from the book that Philosophy Cafés are held
in many places in Europe and in Canada. 
Phillips’ Café project is part of a movement that has many practitioners.  Secondly, the background for this enterprise
is very different from that for the conversations of Socrates.  Plato uses the figure of Socrates as a way
of introducing the idea of intellectual discussion in order to promote the
pursuit of truth, not as a path for personal discovery.

The modern idea of finding or
testing the self is not one that the ancients seem to have held, so to treat
opportunities for dialogue as a means of self-discovery is a modern attitude,
not the aim of Socrates own original dialectic.  American scholars have sometimes encouraged this reading of
Socratic endeavors; Phillips’ fondness for this line of argument perhaps owes
more to idealist or existentialist thinking than to Socrates himself.  This does not undermine the aim of Phillips’
cafés, but suggests his practice is more modern than he pretends.  In the Republic, Plato thinks of
dialogue as engaged in by people of a mature age (a lot older than some of
Phillips’ café members, who include school children).  The students in Plato’s ideal city (a select élite of the
citizens) come to dialectic as the summit of their investigation of their
beliefs, not to become self-fulfilled but so that they will be able to govern
their city well.

Today’s facilitators in Philosophy
Cafés would agree with Phillips in thinking that anyone can learn from
participation in a café.  The pressures
of North American life have made it difficult for people, in the course of
normal social life, to learn the art of broad political discussion, of the kind
found in the bars of Athens to this day. 
The effect of this kind of discussion extends beyond the purely personal
and requires that the participants engage with each other in true
dialogue.

© 2003 Janet Sisson

Janet
D. Sisson, Mount Royal College, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
 

Categories: Philosophical