Philosophy for the Public: With or Without Gimmicks?
Freelance philosopher and writer Nigel Warburton, whom you may know from Philosophy Bites, is prompted by the occasion of a straightforward interview with a philosopher in the mainstream media (Daniel Dennett on BBC Radio 4) to observe how rare it is, and then, in a series of tweets, come up with increasingly ridiculous pitches for TV and radio producers about how to present philosophers to the public.
Congratulations to @BBCRadio4 for presenting a straight interview with a philosopher (@danieldennett) with no gimmicks – much better!
— Nigel Warburton (@philosophybites) April 4, 2017
Why are radio and TV producers so afraid of giving us Philosophy straight? They always want a format or a life story and end up diluting it.
— Nigel Warburton (@philosophybites) April 4, 2017
I know, let’s make a TV series where a famous philosopher pretends to be a cab driver and discusses ideas with the passengers
— Nigel Warburton (@philosophybites) April 4, 2017
What about a TV series that puts five moral philosophers on an island with only enough food for four to see what happens?
— Nigel Warburton (@philosophybites) April 4, 2017
What about a bake off between famous philosophers? That would make good TV.
— Nigel Warburton (@philosophybites) April 4, 2017
An idea for a radio programme: philosophers put the best case for a view they abhor, and see if they can fool a panel that they are genuine.
— Nigel Warburton (@philosophybites) April 4, 2017
Another idea for a radio programme: philosophers have to speak for a minute without using a Latin phrase or saying ‘it’s not the case that’
— Nigel Warburton (@philosophybites) April 4, 2017
Another format idea for a TV series: two philosophers debate an important issue while playing table tennis
— Nigel Warburton (@philosophybites) April 4, 2017
A radio series idea: famous philosophers behind a screen try to fail the Turing test with a studio audience
— Nigel Warburton (@philosophybites) April 4, 2017
How about try to pass? Oh wait, he’s got it:
Another radio idea: spot the robot. A team of 3 philosophers and a random sentence generator. Panel has to guess which one is the impostor.
— Nigel Warburton (@philosophybites) April 4, 2017
Your pitches welcome.
Philosophers as characters in existing shows. The Walking Dead, Humans (or Westworld), etc. Might as well make some of the more pedantic discussions more informative.
(By the way, in Humans, the company trying to make conscious robots is called Qualia Inc.)
I agree that introducing philosophers to existing shows would likely be better than having shows about philosophers. Philosophical issues, like those raised by The Walking Dead and Westworld, are interesting. The life of a philosophers, on the other hand, is not particularly interesting (to most people).
Eddy, you’ve inspired me to propose a new history sequence in our curriculum: The Talking Dead. Just add a colon and Ancient, Medieval, or Modern and we’re good to go!
the pitches he’s making fun of sound a lot more interesting, entertaining, and educational than a thirty-minute interview with a talking head. my suggestion: maybe a philosophy competition; america’s next top philosopher!
“Zombie or Not?” — Participants have to determine whether given humanoid creatures are conscious. The Wittgensteinians always answer first.
Maybe my problem is just that I’m not sure what Warburton means by ‘gimmicks’, but I find the implied contrast between giving philosophy “straight” versus relating it to a “life story” to be somewhat odd. I don’t consider efforts to relate philosophical ideas to lived experiences to be at all a detraction from philosophical content.
I couldn’t help read those tweets as a dig at Sandel’s show, and to be fair, the Global Philosopher was the tv equivalent of a forum thread that undergrads have to write for participation credit. But the problem is not the use of “gimmicks”, whatever they are, but how to devise gimmicks or angles or styles or affectations that make the content gripping without making it shallow or twee.
You know when you see somebody contemplating a work of art they stand still and take time to enjoy and interact with the work. Sometimes for several minutes or even longer. Philosophical ideas can be presented and understood without pointless distractions or inane formats.
Yes, they can, but if we can bring philosophy to more people by employing “pointless distractions or inane formats” then we have a duty to do so.