What do ordinary people think philosophy is for?

That’s one of the questions a pair of philosophers, Vít Gvoždiak and Martin Zach (Institute of Philosophy, Czech Academy of Sciences) aimed to answer.

Last year, they conducted a national survey of the Czech public to learn how they perceive philosophy, what roles they assign to philosophers, and what they think count as philosophical texts.

In the following guest post, they share some of their findings and see what kinds of broader lessons can be learned from them.

(Their full report, in Czech, is available here.)

How the Public Sees Philosophy:
Insights from a National Survey in the Czech Republic
by Vít Gvoždiak & Martin Zach

When you hear the word philosophy, what comes to mind? For some, it might be Aristotle and Kant; for others, heated debates over beer, or a podcast episode about mindfulness. Philosophy has always sat in an odd position: at once an academic specialty, a personal quest for meaning, and a cultural shorthand for “deep thinking.”

But here’s a simple question that surprisingly little research has addressed: what do ordinary people think philosophy is for?

In 2024, we teamed up with the polling agency Focus to ask this question directly to the Czech public. Using a nationally representative survey of more than 1,000 respondents, we explored how Czechs perceive philosophy, what roles they assign to philosophers, and even how they recognize a “philosophical” text. The results are interesting, not only for what they reveal about Czech society, but also for what they suggest about philosophy’s image worldwide.

The survey in context

The survey took place online in October 2024, with over a thousand participants covering a representative sample of Czech adults aged 18 and over. Quotas ensured balance across gender, age, education, region, and size of settlement. We were interested in people’s attitudes toward philosophy, perceptions of philosophers’ roles in society and education, barriers to engaging with philosophy and how people judge whether a text is “philosophical.”

While the results reflect the Czech context they echo broader questions that are relevant globally: Is philosophy seen as useful? As elitist? As a science, or as self-help?

A general attitude: positive but vague

One of the clearest findings is that Czechs do not reject philosophy. On the contrary, most people express broadly positive or at least neutral attitudes. Only about 8% can be called outright skeptics, dismissing philosophy as too abstract or useless.

Still, positivity does not always mean engagement. About a third of the population is simply uninterested in philosophy. For many, it is a background presence: something legitimate, perhaps even admirable, but not part of their daily lives.

What holds people back from engaging more deeply? The top obstacles are telling:

Barriers to Giving More Attention to Philosophy

This paints a picture familiar well beyond Czech borders: philosophy isn’t widely rejected, but its relevance isn’t obvious, and its language is often off-putting.

What is philosophy, anyway?

Asked to define what philosophy is, Czechs gave layered answers. For 51%, philosophy is first and foremost an academic discipline, something taught at universities. But nearly as many emphasized practical aspects.

Perception of What Philosophy Is

So philosophy straddles two worlds: academic specialization and practical guidance.

Interestingly, most Czechs reject the idea that “everyone is a philosopher.” More than half believe one must have studied philosophy at university to count as a philosopher. Additional credentials—like publishing scholarly texts, speaking at conferences, or asking stimulating questions—also came up. This suggests that while people value philosophy as meaning-making, they still anchor the word philosopher in academic authority.

Where philosophy belongs

Another part of the survey asked whether philosophy should be part of formal education. Opinions were mixed.

Philosophy and Education

This spread reflects an ambivalence: philosophy is seen as important, but people disagree about whether it belongs in everyday curricula or only in higher academia.

What should philosophers do?

Here the Czech public revealed an interesting tension. When asked about the role of philosophers in society, 54% said their main role should be that of counselors, i.e. helping people find meaning and purpose in life. Almost as many emphasized roles as critics of society (38%) or as scientists analyzing and interpreting data (30%). About 29% even saw philosophers as spiritual leaders.

Yet when it comes to public appearances, nearly half (45%) thought philosophers should behave like other experts: providing specialized knowledge on particular issues, but not act as general-purpose commentators. Only 19% thought public speaking should be their central task, while 14% thought it was not part of philosophy at all.

So Czechs seem to want two things at once: philosophers as rigorous experts and as guides for meaningful living.

Four types of philosophical attitudes

A central aim of our research was to move beyond individual survey answers and instead identify the main groups of people based on their attitudes toward philosophy. Using responses to 23 detailed questions, we identified four main clusters:

• Formal Admirers (29%)

These respondents accept philosophy primarily as an academic discipline. They recognize its legitimacy and status within the university system and see it as intellectually valuable. However, their engagement tends to stop there. They do not pursue philosophy in their personal lives, nor do they expect it to play a strong role outside academia. For them, philosophy is something to be respected, but kept at a distance.

• Active Enthusiasts (18%)

This group takes a much more engaged view. They tend to have direct experience with philosophy (through books, lectures, or debates) and they emphasize its role as a tool for critical thinking and public reflection. They are more likely than others to seek out philosophical content in modern formats like podcasts, videos, or online lectures. For them, philosophy is not just useful but necessary for making sense of contemporary challenges.

• Spiritual Admirers (17%)

Here, philosophy is seen less as an academic pursuit and more as a way of living meaningfully. Members of this group expect philosophy to provide guidance, wisdom, and inspiration. They describe philosophers as counselors or even spiritual leaders, and they link philosophy closely to self-development, empathy, and care for others. While they acknowledge its academic side, for them the true purpose of philosophy today is to help people find orientation in life.

• Pragmatic Skeptics (8%)

The smallest group views philosophy with suspicion. To them, it is overly abstract, detached from facts, and lacking practical use. They are unconvinced that philosophy deserves a place in education or public debate. Unlike the “indifferent” respondents, these skeptics are not neutral but actively doubtful of philosophy’s value in the modern world.

The remaining 28% of the population showed mixed or indifferent attitudes. Many of them expressed no clear interest in philosophy, and their answers suggest uncertainty about what philosophy even is.

Taken together, these clusters highlight a crucial point: philosophy does not have a single public image. For some, it is an academic science; for others, a path to self-discovery; and for others still, a relic of the past. The debate over philosophy’s usefulness is far from settled but mapping these groups gives us a clearer picture of how diverse publics relate to philosophy today, and why philosophers must speak to very different expectations.

When is a text “philosophical”?

In the last part of the survey, respondents were shown short excerpts from six different texts: Martin Heidegger (Being and Time, continental philosophy), Hermann Hesse (Siddhartha, literary prose), Don Miguel Ruiz (The Four Agreements—Prayers, self-help/spirituality), W. V. O. Quine (Two Dogmas of Empiricism, analytic philosophy of language), Vít Punčochář (Substructural Inquisitive Logics, philosophical logic), and Samir Okasha (Cancer and the Levels of Selection, philosophy of science). The participants were not told the names of the authors, the titles of the works, or the academic categories the texts belonged to. The goal was to see how people recognize philosophy without any cues about origin or context.

Public Perception of How Philosophical Sample Texts Are

The top answers were Heidegger and Hesse, each recognized as philosophical by more than half of respondents. Ruiz’s self-help text followed closely. Quine, Punčochář, and Okasha (representatives of analytic philosophy, logic, and philosophy of science) were far less likely to be recognized as philosophy. In other words: to most people, philosophy means writing about existence, meaning, and the human condition, not technical analysis or scientific concepts. And importantly, respondents identified texts this way regardless of which general attitude toward philosophy they themselves held. Whether they valued philosophy academically, spiritually, critically, or not at all, their judgments of the texts were largely consistent. This finding underscores a gap between academic philosophy and public perception. While professionals may see Quine’s essay as a landmark, the public instinctively identifies philosophy with “deep” reflections on life and being.

Global lessons from a Czech snapshot

Although this study focuses on one country, its implications reach further. Czech history has shaped these attitudes, e.g. analytic approaches were marginalized in the communist era. School curricula have long emphasized continental figures like Heidegger, Sartre, or Nietzsche. It’s no wonder that analytic philosophy feels alien to many.

Yet the broader picture resonates internationally: People want philosophy to help them live better lives, not just solve abstract puzzles. They value philosophy as an academic field, but also expect it to be accessible and relevant. Barriers lie less in hostility than in inaccessibility, vagueness, and jargon.

The Czech case shows both the opportunity and the challenge for philosophy worldwide. To remain socially relevant, philosophy must bridge the gap between its professional forms and the intuitive sense people already have: that philosophy is about life, death, meaning, and perspective. Philosophy in the Czech Republic is not dismissed as a relic. Instead, it is seen as both a discipline of experts and a guide to life’s meaning. That dual expectation creates challenges for philosophers: they must balance academic rigor with public accessibility.

Globally, the lesson is clear. People are not as hostile to philosophy as some stereotypes suggest. Rather, they are often neutral, or uncertain what philosophy is, unsure how it matters, but open to being convinced. The task is not to prove philosophy’s relevance in the abstract, but to show, concretely, where it touches everyday life.

This article draws on the survey “Filozofie a česká veřejnost (Philosophy and the Czech Public)” conducted by Vít Gvoždiak and Martin Zach at the Institute of Philosophy, Czech Academy of Sciences. Full report in Czech here.