Public Philosophy

Jaspers' vision of an ideal university stipulates an institution devoted to the search for truth by virtue of communication. I argue that such an institution requires students who are willing and able to collectively pursue open and free inquiry as well as academics who uphold this value. Such a desideratum as well as an overall capacity for participation in the university's mandate needs to be cultivated in students at an early age. While a desire for truth and open-ended inquiry requires that economic and instrumental considerations for education do not exhaust the students' reasons for seeking a university education, an interest in truth and learning for its own sake is best cultivated when one aims to foster children's natural curiosity about big questions, such as, for example, the beginning of the universe, personal identity, the meaning of life, or the nature of friendship. Furthermore, the capacity for participation in a community of learning and research requires that the virtues of critical thinking, intellectual empathy, and intellectual integrity are familiar to students—that their interaction with teachers and academic personnel is not based on their status as authority figures and disciplinarians, thereby following stereotypes of early schooling, but rather that they are also seen as being fellow inquirers and thinkers. These two Jaspersian goals of university education—(1) the open inquiry for truth and (2) communication as the method for such inquiry—are best supported if philosophical thinking is introduced to students at an early age.

I t is hard to find a basis for hope in the world today. Gains in the struggle for women's historic equality are eroded when politicians' demeaning stances toward women and dismissal of their testimony about sexual assault become commonplace and accepted. 1 Progress in civil rights is met with explosive growth in privatized prisons disproportionately populated by minority citizens, police brutality commonly resulting in no indictments of officers, and even angry white mobs bearing torches in defense of Confederate monuments. 2 The United States elected a champion of anti-intellectualism and unfettered capitalism who raises concerns of fascism. 3 And his challengers are charged with being in the pockets of finance capitalism and having rigged primary elections. 4 The potential for war is heightened at a time when the most powerful politician in the world speaks loosely about the use of nuclear weapons. 5 The national organization of public education is also under threat, and the head of the U.S. Department of Education is rolling back regulations intended to protect and address the interests of students with educational-accessibility needs and vulnerabilities. 6 Nearly a third of American voters polled genuinely believe today in the potential for another civil war, all while favoring protectionist economic policies that are hurting the very people they were intended to help. 7 And Americans have elected a president who has fought to hide the findings and release of a national climate assessment in which more than a dozen federal agencies warn of "substantial damages" and climate effects that are "intensifying across the country." 8 Americans today desperately need guidance in intellectual and moral leadership. As I hope that this book will make clear, John Dewey was an exemplary public philosopher who sought to provide Americans and lovers of democracy Introduction Democratic Faith and Education in Unstable Times dewe19894_1st_pp.indb 1 14/08/20 3:57 PM dewe19894_1st_pp.indb 2 14/08/20 3:57 PM Democratic Faith and Education in Unstable Times m 3-1-0-+1 difficult today to imagine that the general public might know American philosophers by name: Highly educated circles often know Peter Singer, Martha Nussbaum, or Michael Sandel. And some philosophers have local followings or are rising stars, but Dewey became well known all while being generally a mildmannered and humble professor of philosophy, one who nevertheless often addressed the public in writings and speeches. Dewey's soft-spoken good character was familiar, but the relation between his philosophical ideas and his consequent motivation to be publicly engaged as a writer and speaker has gone underappreciated, including by prominent, self-proclaimed Deweyans like Richard Rorty. 11 While general audiences will benefit from a return to Dewey's wisdom and example, scholars in the academy stand to learn a great deal, including about a possible path forward for a new movement of engaged public scholarship that is still only burgeoning, even now. It would be especially valuable if this volume were to inspire administrators and leaders in higher education to make meaningful in reality, practice, and policy their generally empty statements and vague allusions to valuing publicly engaged scholarship. 12 John Dewey was born in Burlington, Vermont, on October 20, 1859, to Archibald and Lucina Dewey. He studied at the University of Vermont, graduating in 1879, and then taught for three years, first at the high school level in Oil City, Pennsylvania, until 1881, and then at the elementary level in Charlotte, Vermont, until 1882. His time in Oil City left some lasting impressions on him, given that it was an industrial-age town at its prime. In addition, he had a vague but powerful "mystic experience," a "supremely blissful feeling" that led him to abandon his earlier worries about the need for adequate prayer to a supernatural being and to focus on experience and his relation to other people. 13 Dewey attended Johns Hopkins University, where he earned his Ph.D. in 1884. As a student, he participated in and gave presentations before the Metaphysical Club, the subject of Louis Menand's 2002 Pulitzer prize-winning book on American philosophers. 14 Upon earning his doctorate, he accepted a position as instructor at the University of Michigan, where two years later he was appointed assistant professor of philosophy in 1886. That year, he married Harriet Alice Chipman, and the next year he published his Psychology, which gained little academic attention. In 1888, he accepted an offer from the University of Minnesota, only to be courted back to the University of Michigan in 1889 to become chair and professor of philosophy. The same year, he published "The Value of Historical Christianity," included in this volume. In that essay, he noted the moral benefits of certain Christian principles and teachings, which he saw as residing in human beings' concerns for one another, as well as the joining of the divine in humanity, which Jesus embodied. In this essay, we find an early expression of Dewey's

Civility in a social context is the virtue of respecting other people's conflicting perspectives and communicating that respect to those people. Civility thus conceived is something applicable to all moral perspectives equally, something about which there is extensive social consensus and thereby safeguards the possibility of a common social life in the face of radical moral disagreement. Societies lacking civility, accordingly, risk fragmentation and turmoil; its members harbor contempt and resentment, and those toward whom incivility is directed risk becoming alienated or excluded from political projects that affect everyone. If we want people to be more civil toward each other, we should encourage people to be more civil to themselves. Civility in a personal context involves both respecting our conflicting attitudes and, somehow, communicating that respect to ourselves. Civility thus conceived produces emotional coherence among incommensurable attitudes and ambiguous priorities When we are civil to ourselves, we respect the plurality within ourselves in a sincere way. This enables us to imagine similar plurality in others and, by extension, in society at large. | 1 Civility, Sincerity, and Ambiguity

In addition to the long-standing divide between so-called 'analytic' and so-called 'continental' philosophy, philosophy is challenged in the political realm and concerns about public spending for philosophy increase. This is matched with a growing effort to popularize philosophy, bringing it into the public sphere. The effort to secure support for philosophy highlights the ambiguity of philosophical demarcation tactics, especially in a post-truth era which tends to underline science and technology education contra philosophy. But as with a concern for the history of science, philosophy's past may yet prove useful in the future. Looking at both hermeneutics and history, inviting more than the usual cast of favorite authors into our intellectual network, it may be possible to bring philosophy into more global and pluralist expressions.

Provides an in-depth exploration of a major theme, concept, framework, or idea central to the discipline of philosophy. May be taken twice on different themes. Past themes include: Philosophy of Mind & Disability, Virtue Theory & Anti-Theory. Prerequisite: 200-level philosophy course. Fulfills general education requirements for cross-cultural studies ONLY WHEN THEME IS Islamic philosophy. [3 credits] Public Philosophy: This course explores the conception of public philosophy as well arguments for and against its practice. Students participate in public philosophy experiences and evaluate such engagements in terms of the values and critiques found within recent scholarship on public philosophy.

Our senses are more varied and diverse than the traditional classifications of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell suggest. But should proprioception, balance and kinaesthesis, amongst others, be considered additional senses? And if so, how do we figure out how many senses we really have?

Applied philosophy illustrates how philosophical theories can be instantiated through empirical specification of open concepts. Philosophy in context is a more open ended and creative philosophical inquiry stimulated by reflection on matters of concern in a specific situation.

中文摘要：1990年代以来，中国知识界的典型特征是，思想家淡出，学问家凸显。这种局面形成的原因是公共性的失落。在这个语境下，任剑涛和孙国东分别出版了《公共的政治哲学》和《公共法哲学》，两者都意图回归公共性。然而，公共政治哲学和公共法哲学的共同问题是没有公共的公共性。那么，如何重塑具有公共的公共性呢？重塑公共性的关键是重塑公共知识分子。公共知识分子兼具学问家和思想家的双重身份，因此，他们不同于缺乏学术涵养的公知，也不同于缺乏公共情怀的学者。

Abstract: Because of the loss of publicity, Chinese academia since the 1990s has been marked by the fact that thinkers fade and scholars dominate. To return to publicity, Ren Jiantao and Sun Guodong published Public Political Philosophy and Public Legal Philosophy respectively. However, neither public political philosophy nor public legal philosophy is public. Then how do we revive publicity? The key is to reshape public intellectuals with the dual identities of scholars and thinkers.

This essay was written for the second issue of Irish arts magazine Bloomers, which was a tribute to Nan Shepherd's "The Living Mountain". That book is Shepherd's account of her time in the Cairngorm mountain range in Scotland; in it she reflects on the relationship between mind and environment, the tensions between epistemology and phenomenology, and the difference between experience and empirical knowledge. This essay responds to Shepherd's ideas by introducing some contemporary philosophical theories of mind (physicalism, embodiedness, embeddedness, extended mind, and illusionism), and by considering the purpose and scope of scientific explanations of conscious experience.

This is an edited volume of essays on philosophy as university work and as a 'pirate condition'. Taking inspiration from Gary Hall's pirate philosophy, and from raúl rodríguez freire's critique of the contemporary condition of the intellectual, three Mexican authors reflect on what it means to do philosophy today from the perspective of the material conditions of academic work. In Spanish only, so far.

Bagaman hindi siguro natin ikakahon sa parehong kategorya ng kahirapan ang mga photocopy personnel at ang, halimbawa na nga, mga batang namamalimos sa overpass ng 2013 [PAGMAMAHAL AT KATARUNGAN: ISANG PILOSOPIKONG PAGMUMUNI-MUNI SA KALAGAYAN NG "ATENEO PHOTOCOPYING PERSONNEL"] Ateneo de Manila University | Reyes, Lorenz Vergil T. 2

Cassirer argues that philosophers failed to combat the dominant ideology. Today, philosophers struggle to explain their relevance to greater public and governmental powers that see no intrinsic value. Given the current political situation in the US, we find ourselves at a crossroads as philosophers. We can either retreat and remain within the comforts of academia, or we can take up arms against dangerous and divisive political forces. If we take Cassirer's prescriptions seriously, we must choose the latter. Fortunately, philosophy has not disappeared from public consciousness completely. An emerging theme in contemporary cultural studies is the exploration of connections between humour and philosophy. I argue we ought to take advantage of the status of the comedian as public philosopher, and for philosophers to take seriously the political power of comedians. To do this responsibly, I analyse a portion of Cassirer's work that has been widely ignored in scholarship -his understanding of the politics and morality of humour. By analysing these passages in relation to Cassirer's later works, we are given the tools to understand the power of humour in political discourse, as well as the responsibility of that power. I argue that "joking responsibly", for Cassirer, means to reveal the motives and values which underlie sophistry, particularly the sort which lends itself to political manipulation.

In this paper, I evaluate three views of philosophical pragmatism’s practical implications for academic and non-academic or public discourses, as well as offer my own view of those implications.  The first view is that of George Novack.  In an underappreciated tract, Pragmatism versus Marxism, the American Trotskyite and union organizer launched a vicious attack on John Dewey’s career as a professional philosopher. He alleged that Dewey’s ideas were inaccessible to all but a small community of fellow academicians. While Novack conceded that Dewey’s philosophical inquiries had a cross-pollinating influence on other academic fields, he doubted that the beneficial products of those inquiries traveled far beyond the walls of the so-called ‘ivory tower.’  Larry Hickman offers a second view.  He understands Dewey’s claim in Experience and Nature that philosophy serves as a “liaison officer” to mean that philosophers should provide a common lexicon that translates between the languages of distinct disciplines. In other words, for Dewey, the role of philosophy, including philosophical pragmatism, is to facilitate interdisciplinarity. Since interdisciplinary sharing is usually confined to academic discourse, Novack’s challenge is perfectly compatible with Hickman’s interpretation of Dewey’s ‘liaison officer’ claim. Both Novack and Hickman are mistaken, though in different degrees and for different reasons. The third, and more promising, view is advanced by Robert Talisse.  He cites the life and works of Sidney Hook, one of Dewey’s better-known students, as an exemplary case of a pragmatist who consistently realized his pragmatic commitments in public discourse.  The most important reason for qualifying Hickman’s interpretation of Dewey’s ‘liaison officer’ claim is that the measure of pragmatism’s value is not solely the ability of pragmatists to facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration, but their ability to also insert their ideas into public discourse. In my view, philosophical pragmatists, and philosophers generally, should both facilitate interdisciplinarity in academic discourse and introduce philosophical notions into public discourse—that is, serving in the dual capacity of interdisciplinary scholar and public intellectual.

The exploration of popular culture topics by academic philosophers for non-academic audiences has given rise to a distinctive genre of philosophical writing. Edited volumes with titles such as Black Sabbath and Philosophy or Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy contain chapters by multiple philosophical authors that attempt to bring philosophy to popular audiences. Two dominant models have emerged in the genre. On the pedagogical model, authors use popular culture examples to teach the reader philosophy. The end is to promote philosophical literacy, defined as acquaintance with the key problems, ideas, and figures in the history of philosophy. In contrast, on the applied philosophy model, authors use philosophy to open up new dimensions of the popular culture topic for fans. The end is to illustrate the value of philosophy in understanding the popular culture topic, and ultimately, to demonstrate the value of philosophy in general. Taking stock of the relative strengths and weaknesses of these two models provides an opportunity to reflect more broadly on whether, why, and how philosophers should engage the public.

This article explores what the contours of a pragmatist theory of rhetoric would be like in its democratic instantiation. The threat of partisan thought and dogmatism in argument is examined as a threat to the sort of democratic community pragmatists such as John Dewey desired to create. Partisans fail to realize not only their own limitations in pursuing the true and the good but also the fact that solving problems
through overly partisan forms of reasoning or argument only creates future obstacles to community life. This provides an extended reading of what Dewey meant by free communication: communication not only free from legal constraints and censorship but also free from the binding habits of thought and interaction that can be identified as
“partisan perfect reasoning.”

I don't know whether undead beings exist. I also think it is an open question whether anyone is evil in, say, the way bad guys are depicted in supernatural horror films and serial killer movies. I do think it's nevertheless puzzling that the undead are frequently portrayed as evil in that way. I'm inclined to think that if we were to stumble across any undead they would be less likely to be evil than any random live person we stumble across. Consider this a call for some undead understanding.

It is rather common to witness or formulate peremptory invitations towards those in power to regulate the manner of their discourse, to avoid certain pitfalls of language, to eradicate hate speech. With the spectacular and unprecedented rise of social media, and in particular the development of a new public sensitivity, such calls for what may be called “linguistic responsibility” have grown more ubiquitous by the day. This linguistic regulation is applied to politicians, celebrities, and public figures in general. What is more relevant for the scopes of the present study, linguistic responsibility is largely ascribed to the necessity of “holding public figures to a higher standard” and “providing a good example”. However, from a libertarian point of view, such necessities cannot find their foundation on moral grounds. In this paper, I argue that freedom of only covers acts in their locutionary component (the component that carries meaning).

Розгорнута версія звіту про результати Першого всеукраїнського конкурсу філософських стартапів (ініціатори – Інститут філософії імені Г.С. Сковороди НАН України, Український філософський фонд, Соціологічний центр ім. Н.В. Паніної, Академія публічного управління України; за участі науково-теоретичного часопису «Філософська думка»). Стислі висновки та узагальнення щодо тенденцій публічного філософування в України.

Analytical report on the First All-Ukrainian Contest of Philosophical Startups, designed to draw attention to public forms of philosophical discourse and communication that go beyond the established institutional academic formats (official university education, academic research institutions in the field of philosophy, etc.). The first results and observations on the forms, subjects, directions of work and problems faced by modern Ukrainian projects of public philosophizing are given.

Many countries have taken extensive measures to slow COVID-19’s progress and attempt to avert a sanitary collapse. Although the necessity of saving lives seems evident to many of us, these measures will nevertheless have dire economic effects and impose major costs on much of the population. A solid public justification is essential, for which a social contract perspective is useful. I argue that it helps us understand why such measures not only do justice to the claims of those who are likely to become severely ill, but also those of many others, and that no less is at stake than the foundational bonds of our communities.

1000-Word Philosophy is seeking submissions!

Essay Categories

Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
Ethics
Epistemology
Historical Philosophy
Metaphilosophy
Metaphysics
Phenomenology and Existentialism
Philosophy of Race, Sex & Gender
Philosophy of Mind and Language
Philosophy of Religion
Philosophy of Science
Philosophical Traditions & Global Philosophy
Social and Political Philosophy

* New categories are likely to be added as the project expands.

. . We’re always looking for authors to contribute and seek a diverse set of essays, on a wide range of philosophical issues, questions, figures and traditions. If you’re interested in contributing a 1000-word essay (or essays) on a philosophical topic that interest you and that you think would interest our readers, email us. Please either send us your full essay for review, or an essay proposal, or any other inquiries regarding the appropriateness and desirability of your topic and approach.

We are especially interested in essays on topics frequently addressed in introductory courses, as well as topics that are difficult to cover in introductory courses because the relevant literature is difficult for first-year students. We especially welcome material addressing under-represented philosophical traditions, including global philosophy, philosophy of race, LGBTQIA issues, and more. . .

1000WordPhilosophy.com

Please share this post!

Produzir filosofia voltada ao engajamento com o público é uma tarefa difícil, pois existem barreiras pessoais e acadêmicas a serem superadas. Os filósofos geralmente não recebem suficientes incentivos institucionais para irem além da pesquisa e das palestras voltadas a seus pares acadêmicos, e isso tem criado uma cisão entre o mundo acadêmico qualificado e o mundo não-acadêmico, havendo aí um vácuo de influência intelectual filosófica sendo preenchido por pessoas não capacitadas. Não se trata de forçar a academia a efetivamente produzir uma filosofia mais popular e atraente para as grandes massas, mas de torná-la mais caridosa e receptiva a iniciativas que vão nesse sentido, inclusive profissionalizando-as. O seguinte texto propõe algumas sugestões práticas que podem gerar a construção de uma filosofia pública mais atraente e institucionalmente valiosa. Com este olhar mais atencioso ao fazer filosófico, acredita-se que a superação de muitas barreiras de entrada para novos filósofos será facilitada, e a filosofia ganhará nova relevância pública.

Abstract: Producing an engaged and public oriented philosophy is a difficult task as there are personal and academic barriers to overcome. Philosophers generally do not receive sufficient institutional incentives to go beyond research and lectures aimed at their academic peers, and this has created a split between the qualified academic world and the non-academic world, where there is a vacuum of philosophical intellectual influence being filled by untrained people. It is not a matter of forcing the academy to effectively produce a more popular and appealing philosophy for the masses, but of making it more charitable and responsive to initiatives that are in that direction, including professionalizing them. The following translated text from philosopher C. Thi Nguyen proposes some practical suggestions that may lead to the construction of a more attractive and institutionally valuable public philosophy. With this more attentive look when doing philosophical work, it is believed that overcoming many barriers to entry for new philosophers will be facilitated, and philosophy will gain new public relevance.

The paper is the first part of the study of forms of modern public philosophical discourse. The author carries out an analytical review and offers the way of classification of formats of modern philosophizing outside universities and the academic sphere. The topic is s relevant in the context of the rapid development of new formats of philosophizing in the second decade of the 21st century; subjects of this philosophizing are both academic philosophers and the general non-professional public. The study was conducted utilizing a wide range of factual material that had not previously been presented in scientific periodicals or media, namely expert interviews with academic philosophers who are involved in public discourse, the author's own experience of cooperation with domestic platforms for public philosophizing, materials of the First All-Ukrainian Competition of Philosophical Startups and relevant examples from modern world practice and the history of philosophical thought.

The conducted research had led to the classification of the forms of modern public philosophical discourse in accordance with what social needs they satisfy or with what forms of culture they border on, namely literature and media, oral speech and dialogue, education and upbringing, expert opinion and explanation, everyday practice and a set of tools, therapy, entertainment, and leisure. The author concludes that 1) considered forms of public philosophical discourse, despite the apparent novelty, are modifications of classical forms of philosophizing, and therefore, publicity is rather an immanent feature of philosophy than a specific trend of nowadays. At the same time, modern information and communication technologies and media not only contribute to the emergence of new modern formats of philosophizing, but also lead to the revival of its oral, dialogical forms, which have taken a backseat due to inventing of writing and book printing: 2) an important sign of modern public philosophical discourse, which distinguishes it from the public philosophizing of previous periods, is that the general public is becoming its subjects along with professional philosophers.

Key words: public philosophy, philosophy in the public sphere, philosophy in the public space, public philosophical discourse, public turn, public sphere, popular philosophy.

Must the participant to public discourse have knowledge of her beliefs, attitudes and reasons as well as belief-formation processes to have justified political belief? In this paper, we test this question with reference to Jeffrey Stout's (2004) approach to public discourse and public philosophy. After defining self-knowledge and justification along the lines of James Pryor (2004), we map thereon Stout's view of public discourse and public philosophy as democratic piety, earnest storytelling and Brandomian expressive rationality. We then lay out Brian Leiter's (2016) naturalistic critique of public philosophy as " discursive hygiene " to see whether Stoutian public philosophy survives the former's emotivist-tribalist gauntlet. Lastly, we find that Leiter's critique proves less radical than it may appear and requires the moderating influence of a public philosophy like Stout's. All in all, Stoutian public discourse and public philosophy powerfully illustrates a strong, necessary connection between self-knowledge and political justification. Post-truth is not post-justification.

This essay argues that publicity is a necessary precondition for both politics and philosophy. Against the backdrop of the traditional dismissal of publicity as a leveling of difference, the author develops Foucault's positive use of publicity in the Prisons Information Group as a technique of differentiation. The essay therefore proceeds in four parts: (1) it contextualizes the Prisons Information Group within Foucault's life and work, (2) it identifies four specific modes of publicity utilized by the group, (3) it argues that, through these modes, Foucault embraces classically troublesome elements of publicity (like noise, superficiality, and anonymity) as expressly transformative, and (4) it develops a consequently positive account of Foucauldian leveling. The essay concludes that publicity involves the collective transmigration of thought, word, and deed requisite to both the political and philosophical life.

Zur öffentlichen Relevanz dessen, was wir machen Kai Wortmann "[J]eder Rückgriff auf die Theoriegeschichte und die Versprechen einer kritischen Bildungspraxis sind Aspekte einer hegemonialen Strategie, die auf Wirkung zielt: auf diskursive Verschiebungen, auf eine veränderte Aufmerksamkeit und erweiterte Möglichkeiten für kritische Auseinandersetzungen mit sich und den gesellschaftlichen Bedingungen, in denen wir leben." (Bünger 2015, S. 28) "I am dubious about the relevance of philosophy to education, for the same reason that I am dubious about the relevance of philosophy to politics." (Rorty 1990, S. 41

Публічна філософія: освітні та соціальні можливості/ Що таке філософський ренесанс? Які конкретні чинники посприяли розвиткові публічної філософії у нефаховому середовищі поза університетом? Які пріоритети має спільнота для розбудови плідної співпраці між громадською ініціативою і академічними колами?

One of the central issues facing contemporary political theory is the problem of difference. This problem is perhaps clearest in disagreements regarding the role of pluralism between advocates of deliberative, and agonistic, approaches to democracy. Deliberative democracy has, according to Chantal Mouffe, only paid lip-service to pluralism, by emphasising agreement, consensus , and universalism. Instead, according to advocates of agonistic democracy, we should accommodate incommensurable difference as central to political organisation , but this shift threatens to emphasise particularity at the expense of commonality, so preventing the transformation of social positions. These debates turn largely around the ways in which power is conceived in relation to democratic interaction, with deliberativists emphasising the ideals of free and equal discourse, and agonists, the irreducible role of power. In this light, the aim of this paper is to show that these disagreements may be fruitfully navigated by taking a structural approach to social power developed primarily in the work of Iris Young, James Tully, and Michel Foucault. I show how, on this approach, we are all structurally implicated in power relationships, and, as such, we have to reconsider how we think about perspectives and shared understanding in relation to the intersubjective norms that structure our interactions within them. I develop this by showing how we can consider difference to be a resource for the ongoing construction of transformative forms of " shared perspective ". In the process, I illuminate lacunae in similar approaches to democratic dialogue regarding the way in which structural power disenables us from often seeing structural imbalances of power, paving the way for an approach to reasoning together as constructing collective practices of freedom.

I once asked my 92-year-old grandfather if he knew who John Dewey (1859–1952) and Jane Addams (1860–1935) were. He shyly responded (perhaps self-consciously aware of his age), “I know who Jane Addams was. Everyone in Chicago in the 1940s knew of Addams. She was like a local celebrity.” Jane Addams and John Dewey were contemporaries, collaborators and friends. Dewey assigned Addams’s books as required readings in his Philosophy courses at the University of Chicago. Addams was regularly invited by Dewey to guest lecture in his courses. Dewey served on the Hull House board of directors, which Addams led. Addams often invited Dewey to deliver lectures for the Hull House residents as part of their weekly philosophy club. And Dewey showed his appreciation for Addams’s immense intellectual influence on his social philosophy by dedicating Liberalism and Social Action (1935) to her.
What is the legacy of these American intellectual titans? What do their ideas share in common? How are they different? How do their writings and activities support a certain way of living?