Philosophers and the Public

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20955, 8 September 1933, Page 8

Philosophers and the Public

In his thoughtful and amusing ad- | dress to the Philosophical Institute, reported in "The Press" yesterday, | Mr Hitchcock rebuked the philosophers, using that term in its widest sense, for deliberately isolating themselves from social life. Very aptly, he told the story of the exasperated curate who said to his wife: " For the love of Heaven, Amanda, "take this squalling baby out of " here; I'm trying to write a sermon " on ' Bearing one another's bur- " ' dens.' " It must be recognised, however, that the philosophers are not entirely to blame. In the past they have been so often ridiculed, persecuted, even martyred, by society that their preference for an almost monastic independence is not hard to understand. And unquestionably it will always be necessary, if philosophy is not to be false to its ideals and hampered in its usefulness, for the philosopher to feel secure against the pressure of public opinion. Moreover, in the pure sciences an accelerating rate of progress and increased specialisation have taken the scientist so far ahead of popular knowledge that isolation is inevitable. Occasionally scientists like Jeans and Eddington, with a genius for simple exposition, •ire able to carry the intelligent layman forward on an excursion to the outposts of knowledge; but for the most part the pure scientists live in another world and speak another language. Yet, whatever its causes and its justification may be, isola- 1 tion has become dangerous to the philosopher himself and is depriving mankind of the benefits of scientific progress. This is an age which tends increasingly to judge knowledge by its social usefulness; and

if the philomath expects society to grant him leisure and security he must be prepared to justify himself to his fellow men. Further, it is an age in which the gulf between those jwho know and those who do is disastrously wide. Mr Keynes has > complained that it is his fate always ! to be right and always to be ignored; Sand it is the fate of almost; all philosophers who attempt to influence the eonjduct of human affairs. As Sir |Arthur Salter has pointed out. the task of advancing knowledge is for J the moment less important than the [task of building bridges between knowledge and action. The philosophers of to-day might with advantage to themselves and to the world recall the words with which Vernon Harcourt launched the British Association: "The time seems to be "arrived for taking advantage of the " intellectual improvement of the nation. Let philosophy at length "come forth and show herself in "public: let her hold her court in ''different parts of her dominions: "and you will see her surrounded "by loyal retainers, who will rtc- " rive new light and zeal from her " presence and contribute to extend " her power on every side."' Harcourt, it appears, regarded the British Association not as an instrument for the advancement of knowledge but as a means of emphasising to the nation the value of science. The ideal is one which many learned societies would do well to keep in view.