A Conversation Over Coffee

On one foggy Sunday morning, I walk into a coffee shop to do my usual reading and get my overpriced coffee. I look around and see the familiar faces of the regulars, but I notice some strangers around a table in the back. I take a seat by the window within earshot of them. They appear to be talking about famous philosophers in tandem with their own philosophies, and lightly arguing over who is correct. This sparks my interest, so I get up from my cozy seat and make my way over to them.

“You know, Spinoza was often seen as an atheist thanks to his belief in a God of Nature rather than the orthodox God of the Bible,” says a man with red hair and a British accent.

“Isn’t that what got him excommunicated from the Jewish synagogue?” I question, inserting myself into the conversation, “Sorry to interrupt, I could overhear your conversation ad found it interesting.”

“No problem at all, miss. And yes, I believe that is what got him removed. My name is Nigel Warburton, and these gentlemen are Julian Baggini and Kurt Anderson,” he says, pointing to the other two men at the table.

“Nice to meet you all. My name is Shelby Pittman. Do you mind if I ask you a couple of questions?” 

“Of course not,” says Julian, breaking his silence. “What do you want to know?” 

"Do you think philosophy can help people learn to respect truth, facts, reality, and one another, and to reject falsehood, superstition, selfishness, polarization, partisanship, and mutual hostility based on differences of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, belief, etc.? If so, how? If not, why not?” I question.

“Jumping in with a big question to start, aren’t we? Well, take a seat. This may take a moment.” Kurt says to me. I sit down at the round table. “Personally, it depends on the person. If you’re fanatical enough about enacting and enforcing your fiction, it becomes indistinguishable from nonfiction. (FL 30). Certainly, if someone decides to do all that you listed, they can, but for the most part, people live in this fantasy that they have convinced themselves is true.”

Shaking his head, Julian starts to speak. “Philosophy can absolutely help people be more open to understandings, especially when we look at different philosophers and take in their viewpoints. Every culture has an implicit, folk epistemology – a theory of knowledge – just as almost every philosophy has an explicit one and these formal and informal epistemologies are connected (HTWT 26).  This distinguishes beliefs from opinion. Once people do that, they can start to respect others.”

Kurt pipes up, “but people don’t want to do that. They’re so convinced they are right that they refuse to hear others out.”

Julian replies, “are you talking about all others, or just you? Many people, whether they are right or wrong, base their opinions on what they learn as fact. Take current teenagers and their faith in the internet. They take what they read as fact and use that to back their statements. If we want to understand why people believe the things they do, it is essential to start by asking what sources of knowledge the philosophical traditions they grew up in take to be valid” (HTWT 26).

Nigel breaks the hostility up. “If you two are done arguing, I believe it is my turn to speak. We won’t fully be able to clearly think about things like that until after the fact. Wisdom and understanding in the course of human history will only come fully at a late stage, when we're looking back on what has already happened, like someone looking back on the events of a day as night falls (LHP 126). Philosophy won’t help us understand and respect everything until later on. Not when it is first presented to us. It’s a matter of reflection. Maybe after reflecting they will be able to.”

“Thank you all for your responses. Personally, I’m not sure it’s a matter of philosophy so much as it’s a matter of being a mature person. Philosophy can help us understand certain things, but most of it is not based on actual facts so much as it is opinion. If two or more mature parties can sit down and have a civil discussion, that creates respect. Not philosophy. The question more reflects research and education than philosophy,” I reply. “However, I do have another question. William James actually originally posed this question. What is this world going to be? What is life eventually going to make of itself?”

Nigel speaks up again, answering first this time. “To an extent, it might be something like the past. We can study history and discover the probable causes of events and predict what might happen in the future, but it is not set in stone (LHP 128). I personally don’t know what the future may hold.”

Julian agrees, “Yes, time is linear, but events are cyclical. The past is also the future, the future is also the past, the beginning also the end. Of course, things will progress and change, but at its base, it is all the same.”

Kurt answers to conclude our conversation, “I cannot answer this fully, because nothing is inevitable. Our current situation is not inevitable, because history and evolution never are (FL 440). We could become more peaceful and the current state could be a phase, or it could go south. We don’t really know because it is ever-changing.”

“If I must answer this question myself, I will simply say there is no way for me to predict the future. To think I would be right would be extremely arrogant. I try not to worry myself too much with the future. Whatever happens will happen. I try to do the best I can and encourage others to as well, but I do not decide the future. But now, I should stop bothering you and let you return to your Spinoza conversation. Thank you, gentlemen, for your time,” I say, as I pack up to leave.

Section 10 Shelby Pittman