Interviewer: Academician, Author and Pr Carnet Editor Semay Buket Şahin

Dear Barry, how would you define philosophy? In your opinion, is philosophy a part of science, or is it a discipline that goes hand in hand with science?

Defining philosophy is a philosophical question itself, so any answer presumes something about philosophy, and tends towards circularity. In terms of etymology it means love of wisdom, but one major philosopher, Hegel said that complete philosophy is what becomes wisdom. Despite the etymology, we might also think of philosophy as something different from wisdom, as philosophy is a form of inquiry, while wisdom presumes a state of mind, or a way of being, in which the thinker is identical with wisdom and passes it on rather than engaging in inquiry. If philosophy is related to science, is maybe the science of sciences, then that turns philosophy into essentially epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge, which is a branch of philosophy, so that philosophy is something within philosophy.

If philosophy is not knowledge the obvious alternative is that it is a form of deductive reasoning about abstract principles which tells us something about the structure of reality, which may be a kind of knowledge, but is not the same as the gaining of knowledge in specific science, and is not even the same as the most general form of science. Another possibility is the phenomenological approach in which philosophy reveals some kind of essential reality which is not covered by the scientific pursuit of knowledge or deductive reasoning. Alternatively, returning to Hegel we mighty regard it as the practice of a particular reason which is ‘speculative’ (recognises that identity is also always difference) and dialectical (proceeds through negation of particular universals from an absolute perspective).

This is just a sketch of some of the contours of any debate about what philosophy is. Despite what some philosophers have hoped, philosophy cannot realistically be regarded as just the most general form of scientific method, or the results of a method of abstract reasoning which might be deductive or speculative, or as an access to a kind of pre-theoretical grasp of the cosmos preceding epistemology, metaphysics, logic and speculation. Some have regard philosophy as a form of clarification of problems using the tools of logic or linguistic concepts, but clarification is not the same as resolution. All the approaches mentioned, and others, can be regarded as legitimate parts of philosophy, but if we thinking about what philosophy in its most general sense, I believe it must be something do with the search for universality in explanation and definitions, which always runs into tension between singularity and universality, parts and wholes, particularity and the absolute, subjectivity and objectivity, fragmentary ideas and complete system. This is a list that can be constantly extended. The point is that philosophy is what explores the gaps, inconsistencies, paradoxes and contradictions which emerge in trying to resolve the oppositions just listed. I particularly like Kierkegaard’s suggestion that paradox is the passion of thought, and believe it can be adopted without assuming anything much of what makes up Kierkegaard’s philosophy.

According to your book chapter “Tragedy, Myth, and Liberty in Interstate Theory” in Liberty and Security in an Anarchical World Vol- I how does your polycentric model of sovereignty address the challenges posed by modern globalized conflicts, particularly those involving non-state actors?

A polycentric approach to sovereignty recognises inevitable realities, with regard to the competitive, changeable and localisable nature of institutions designed by humans. While it seems just about possible to have a kind of large centralised imperial nation, these depend on the existence of external threats or anxieties about the external world, which give some basis to a very vigorous exercise of hard power within state boundaries. We might hope for more peace and stronger international institutions, but it seems to be structurally impossible to have a unified global sovereign which either rules in a centralised way or has a coherent structure of devolved sovereignties covering the whole world.

The first option is always going to be disturbed by localised resistance and power competition at the sub-global level. Even if in some way, it is possible to have very integrated uniform sovereignty actglobal level, we are clearly far from such a situation. It could only emerge in a long term way in the far future. This possibility seems to be me to be very abstract, and in reality there could never be a global community possessing a sufficiently dense consensus on interests and principles, to make anything possible more than a very limited form of global sovereignty, which would be in a kind of shifting unstable balance with the sovereignty of nations or the partially shared sovereignty of blocs of nations. Even small nations face periodic challenges to inner sovereignty from the sharper forms of citizen dissent or various kinds of flows of information, population movements economic activity which spill over national boundaries. Completely self-contained sovereignty of nations is impossible as is a completed integrated global sovereignty.

How would rationalistic and homogenizing tendencies of transnational institutions might accommodate the need for global responses to issues like climate change and pandemics? What are your thoughts about that?

Rationalistic and homogenising tendencies in international institutions provide for some basis for international al action on climate change and pandemics. The rationalising and homogenising tendencies also create problems. A single centre trying to impose a unique approach for the whole world will not allow for the benefits of localised experimentation, comparison of solutions, and full debate of polices. Realistically national governments will be a necessary location for information gathering, policy formation and actions.

There may be some grouping of this as in the European Union , but even this is not an exercise of fully integrated sovereignty commanding a cross-European administration. In reality it is based on compromise between elects of European decision making and what nations agree. It is very clear that global co-ordination cannot go any further than this model and is likely to be less. The facts of climate change and the conditions for future pandemics don’t tell us what the best solutions are. These are fields which include unpredictable feedback, at the natural level enhanced by collective human action producing its own feedback. We can’t know in advance what the best possible solution is. We don’t know what the best solution is for different parts of the world given different conditions. There is no perfect solution there is just a variety of trade offs between various actions with various consequences outside the fields of climate and pandemic control. We cannot possibly have perfect knowledge of how to compare the results of a multitude of trade offs in a variety of possible feedback loops. Even if we did have a perfect rational solution based on perfect knowledge of the future, we would still not be able to perfectly control the politics about which kinds of costs populations are likely to tolerate. Some global co-ordination is desirable but we should not deceive us that there can bear perfect global coordination on perfect solutions.

Do you think that if we had adopted the Roman educational system of the Septem Artes Liberales, regardless of race or religion, we could have achieved a more civilized, globalized, and intellectually advanced society today?

The Septem Artes Liberales combine a quadrivium of astronomy, geometry, arithmetic and music with a trivium of rhetoric, grammar and logic. Whatever merits this may have had for the ancient, medieval and early modern worlds, it is not an adequate way of defining basic knowledge for the present. It certainly never produced I can’t right now say how this compares with classical education in southern, central and eastern Asia, which is the obvious point of comparison. It maybe worked in the Roman Empire, then Catholic (later Catholic and Protestant) Europe for providing some common understanding, but it has never been a global model and chant be now.

There is an issue now of global communications, travel and economic flows, which does make the issue of a broad global consensus on the basics of education relevant for present times. That is not the same as arguing that a rigid seven-fold structure can be universally applied. A broad universal education at pre-university level should presumably include mathematics and some high quality of understanding of your own language. This requires some study of literature and history.

The greatest understanding comes from doing something like this one more language, some study of at last one foreign language should be part of any education core, which also serves needs of communication. A well shaped education core should really introduce everyone to the starting elements of all major sciences, natural and social, which means physics chemistry, geography, biology, psychology, sociology and economics. For contemporary life, we should probably add communications studies and information technology. Philosophy provides a way of thinking about foundations and connections between these ares of knowledge. It is rather difficult to study before 16. Before 16, I favour studies of values and critical reasoning. Ideally this should absorb and replace classes specifically devoted to religion, which can be best studied in a critical and comparative environment. Increasing globalization suggests more elements of comparative studies in these areas where applicable. So I don’t have anything as compact as seven areas of study. What I have suggested above covers 14 areas (before getting into foreign languages), so that is a doubling of the old septet. How this is worked out in practice will inevitably vary between global regions, countries and even within countries, allowing for different circumstances along with the benefits of experimentation and comparison.

There is no way of studying all 14 of these things simultaneously throughout the years of compulsory schooling. Schooling should introduced all of them to all students at some point. Constant study is necessary for mathematics and any foreign language (at least one, and in some multi-lingual countries this can be complicate by requirements to study more than one language of that nation). This should be combined with constant study of at least one area of natural science and one area of social science, along with national literature and history (preferably with comparative elements for both). That makes a core sextet, though of a more variable kind than the classical septet. At sixteen this can be joined by philosophy, as once you start to study any field in any real depth, philosophical questions do arise, so that would make a septet, though at this point maybe some choice should be allowed regarding whether to study both social science and natural science.

Six subjects enough for pre-university study and maybe that could drop further in the final year of pre-university study. All countries of the world following something like this patterns probably a prerequisite for properly educated people throughout a global community, equipped to cope with life in any part of the world.

What would you like to say about philosophy education in Turkey? How would you interpret it in terms of language, culture, and history? Do you think Latin and Ancient Greek education should be introduced at earlier stages in Turkey to support the development of free thought?

It is difficult for me to generalize about philosophy education in Turkey. I understand there is less of it at high school level than there used to be which is unfortunate. As with other countries, I favour making classical languages more available as subjects of school study, but it is not possible to make this compulsory. Experimentation in schooling should be allowed in which some schools could specialize in offering classical languages. I certainly think there should be far more departments in this area in Turkish universities, though equally there should be more departments concerned with ancient languages and literatures of the Near East and Asia, as this is the obvious major alternative to the Graeco-Roman-western tradition. None of these traditions should be seen as isolated and self-contained. The complete study of the history of liberty certainly requires some awareness of ancient history and texts, but I don’t think we can make liberty as a way of thinking influencing education too dependent on study of ancient sources. Some element of this is necessary in philosophy and some other humanities, but in general, liberty has to appear through education in emphasis on the development of individuality of a kind which is free thinking, critical and responsible. Some element of classics in the world of education is a significant part of this, but it cannot be the full story. Philosophy has to be understood primarily in terms of a cross-national tradition across centuries in which nations have greatly changed, so it cannot possibly be understood in terms of national tradition or culture or history. Good philosophy in any country depends on having an internationalized and comparative sense of tradition, culture and history.

What types of research can be conducted in the field of philosophy today? What are the studies you have undertaken in relation to philosophy? Do you believe that alternative learning methodologies can be developed in this field?

I don’t have a strong view about new ways of learning philosophy. I teach in fairly old fashioned ways without much resort to tech ology in the class. Philosophy is inevitably affected by new forms of technology and communication, but I can’t see this changing the core. Different instructors can have different views about use of technology. This should be let opt individual choice. In the end all philosophy education has to be directed towards philosophical texts and forms of reasoning which are not obviously greatly changed by technology. I studied most aspects of western philosophical tradition as an undergraduate, making a special effort to study Continental European Philosophy after Kant since this could only be studied as an option (elective), not as part of the core courses. In my postgraduate work, I was very oriented towards Continental Philosophy and its relationship with literary studies.

I also developed interests in political theory, during that time, as an area of academic writing, though I have always read in that area anyway. There are some other things I came across then to do with philosophers who have a very literary aspect to their work, who still interest me, particularly Giambattista Vico and Michel de Montaigne. There was a period in which I was concerned with Wittgenstein, along with connections between Continental and Analytical Philosophy (that is philosophy very oriented towards science, logic, and conceptual analysis). Though that is till of some interest to me, it is not an area where I aim to write much anymore. I have been interested for some time on Foucault and theories of liberty, but have been slow to really consolidate my writing in that area and getting it published. Something similar applies to Vico’s contribution to thinking about philosophy as the philosophy of the human world, in which history and literature are central.

I am aiming to make progress in these projects, along with other writing commitments, which currently include work on Foucault’s view of seventeenth thought. Recently I have published on philosophy and literature and Derrida’s ethics. I aim to keep working on ethics as well as philosophy and literature. I have thoughts about tragedy related to both fields and that may express itself in future writing.

Interviewer: Academician, Author and Pr Carnet Editor Semay Buket Şahin