According to research published in the Journal of Religion and Society this week, developed countries which are predomiantly secular seem to suffer fewer social ills like murder, suicide and teenage pregnancy. The apparent bogeyman of the piece is the USA, which, while being the most religious Western society, has rates of murder, incarceration, abortion, syphilis, gonorrhoea and inequality equivalent to third world countries. You can read a summary of the article at the Times.
The study is correlational, and whether religion actually causes social ills remains a moot point. However, there is surely something to be said for the impact of religous tradition and taboo on education and public debate. More importantly, perhaps, the kind of triumphanist faith that seems to be prevalent among certain communities in the US is clearly anathema to the critical, normative ideals of the Enlightenment. What is intriguing, however, is that these same ideals informed the perspectives of the founding fathers.
So we have the following contradictory situation: on the one hand, the strict separation of church and state is purportedly guaranteed by the first amendment to the constitution; yet on the other, the pledge of the allegiance to the flag identifies the republic as “one Nation under God“.
The report generated a lot of (typically hamfisted) debate at Newsvine. One contributor suggested that the problem with the US is not religion, but diversity of belief. It does not seem as if the writer is aware of the worrying tone of their hypothesis. Conformism does not sit well with the cosmopolitan and egalitarian ideals of America, but it does seem to be entailed by evangelical Christianity. It need not be thought, however, that Christianity should be like this at all. In the Bible, Christ preaches tolerance, while the Apostles often come out with stuff like this.
America’s social ills can’t all be neatly explained with reference to Pauline Christianity. But it might go some way to explaining some of the ideological constraints on who can speak and what they may say.
What is the appropriate way to do philosophy? Historically, the form of philosophy has varied; Plato preferred the dialogue, Nietzsche the aphorism, Kierkegaard the parable. In the 20th century many philosophers pronounced a proper way to do philosophy. The logical positivists wanted to do away with metaphysics and held science as the ideal model for philosophy. Wittgenstein relied heavily upon examples. Heidegger proposed the dissolution of the tradition in order to start enquiry afresh. Foucault’s relation to the label ‘philosophy’ was, of his own admission, ambiguous. Derrida questioned the exclusivity of philosophical language. Today philosophers such as Cavell and Mulhall do philosophy in film, while others hold that logical analysis is still indispensible to philosophy. Is there a correct way to do philosophy? Does philosophy have one language? How important is the relation of form and content for philosophy? Should the fusion of philosophy and other disciplines be resisted? These are questions that receive radically different answers from different traditions and different philosophers.
The 12th International Graduate Conference in Philosophy at the University of Essex, to be held 9 May 2009, invites abstracts on any issue relevant to questions on the language of philosophy, philosophical method and the forms philosophy can take. Possible topics include:
- Problem-solving by dialogue in Plato
- Philosophy through reflection and action
- Is there a proper medium for philosophy?
- The role of logic and rigour in philosophical analysis
- Must philosophy be primarily ethics?
- Should a philosophical ‘point’ be explicit?
- Kierkegaard’s reaction to Hegel’s system
- Philosophy as… (film, literature, music…)
- Heidegger and the circularity of philosophy
- Wittgenstein and beginning in the middle
- Derrida and the distinction between literature and philosophy
- Cavell and teaching philosophy
We aim to hold a wide-ranging philosophical exchange and hope for a broad display of positions and perspectives. We invite papers that explore the diverse ways in which philosophy manifests itself;
conversely, we encourage papers that have a clear view about what the proper philosophical medium is. In short, we hope for a day of productive discussion of a contentious issue for philosophy.
Keynote speakers:
Daniel P. Watts (University of Essex)
Marie McGinn (University of East Anglia)
Final papers should be suitable for a 20-minute presentation (2000-2500 words in length), which will be followed by a discussion. The Department of Philosophy will be able to offer invited speakers limited financial assistance towards the cost of travel. For enquiries, please e-mail Matt at pygradc@essex.ac.uk, or see the website.
Abstracts of 500 words in length should be sent by Monday 19 January 2009 to pygradc@essex.ac.uk or in duplicate by post to:
Graduate Conference 2009
Department of Philosophy
University of Essex
Colchester CO4 3SQ
United Kingdom
