To Philos, January 15th 1996
Dear Friends,
The philosophical discussion at the Café des arts café (Poitiers) has been created for one and half month and a lot of things have already happened. On average, thirty persons are used to come and about the half speak regularly. There are ups and downs, some discussions do not soar/take off (prendre son envol pour pensées), but I often have to ask for stopping the discussion at 9’ p.m. whereas many people have still something to say. A discussion never looks like another one. So all what happen during these discussions always lead to surprise : the experimentation is still carrying on.
I hate to summarize the major events which have happened during the previous discussions at the café as Francis Kay and Colette Petit did in Philos : is this very useful ?
A summarize seems to make a great heterogeneousness fall within a pre-definite restricted scope. Because what happens during these discussions depends on the wealth of different ideas. If someone makes the synthesis, the difference is lost ... the difference between the points of view, and also the difference between the philosophical discussions at the café and the other kinds of discussions or lectures.
Because what is really important and what makes the originality of this philosophical discussion is first the confrontation of opinions. But it is not enough because we must not be satisfied with a simple debate of opinions, there must be then a real confrontation between the opinion and the rational speech (logos) and between the rational speech and the opinions. So I immediately assert that it is how I see philosophy and this is what we can find in particular in Platon. " The platonic conversation looks like a quest for truth according to a method which consists in the application of the logos, of the critical reason to a series of opinions which have not the same value in Platon ".
Therefore, they may be a difference : in the platonic conversations, it seems to me that Socrate’s speakers support some opinions whereas Socrate is the only participant to " apply the logos " to these opinions. It is not in accordance with the reality of the philosophical discussion at the café because there is not " a Socrate ", even if there is still the care about applying the logos. But it is really interesting to be witnessing the failure of the opinions in the rough during a discussion at the café. What we immediately note is not that we have found truth or a true opinion or a reason, but that if we want to come close to it, we cannot be satisfied with the opinion and we have to go beyond it. Of course everyone cannot succeed and the " craftiness of the opinion " are noticed : relatavising professions of faith which maintain that " anyone has the right to have convictions ", but rarely a violent reject and never indifference. But some of the participants try to apply the logos, even if they face up to any difficulties : " a would-be logos " appear.
And I can not think that it happens somewhere else ! As you are reading a book or listening a lecture, you can apply the logos to what is written or saying, but nothing in the book or in the lecture (except by chance) definitely leads to the application of the logos. The author and the lecturer have certainly applied the logos to another opinions or another thesis in order to work out their own thesis. But are they really applying the logos when they write or lecture ? How can they be sure that the readers or the listeners approve these thesis and opinions ? And even if they apply the logos, it is not the Socratic logos. So everyone becomes an isolated monad and the logos is needlessly applied. May be, the readers or the lecturers do not apply the logos and are in the opinion sphere. May be the writer or the lecturer are also in the opinion sphere. How can we know if what happens at the time of reading or lecturing is not a market of deceptions ?
On the whole, the " professional philosophers " claim that they scorn opinion, but what they really scorn is the common herd. Because it does not enable to apply the logos and to quit the opinion sphere. The " professional philosophers " have often confused the common herd and the opinion. But what can be found in Platon’s conversations is the opinion of the specialist (sophos) and not the opinion of the common herd. The opinion of the common herd often comes from the opinion of the specialist who is himself an opinions manipulator. So there is worst than having opinions : manipulating the opinions. And the specialists, even the " professional philosophers " are use to do that.
|
