By Joshua Glenn

　　简墨 选注

　　钱钟书先生曾戏说哲学是一种你不说我还知道、你说了我反倒糊涂了的一种东西。妙哉斯言，因为这句戏言本身也有那么点哲学味儿，它暗含着这样一个意思：哲学离我们既近又远。一般说来，当今的人们习惯把哲学看作是象牙塔里的学问，想起来免不了是一副莫测高深的面孔。其实哲学早在古希腊时代就是颇为民主化的，苏格拉底的讲坛就是在公共场所。如今，欧美有些研究哲学的学者正致力于恢复这种传统，使哲学进入咖啡馆、酒馆，亲近普罗大众。“To be or not to be”其实又何以只是王子的问题呢？不过要顺便提一下，我们的茶馆里“摆龙门阵”和文章里介绍哲学咖啡馆不可混为一类，这不是咖啡馆与茶馆的差别，看了这篇文章你就会明白的。

　　Participants in the movement that has come to be known as“Applied philosophy”tend to describe themselves as escapees from the confines of the ivory tower. Musty academics no longer, <注1> these newly minted philosophical practitioners claim to be doing philosophy”in the public sphere.”While it's noteworthy that in recent years philosophy Ph. D's have found it increasingly possible to moonlight<注2> as consultants and even counselors, this isn't exactly doing philosophy pro publico. <注3> One might ask, then, whether the applied philosophy movement in fact provides ordinary, thoughtful people with public forums in which to philosophize.

　　Thanks to a disaffected Nietzsche scholar<注4> in Paris, the answer is yes. In 1992 Marc Sautet, a lecturer in philosophy, decided that a promising academic career just wasn't enough. So he invited some friends to participate in a pugilats d’idées (“conceptual fisticuffs”)<注5> for two hours every Sunday morning, at the Café des Phares on the Parisian Place de la Bastille. Sautet's“Café Philosophique”(as it came to be called, or Café philo for short)<注6> seems to have filled a void that people didn’t realize they had. University students, idle wealthy women, off-duty cab drivers, and eccentric citizens off the street began to show up, week after week, to discuss subjects as abstract as truth and beauty and as concrete as sex and death.

　　Sautet, who died suddenly of a brain tumor in 1998 at the age of 51, was by all accounts a highly charismatic figure. His 1995 book Un Café pour Socrate, <注7> written partly in response to gibes<注8> from skeptics within academic philosophy and mainstream journalism alike, compared the café philo experience to a Socratic elenchus,<注9> or cross-self-examination, through which one becomes aware that nothing can be taken for granted. It'sdifficult to imagine making an ordeal such as this seem fun and exciting, but Sautet pulled it off with great aplomb: <注10> In 1997 a writer for Salon<注11> compared Sautet's Café philo to“a college-town literature workshop and a Quaker meeting<注12> rolled into one, with a pinch of karaoke.”By the time Sautet died there were more than 100 Café-philos operating throughout France. Today there are close to 150.

　　Still not sure what a Café philo is all about? The American Philosophical Practitioners Association explains that“a philosopher’s café is not a philosophy lecture; the philosopher presides only as a moderator,<注13> to maintain the conversation on a philosophical footing. The discussion is thoughtful but nontechnical. You will be challenged to defend your beliefs or opinions, but you will not be asked to refer to a list of philosophy books insgroupsto support your views. In fact, the opposite is usually true: Instead of showing off your erudition<注14> by referring to great works you may have studied, you will be obliged to think for yourself, to give your own reasons for the views you hold.”

　　Must the moderator (facilitator, if you prefer) of a philosophy Café be a trained philosopher? Not necessarily. Sautet, who also worked as a philosophical counselor, once explained that,“I help my clients to structure their thoughts. I am there to nourish their doubts and pose the right questions, not to supply the answers.”This could serve as an apt description of a Café philo facilitator. To fill that role one should be good at helping asgroupsof people ask themselves questions and then helping them question those questions. Philosophers are trained in this sort of inquiry, but that doesn’t mean a non-philosopher can’t be good at it, too.

　　Having exploded like a revolutionist’s bomb in the infamous Place de la Bastille,<注15> one might have expected that the Café philo idea would eventually spread outward from Paris. Café-philos have appeared in Belgium, Greece, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, South America, and Japan. They誺e also taken root and begun to flourish in Britain and the United States. I recently tracked down half-a-dozen apostles of the Café philo movement in the latter two countries and asked them a range of questions about philosophy Café, from the idealistic (“What is the most important goal, and what can one do as a facilitator or participant to achieve this goal?”) to the materialistic (“What is the most effectivesgroupssize?”).In the remainder of this article I'll take a look at the philosophy Café scene in England.

　　The Philosophy Café Crosses the Channel<注16>

　　In November 1997 Gale Prawda, a Paris-based American philosopher, traveled to London to launch a regular philosophy Café there. Prawda, who'd studied with the influential French philosopher Paul Ricoeur in the 1970s, had turned away from philosophy since then because, as she's written in her bimonthly newsletter Philo News, philosophy deals with“those questions concerning [ordinary] human existence, yet incredibly inaccessible to the very people about whom it speaks.”After attending one of Sautet's“Philo dinners,”however, the two became good friends, and with his blessing she launched an English-language philosophy Café at the Café de Flore, formerly the haunt of Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and Albert Camus.<注17> She continues to convene one Café philo a month at the Café de Flore, but thanks to the success of the London event, she runs one philosophy Café a month there, as well.

　　To Prawda Café-philos are simply“an exercise in thinking together.”Although she says that one is welcome to attend them in hopes of discovering the meaning of life, the only“Point”is to question one's settled opinions,“and modify them according to reason and thinking, when necessary.”Some of the most enjoyable sessions she remembers, Prawda tells me, were sparked by good questions, like“What is a fact?”“Can people communicate?”“and”Why does time keep moving forward?“Her Café-philos, and the various other open-forum philosophical discussions she now runs, are attended by people ranging in age from 15 to 80 and in occupation from businesspeople and professors to artists, writers, and scientists. She reckons the optimal size for a really successful Café philo is 25 people. As a facilitator Prawda sees it as her duty to intervene in the discussion to suggest other ways of looking at the topic under debate (without being overly“directional,”she hastens to add) and to help synthesize the discussion as it develops so as to build on preceding thoughts and prevent things from just circling around and around. But“by no means is consensus a desirable goal,”she concludes,“as it might undermine the actual thinking process if one were coerced into thinking as the others for the purposes of agreement.”

　　Bryn Williams, a doctoral candidate in philosophy and an editor at the British“Popular philosophy”magazine Philosophy Now, attended Prawda's inaugural philosophy Café in 1997. Williams found Prawda's evangelistic fervor inspiring, but-having been a bartender before he began studying philosophy-he knew that in England the Café is often seen as a refuge for pretentious aesthetes. The pub, on the other hand, is a community center where, as he sees it,“competing views may meet and test themselves against the demands of rational inquiry.”In February 1998, with the support of his colleagues at Philosophy Now, Williams founded Pub philosophy, which he advertised as a biweekly“opportunity for the exchange of ideas, the exploration of underlying assumptions, and the pure enjoyment of engaging in intellectual pursuit for its own sake.”These events attracted between 10 and 50 participants at a time, Williams remembers (somewhere in between<注18> is the perfect size, he thinks), and tackled topics as serious as“What is it for a human to flourish?”and as humorous as“Is it just me, or is everyone paranoid now?”

　　In 1996, completely unaware of the Café philo movement in Paris, London-based philosopher Anja Steinbauer started talking to her friends about starting an organization whose objective would be to bring together professional and nonprofessional philosophers to discuss philosophical questions in a nontechnical way. In early 1998, she helped found Philosophy for all to do just that. Shortly after joining the editorial staff of Philosophy Now, she wrote in its pages that "It is one of the objectives of Philosophy for All not simply to stroll along the aisles of a philosophical supermarket, picking up ready-made and hygienically-packed solutions from the shelves. Instead we aim at informed discussion, in which we allow philosophical questioning to disturb us and perhaps even challenge beliefs that we may have long taken for granted.”To this end Philosophy for All sponsors“Philosophical walks”in the countryside and a monthly event called Kant's<注19> Cave. At these latter happenings an invited speaker gives a lecture, then those present (70 or 80 people on average) engage in a spirited debate, after which thesgroupsbreaks out into smaller groups to socialize and talk philosophy.

　　When I asked Williams about his first impressions of Prawda's philosophy Café, he recalled being disappointed by what he perceived as a lack of critical rigor at that event.“There was an apparent unwillingness to distinguish between the relative validity of statements,”he told me.“Attempts at critical analysis of ideas were seen as somehow”not in the spirit“of the discussion.”Pub Philosophy, then, wasn’t just about a change in venue for Williams, but a change in style, too; it was, as he puts it,“an alternative for those who like their philosophy a little more hardheaded.”For Williams an evening of philosophizing is a success if everyone present recognizes that“there is a philosophical dimension to any question, that even the most mundane of things may spark an investigation into the validity of our most common assumptions, and connect with the eternal questions which seem so far from everyday life.”As a facilitator, therefore, he says his role is to try to tease out the specifically philosophical implications of the topic at hand, without interrupting the conversation too much with his own take on things.<注20> Pub Philosophy folded in the summer of 1999 because Williams needed to concentrate on his doctoral dissertation. Today, with some embarrassment, he admits to running an organization called London Café Philosophy.

　　Kant's Cave, on the other hand, which continues to meet at pubs, is still going strong. It attracts everyone from taxi drivers to professional scholars, Steinbauer tells me, and some of its most passionate discussions have been those on applied ethics.“But even topics from the area of theoretical philosophy (such as“On Not Being”)<注21> have really fired up the debate.”Steinbauer insists on the use of the word“debate”because, she says,“a genuine exchange of arguments is much more fruitful and in tune with the style of Philosophy for All than taking turns at a disjointed uttering of opinions.”This latter, for Steinbauer, is a description of most philosophy Cafés.“More or less random discussions on philosophical themes,”that is, are not her cup of tea. <注22>

　　Here's a question worth debating, then: Is Kant's Cave an example of a Café philo? Steinbauer says it isn’t. But why not? After all, the stated aim of Kant's Cave is“for people to engage in more philosophizing or in new ways of philosophizing; to question, be critical, and think for themselves.”Isn’t that the goal of a Socratic elenchus?