Socrates has been hiding in plain sight. We call him the father of Western philosophy, but what exactly are his philosophical views? He is famous for his humility, but readers often find him arrogant and condescending. We parrot his claim that the unexamined life is not worth living, yet take no steps to live examined ones. We know that he was tried, convicted, and executed for corrupting the youth, but freely assign Socratic dialogues to today's youths, to introduce them to philosophy. We've lost sight of what made him so dangerous. In Open Socrates, acclaimed philosopher Agnes Callard recovers the radical move at the center of Socrates' thought, and shows why it is still the way to a good life.
Callard draws our attention to Socrates' startling discovery that we don't know how to ask ourselves the most important questions--about how we should live, and how we might change. Before a person even has a chance to reflect, their bodily desires or the forces of social conformity have already answered on their behalf. To ask the most important questions, we need help. Callard argues that the true ambition of the famous Socratic method is to reveal what one human being can be to another. You can use another person in many ways--for survival, for pleasure, for comfort--but you are engaging them to the fullest when you call on them to help answer your questions and challenge your answers.
Callard shows that Socrates' method allows us to make progress in thinking about how to manage romantic love, how to confront one's own death, and how to approach politics. In the process, she gives us nothing less than a new ethics to live by.
Although people like to talk about their travels, few of us like to listen to them. Such talk resembles academic writing and reports of dreams: forms of communication driven more by the needs of the producer than the consumer.
In The Case Against Travel the philosopher Agnes Callard launches a vigorous assault on the idea that there is something transformative or ennobling about recreational travel. Going well beyond commonplace complaints about the irksomeness of tourists, Callard's essay is a probing inquiry into what it really means to change one's life, and into the ways in which we try to disguise the fact that life will come to an end.Anger looms large in our public lives. Should it?
Reflecting on two millennia of debates about the value of anger, Agnes Callard contends that efforts to distinguish righteous forms of anger from unjust vengeance, or appropriate responses to wrongdoing from inappropriate ones, are misguided. What if, she asks, anger is not a bug of human life, but a feature--an emotion that, for all its troubling qualities, is an essential part of being a moral agent in an imperfect world? And if anger is both troubling and essential, what then do we do with the implications: that angry victims of injustice are themselves morally compromised, and that it might not be possible to respond rightly to being treated wrongly? As Callard concludes, We can't be good in a bad world.
The contributions that follow explore anger in its many forms--public and private, personal and political--raising an issue that we must grapple with: Does the vast well of public anger compromise us all?