Think Together, Be Together ―Inclusive Philosophy and the New Principle of Community
Introduction
Philosophical practice like philosophy café, philosophy education (philosophy for/with children), philosophical consulting and counseling has “dialogue” as a fundamental feature in common.[1] This kind of dialogue acts as place for thinking by talking and listening to each other can be called “philosophy dialogue”.
I call it “inclusive philosophy” inspired by the idea of inclusive design. This is because philosophy dialogue, like inclusive design, is characterized by the diversity of its participants and emphasizes “process” rather than outcome. From this perspective, we can conceive of a new type of community theory; philosophy dialogue is co-creation of thinking, i.e. the community created though thinking together, and this shows unique characteristics that overcome the difficulties of conventional theories of community.
Over the past decade, I have practiced this philosophy dialogue hundreds of times with thousands of people from diverse background on various occasions: at self-organized workshop events, at schools and companies, in parenting groups and local communities in urban and rural societies. I reflected using theory on my experiences I did there and published a book about it: What Is Thinking? -- Introduction to Philosophy from Age 0 to 100.[2]
This paper will provide an explanation of philosophy dialogue and explore the possibility of a new type of community, a community of ‘being together’ and realized through “thinking together”.
1. What is Philosophy Dialogue?[3]
I define philosophy as “questioning, thinking, and talking”. In other words, it is not just thoughts and images coming and going, but consciously asking questions, and then thinking and putting them into words by answering those questions. When we talk, there must be someone to listen. When we are thinking alone, we are talking and listening to ourselves. So thinking is a dialogue with oneself, asking and answering one's own questions. From this perspective, conversely, dialogue with others is not just a talk or discussion, but so to speak, a joint thought. Therefore, philosophy dialogue can be defined as “questioning, thinking, talking and listening together".
What then do we mean by “questioning”, “thinking”, “talking” and “listening”? How are these four related with each other? The following explanation will be divided into three parts: a) Questioning and Thinking, b) Thinking and Talking, and c) Talking and Listening.
a) Questioning and Thinking
To “question” in this context means to question oneself. However, at school, we are usually accustomed to being given questions from the outside, i.e. from teachers, and trained to answer them. We are allowed to ask questions about things we don’t understand in text books or what teachers say, but that doesn't mean we can ask anything. It is not desirable to ask too easy questions or too difficult questions. And there is no way we can ask about something we learned a year or five minutes ago. Of course, we can’t ask about things that are totally irrelevant. We should ask good questions and in order to be praised with a reply: “That is a good question!”.
It does not change much after we graduate from school. After all, both in school and in company, it is considered good to accept what we are told or given and just say “Yes, I understand” and do it (especially in Japan or Asian countries). When we have questions, even friends would sometimes would tell us, “Don't think so hard!”, and we would be treated as if we bothered them or we are troubled. We probably learn to give answers, but rather not to have questions.
However, our thinking moves and progresses by asking questions. Without questions, thoughts just float in and out of our minds or go round and round in circles. To think is to think by oneself, and in order to do so, one must ask one’s own questions. And the quality and quantity of thinking is determined by the questions we ask. If we want to think concretely, we must ask concretely. We think in a vague way, because our questions are vague. To think logically, we must formulate our questions logically.
We might be wondering what kind of questions to ask in order to think. Recently, we are sometimes told that “questions without answers” are good questions, and we are tempted to think about what good questions are. However, how do we know what a question is good or bad? Who is to judge it? If we are concerned about that, we will not be able to ask at all. That is why any kind of question is allowed in philosophy dialogue. There are neither good questions nor bad questions; all questions are considered good.
This is what is called “intellectual safety” in Philosophy for Children. As we accumulate the experience of asking our own questions and listening to others ask their own questions, they will learn when and how to ask good questions.
b) Thinking and Talking
What we think becomes clear only when we put it into words. The term “put into words” here refers to “talking” and “writing”. In dialogue, we do not “write” but “talk”. In writing, those who read it is not always clear, and mostly they are not there, and it is difficult to know how they understand it. On the other hand, when we “talk” in a dialogue, we send our thoughts to those in front of our eyes. Moreover, since it is a dialogue, it is not a one-way conversation. There is an immediate response. We will see the others nod or tilt their head, and we will see whether we are understood or not. Therefore, we are always motivated to make ourselves understood by the others.
Moreover, “the others” can mean a variety of people. They may be of different ages, generations, educational backgrounds, and occupations. Some have illnesses or disabilities. Children and adults can talk together in a dialogue. When there are so many different kinds of people with whom we talk, we will not be able to communicate with them as we normally can in our familiar way of talking. So we naturally try to talk in a way that is easier for them to understand.
c) Talking and Listening
If it is a dialogue, we listen to a variety of people. We encounter the ideas that differ from our own and become aware of assumptions we had implicitly made. This is to understand the other person and ourselves on a deeper level. Of course, there are times when we do not understand or agree with what the other persons say. Then we can just ask such questions as “Why do you think so?”, “What do you mean by that?”, “What do you mean, for example?” and so on. If “intellectual safety” is maintained, we can ask any questions. If we get the answer, we may understand the other person’s opinion, and we may even agree with it.
However, even if we don’t agree with the others’ answer, we can understand why they think that way. Even if we don’t understand or agree with them, we can understand that there are others who think that way. Then, even if we cannot accept them, we can simply admit them. This “admittance” is a better attitude of respect for the other persons rather than understanding, agreeing, and accepting. If we need understanding or agreement in order to accept them, then when we fail to do so, we will not be able to accept nor respect them. Then we will have no choice but to reject them. Or, so as to accept others, we have to compromise by holding back and changing ourselves or by suppressing ourselves.
However, if we can simply admit, even if we don’t agree, understand, nor accept, we can have a dialogue with anyone. Moreover, if we do not understand, we can ask more questions and find more things to think about, and then we will be further motivated to continue to thinking together.
2. For Everyone to Be Equal and Free
In philosophy dialogue in general, the three most important features are “freedom”, “equality”, and “diversity”, and these three are interrelated. Among them, I consider “freedom” to be the most important. This is both the condition and result of philosophy dialogue.
First and foremost, we must be able to talk freely in dialogue. If we are not free to talk, we are not free to think. We often think that even if we cannot speak freely, we can be free to think. It is true that we can think what we talk to ourselves in our mind, even if we cannot say it outwardly. However, if there is no possibility of putting it into words when the time comes, we cannot think about it. So if we want to think freely, we must be able to talk freely. By thinking freely, we can put the common sense and norms of the world into question. We can also become aware of and objectify our own ways of thinking and feeling. Then we can have distance from them, which gives us freedom.
Such freedom is only possible if we are equal to the others with whom we are talking. The term “equal” here does not mean equal in ability or in the amount of speech. It means that one’s gender, age, affiliation, occupation, status, or origin does not limit or disregard one’s speech, nor does it give preferential treatment or importance. Whether persons are assertive or not, open or reticent, is also not a factor in whether or not their voice is preferred. Without being able to talk as equals in this way, the ones in a weaker position would simply agree, unable to say what they think because of reserve, respect, or fear, even if they have different opinions. Conversely, the ones in a strong position might seem to be free to say what they think, but because they could not have distance from themselves, they would remain “trapped” in themselves. In other words, both are inhibiting of freedom. Therefore, in order to be free in philosophy dialogue, the participants must be equal. If they can talk freely, they can be equal.
We also often think that we can have a deeper conversation with people who share similar values and knowledge. However, at least in philosophy dialogue, the more similar people talk to each other, the more boring and superficial it is. This is because, since they share the same assumptions, it is difficult for them to question and relativize them, and as a result, they easily agree and sympathize with each other, and their conversation does not go deeper. On the other hand, the more diverse people are in terms of gender, age, affiliation, occupation, social status, educational background, and even disability or illness, the less they share, and the more different their ideas and their assumptions are. In this way, common sense, values, and individual ways of thinking are not taken for granted, and are subject to questioning. When such a diverse group of people can talk as equals, they will naturally question each other's assumptions, and each will be free from their own. Different people can also recognize and respect each other. This will further enable a more equal and free dialogue.
Thus freedom, equality, and diversity are meaningless if they are merely advocated theoretically. Philosophy dialogue is, above all, practice, for which I put great emphasison the rules.
3. The Rules of Dialogue[4]
Some say that it is a contradiction to have rules in order to talk freely. However, in everyday life, there are various forces at work that prevent us from talking freely. Rules are necessary to remove these forces. The rules of dialogue differ depending on the practitioner, the participants, and the location, and the number of rules is often around three or four, but for my part, I have chosen the following eight.
(1) You can say whatever you want.
(2) Don't take a negative attitude toward others.
(3) You can just listen without saying anything.
(4) Try to ask each other questions.
(5) Talk according to your own experience, not knowledge.
(6) It's okay if you cannot talk clearly or coherently.
(7) It's okay if you change your opinion.
(8) It is okay if you lose your understanding.
The first rule (1) “You can say whatever you want” is the freedom of talking that has been discussed above and is the most important rule in philosophy dialogue. However, if we just say so, it is not enough to talk freely in reality. In order to let it actually be realized, the second rule is needed.
It is usually assumed that the inability to talk freely is due to some kind of coercion, prohibition, or oppression, but a much more widespread and deep-seated cause is the fear of negative reactions from others. The fear that we might be offended, laughed at, or shamed if we say something prevents us from saying openly what we think. So we speak according to the thoughts and expectations of others rather than what we ourselves think. That is why we have the rule (2) “Do not take a negative attitude toward others”.
However, this second rule does not mean that we must agree or sympathize with others. We often agree or sympathize or pretend to do so in consideration of others’ feeling or of the mood of the moment, even though we do not agree inwardly. This is another inconvenience of not being able to say what we want to say. However, if we don’t agree or sympathize, we don’t have to deny it; we can just ask questions such as "Why do you think so?” or “What do you mean by that?” If we listen to their explanation, we will be convinced even if we don’t agree. Even if you disagree, you will not have to argue. You will be able to simply listen without agreeing or denying.
Related to this is rule (3) “You can just listen without saying anything”. As we are often expected to say something, we worry that if we don’t say anything at that moment, the others might feel bad or think we are passive or uncooperative. However, even if we try to say something, we are often afraid of negative reactions, so we tend to say something safe or something that goes along with others’ wishes. Therefore, there is no need to force ourselves to speak.
This rule has other important aspects: We can talk because others are listening to us. Therefore, "listening" is a very active way of participating. Besides, there may be times when you just want to listen and think, and you can think more carefully if you are concentrating on listening. Without the freedom to be silent, there is no freedom to talk or think.
The rule (4) “Try to ask each other questions” is a rule about the importance of questions as the basis of thinking. In discussions, people often just express their opinions and do not ask many questions, but without questions, there is no right place for thinking. In everyday life, however, it is not easy to ask questions; some questions sound (or often really are) blaming, bothering, or annoying, and so not welcome. However, in philosophy dialogue, questions are asked only for the purpose of thinking together, with no other intention.
The rule (5) “Talk according to your own experience, not based on knowledge" is also different from the usual discussion. “Knowledge” here refers to what we acquire by reading books or learning from others. Generally speaking, it is rather demanded and expected to acquire various kinds of knowledge and use it to talk. However, if this is the case, those who lack knowledge about the topic cannot participate in the conversation. Knowledge is the most common factor that excludes people from conversation. In order to avoid this, it is better to talk according to experience, then people of all ages, educational backgrounds, and occupations can talk together. This is an essential rule to increase the diversity of participants.
In terms of thinking together with others, the rule(6) “It's okay if you cannot talk clearly or coherently” and (7) “It's okay if you change our opinion” are also important. Many people say they cannot talk because they cannot formulate their thoughts well. However, in philosophy dialogue, if we would want to talk about something, we should just put it into words without worrying if we cannot talk well.
Also, philosophy dialogue is not a place to assert or defend one’s position. Usually, if we change your opinion around easily, we would be criticized and might lose credibility. However, as we are just thinking together, it is bettere ven for the same person to talk from different perspective. Therefore, it is rather desirable to change one’s opinion.
The last rule (8) “It is okay if you lose your understanding” is also very characteristic of philosophy dialogue. We usually aim to say "I understand" at the end. However, if we put too much emphasis on understanding, we would either avoid what we don’t understand and try to think only about what we can understand, or we just pretend to understand even though we actually don’t. It is quite common in philosophy dialogues that we lose our understanding what we believed to have understood, but this is rather a good sign for deeper understanding.
4. The Community Based on Differencesand Diversity
Some of the benefits of philosophy dialogue, such as development of thinking or discussion skills, are not necessarily guaranteed. The most certain and general effect is that participants get to know each other very well and can build a good relationship. Even after meeting for the first time and talking for an hour or so, they become so close that it is hard to part with each other. It sometimes feels as if they were old friends.
In a normal discussion, there is either a confrontation of opinions, which leads to an attack and defense, or an attempt to avoid confrontation, which leads to sympathy and agreement. In philosophy dialogue, on the other hand, even if different opinions are expressed, they are not confrontational; rather, differences are recognized and their premises are explored. Neither sympathy nor agreement is necessary. Our own thoughts and values are, though not attacked, are naturally shaken and sometimes confused or overturned through dialogue, so it is not always peaceful. However, this does not mean that I feel hurt or uncomfortable, but rather that I find the disquiet comforting and enjoyable. Even when we feel anxious, we can feel supported. In this way, we grow closer to each other as we question and think together. The community created by philosophy dialogue has these unique characteristics.
Whether it is a local community, school, or company, ordinary communities are based on homogeneity, such as similar ideas and values, or the same attributes such as age and gender. Such an ordinary community often suppresses and excludes heterogeneity, and tries to clearly distinguish between the inside and the outside. Internal diversity is then incorporated in the form of various hierarchies, such as the strong and the weak, the majority and the minority, and so on. Therefore, it is difficult to establish equal relationships in practice, even if people really want it.
On the other hand, the community created by philosophy dialogue, even if it is temporary, is rather based on differences and diversity. So it is more likely to tolerate or even actively incorporate heterogeneity. The boundary between inside and outside is blurred, and relationships are characterized by equality, with little hierarchy or superiority. This is not merely an unrealistic theory, but one that is more or less realized in philosophy dialogue.
Why is this possible? The reason lies in the rules of dialogue. Oppression and exclusion in a community based on homogeneity are the denial of the other. However, in philosophy dialogue, there is a rule of “no negative attitude to others”. Behind this rule there is the fact that we are often denied, or more precisely, we are often afraid to be denied by others. That is especially the case with people in a weaker position in terms of age, gender, occupation, education, amount of knowledge, disability or illness, or personality (timid, shy, passive, introvert, reticent, etc.). They often belong to the lower or marginalized groups or minorities in society. Such people, if they wish to remain in the community, must agree with and follow those in a superior position, so that they place themselves in a lower position. However, this is, in effect, the same as being denied AND denying oneself.
What about people in a stronger position or in the center of society? In fact, in many cases, they are also worried about being denied. This is because, for one thing, “There is always someone higher up”. Besides, because they are accustomed to believe that they are always right, they have a strong feeling of resistance toward being denied. They have made great efforts to avoid it. Therefore, they often try to maintain their superiority by denying others.
In such relationships, it is easy to either deny oneself and affirm the other person, or to deny the other person and affirm oneself. In the end, no one would want to be denied, whether their position is strong or weak. It is a great relief for everyone not to be denied by others and not to deny others.
The rule “Talk according to your own experience, not knowledge” has a similar effect. Usually, people try to get together with others who have much knowledge in common. The ability to talk “inside the circle” and understand each other enhances the cohesiveness of the community. We tend to reject or exclude those with whom we do not understand, unable to sympathize or agree. Therefore, we believe that mutual understanding is indispensable for friendly relationship, and we make efforts to achieve it.
On the contrary, philosophy dialogue has the rule “It is okay to lose understanding”. In other words, the great significance of NOT understanding is recognized. If we don’t understand, we can ask. Then, as mentioned above, even if you cannot sympathize or agree, you can understand why the other person thinks the way he or she does. Even if we do not understand, we can realize that there are people like that, and even if we cannot accept them, we can admit them.
Therefore, in philosophy dialogue, even if there are diverse people with different ideas and values, that does not make it more difficult to be together. Rather, the presence of others who are different from us, and in some cases, of those whom we do not understand, makes us aware of the assumptions on which they and we stand, and broadens and deepens our thinking. The dialogue becomes then richer and more enjoyable. In a place where we are equal and free to say anything, we can respect each other without forcing ourselves to conform to the other person or holding back ourselves for the sake of it, even if we remain as we are.
Conclusion
In the society in which we live, there are various conflicts, frictions, and confrontations among individuals and groups. It seems to be assumed that in order to resolve these conflicts and build more peaceful and collaborative relationships, we should find commonalities and similarities among ourselves, and for this purpose, we need to understand and sympathize with each other.
On the other side, there are always differences among ourselves. It would be nice if we could understand others, even if we cannot empathize with them. However, if it is impossible, we cannot accept them and have to reject them. If that is the case, the conflict or friction will not be resolved, or we would have no choice but to stay out of it and to keep our distance from each other.
However, philosophy dialogue presents the third possibility. It is a way of admitting each other without mutual understanding, based on differences rather than commonalities. What is needed for this is an attitude that does not deny each other, but rather asks questions, thinks together, and is not afraid of not understanding nor not being understood, but rather feels joy there. In this way, philosophy dialogue can create such an inclusive community, where we can experience and learn how to be together through thinking together. Interestingly, this would remind us of the plural version of the solipsistic Cartesian thesis which would means unexpectedly the opposite: Cogitamus, ergo Sumus.
Supplement: Philosophy Dialogue Online
When the Covid-19 made face-to-face dialogue impossible, many practitioners lamented that they could no longer hold philosophy dialogue. In Japan, however, philosophy dialogue so to speak “exploded” when it went online. Under the circumstances where everyone had to stay at home and was separated from each other, this phenomenon is partially due to the growing desire to engage with others, and to the quick prevalence of such online communication tools as Zoom. However, when people began to experience philosophy dialogue online, it turned out to be a surprisingly good fit, especially in terms of equality and diversity.
Rather than sitting in a circle, facing each other through a computer screen, everyone is on the same plane and can be completely equidistant from each other (when sitting in a circle, there is no front or back, but the distance varies from person to person). Moreover, since your image is also on the screen, you can at the same distance from yourself as from the others.
In face-to-face dialogue, people vary in size and presence; some are large and conspicuous, some are jovial in personality and have a strong presence, while others are small and inconspicuous, and some are quiet in personality and have little presence. On a computer screen, however, everyone is displayed at approximately the same size, and yet through the screen, the presence of all participants is equally “little”.
The diversity of participants has increased dramatically because they can participate from anywhere: People living far away (including in foreign countries), social with drawal, disabled people that have had difficulties in going out, mothers who stayed home to raise their children and have a lot of household chores. In the philosophy dialogues that started late at night (from 10:00 p.m. or so), everyone, especially women, seemed very relaxed. When the dialogue was held face-to-face in the daytime, everyone is dressed more or less neatly, and in particular women put on makeup and must feel more or less tense. However, at home, late at night, the participants are very relaxed, wearing loungewear without makeup, and some of them even joined while lying down on the sofa or bed. As a result, theyare very open and frank, creating a pleasant and comfortable atmosphere for dialogue.
In face-to-face dialogue, the degree of participation can be only 0 or 100 %, but online, it was possible to have 30% or 60% participation by turning off the camera, showing only half the face, showing only from the neck down, and so on. This was especially important when we talk about such sensitive topics as sexuality and disability. Mothers with small children were able to participate even when their children were crying or making noise because they only needed to turn on the microphone when they spoke. Those who could not speak well due to disabilities were also able to join through writing in chat window.
The dialogue, a very primitive act of talking and listening, is generally considered inadequate when it is hold online, but when it comes to philosophy dialogue, it can be better realized and may have a new dimension by virtue of such high-tech. This is an extremely interesting example for coexistence of technology and human beings.
Notes:
[1] There are various trends and organizations for philosophical practice: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC: https://www.montclair.edu/iapc/), International Council of Philosophical Inquiry with Children (ICPIC: https://www.icpic.org/), Institute of Philosophical Practices (https://www.pratiques-philosophiques.com/), Internationale Gesellschaft für Philosophische Praxis (IGPP: https://www.igpp.org/). Most Japanese practitioners and researchers including me are influenced directly by Hawaiian Practitioner Thomas Jackson: Uehiro Academy for Philosophy and Ethics in Education (https://p4chawaii.org/). Now Japan has also two organization: Japanese Association of Philosophical Practice (https://philosophicalpractice.jp/) and Japanese Society for Philosophical Practice (https://philopracticejapan.jp/about-en/).
[2] This book is published in Japanese by Gentosha publisher in 2018. See the English page of my book in BiblioPlaza of the University of Tokyo which presents the publications of professors: https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/biblioplaza/en/E_00134.html
[3] Cf. Kajitani, What Is Thinking?, Chapter 3.
[4] Cf. Kajitani,ibid. Capter 1-2.
Shinji Kajitani is the Director of the University of Tokyo Center for Philosophy (UTCP). Born in 1966. Completed his Ph.D. at Human- and Environmental Studies of Kyoto University. His main research field is phenomenology, cultural studies and medical history. His main works are: Basic Problems of the Phenomenology of Hermann Schmitz (Kyoto University Press, 2002), and What is Thinking? – an Introduction to Philosophy for People Ages 0 to 100 Years (Gentosha, 2018). He is recently conducting the project of philosophy dialogue and work for schools, local communities and companies.
4
3
2
1