A Philosophical Happy Hour asking why (or whether) we should read some thinkers over others, explore some ideas before the rest, and take some philosophers more seriously than others.
A question surfaces again and again in philosophical discussion, sometimes with impatience: why do certain thinkers keep returning? Why are Plato and Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, so often treated as unavoidable points of reference—why not others? Have we not yet exhausted their thinking? Cannot we learn from others? If the study of philosophy consists in more than merely inheriting beliefs, then the repeated return to these figures requires explanation.
Rather than assuming that a philosophy deserves attention because it has been canonized, we propose to ask what warrants sustained philosophical engagement with a given thinker in the first place. That is, if philosophy is to be seen as a serious form of inquiry, it must be able to present its objects of study as more having a long-standing reputation. A philosophy that matters should continue to bear on how we understand ourselves and the world, even when inhabiting a different context. But what, we must ask, makes a thinker’s thought to affect our own regardless of our respective particular circumstances?
Influence? Utility? Where is the “worth”?
Several familiar ways of answering this question present themselves readily enough. A philosophy may be “valued” because of the mark it has left on later thought or social life: that is, its influence appears explanatory for the contours of human civilization. Or a thinker’s work may possess an apparent practical applicability, offering a system for ethical or political construction. Or it may resonate at a personal level, helping us to articulate experiences that otherwise remain vague or confused. Each of these considerations has weight, but—so goes the argument we would like to propose or consideration—none of them reaches the essence of what makes a thinker or his thought worth exploration.
The difficulty is that historical influence, practical applicability, and personal resonance may all be evaluated independently of the truth. A thinker’s works may spread and have a great impact while remaining largely indifferent to the way things actually are. Some, indeed, even obscure the reality of what is. Yet some thoughts continue to illuminate the reality of what is long after any world-shaping influence disappears and apparent usefulness vanishes.
This illumination suggests a different standard by which to make our evaluations. The introductory essay to the first issue of Reality—with which we wish to prompt reflection for this Happy Hour—proposes that a work earns the name of “philosophy” only insofar as it remains accountable to reality itself. We do not present this as a dogmatic proposition, but to stimulate questioning. That is: can a philosophy remain internally consistent while abandoning what it claims to understand, namely, the world and our experience of it? Is a certain internal consistency a sign of a philosophy’s worthiness?
Exploring Real(ist) Thinkers
To take realism seriously is to take philosophy as an activity that exposes thought to the perennial possibility for correction. Philosophy, on this account, continues to unfolds even through encountering objects that resists easy categorization or articulation. Thus, the truly philosophical mind is formed and reformed by the painfully-won intelligibility of what it encounters. Often, this means having to discard our closest and most intimately-held assumptions. The language of katharsis used in the essay (online) points to this experience: philosophy allows us to be receptive to what is by removing our willfully-established blockades.
This kathartic understanding casts the continued relevance of certain philosophers in a different light. Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas—and perhaps many others—can be read truly as thinkers who consistently tested their thinking by the real. Their texts thus endure not because they offered neat, closed, all-encompassing systems, but because they think in relation to the real. We return to them, that is, not because they offer us all the right answers but because they teach us how to question.
Can thinking that is not realist truly claim the name of “philosophy”?
Reality or Ideality
Well—what is reality? What is realism? Are there other philosophies, and are they truly philosophies? Must they be “realist” in some determinate sense?
This Wednesday (4 February 2026, from 5:45-7:15+ pm ET) we invite you to come for real philosophical inquiry:
- How have you determined thinkers, in your own experience, to be worth continued study? Have you ever been wrong?
- Is internal coherence to a thinker’s thoughts necessary for it to be a “philosophy”?
- Is katharsis truly an integral element of philosophical inquiry?
- Are there any “philosophers” you have encountered that you don’t think worth reading or studying? Why/not? Are they truly “philosophers”?
philosophical happy hour
« »
Come join us for drinks (adult or otherwise) and a meaningful conversation. Open to the public! Held every Wednesday from 5:45–7:15pm ET.
No responses yet