Philosophy is a studying process of theoretical ideas, seeking to answer the most important questions in life. Often, though, these questions and proposed answers don’t seem to practically function in the nuts-and-bolts of everyday life. As a concept, philosophy calls to mind images of ivory towers, the halls of academia or ancient, far-away cities made of marble—images that are high and lofty, rigid and perhaps a bit out of touch. We see professors or sages working with ideas and concepts, while students write responses and work on their own conceptual problems, hoping one day to become teachers themselves, keeping philosophy in a circular and self-feeding world.
This, however, was not philosophy’s original purpose. Philosophy was intended as something that can and should be applied to regular people dealing with real-world, practical problems. Philosophy’s inaccessibility is, in many ways, the fault of the philosophers and other “intellectuals.” Intellectuals from all eras have ranged from charismatic and pragmatic to arrogant and antisocial— this is nothing new. But the deepening of the divide between the intelligent, thoughtful and self-aware versus the ignorant, impulsive and naïve rests, in large part, with the intellectual class.
There is some human instinct here; there is a natural pull for people to associate with like-minded people. This is why political parties are unavoidable and why most of your friends likely agree with you in your general worldview. But the issue is deeper than this; I have found, in my own experience and in observation of similar spaces, that the intellectual class frequently holds everyone else in contempt, making itself exclusive and inaccessible.
This seems to be especially true when someone manages to cross the divide, joining the ranks of intellectualism from a position outside of the circle. These converts seem even more apt to condemn and close off, appeasing the guilt they feel from their previous ways of thinking by holding any intellectual difference in contempt. In doing so, they become some of the greatest barriers to entry.
There are individuals who subvert this rule, but the overall perception of separation stands firm in American society, and is constantly fed by those same intellectuals. As such, we see the study of philosophy, of the nature of life itself, functionally kept away from ordinary people. But the very nature of philosophy makes it vital to progress, to happiness and to the Good Life.
No skill exists without study. You cannot start being an electrician just by picking up some tools, nor can you be a surgeon by picking up a scalpel. In order to actually do these things, and especially to be successful at them, you need to study and practice. It is the same with life; in order to have a successful life, you need to study and practice the art of living. In essence, you need to study philosophy. But the baggage that comes with the very word can be the first barrier to those who need it most.
I cannot propose a complete solution, but I know where to start: with people. Always with people. Intellectuals, both well-established and newcomers, should take the time to explain their positions without convoluted, inaccessible language— free of judgement. That would be a start. Increasing access points without removing the core truths is both possible and necessary.
Edited by Jeremy Harr and Abigail McKay Cherry
Philosophy is open to all. Books, podcasts, and videos on the subject come in all varieties and a variety of skill levels. The difficulty comes when you move beyond introductory information to the harder topics which require more specialized language.
I agree that philosophy should be inclusive as that is where growth and change occur. However, I disagree that it is primarily the "intellectual's" fault. I believe the perception of some obscured knowledge or reserved enlightenment is at fault. In my experience it has been a lack of reception that has expanded gaps in any area rather than those in that area being unwilling to "enlighten" others. I have never met an expert in any field who did not enjoy discussing, at length, their thoughts and ideas in their area of expertise until the eyes of all listeners who have not dedicated years to the subject (intellectual or not) begin to glaze from information overload.
There is an inherent gap created by specific knowledge in any pursuit. One does not fully understand the discussion of impedance and sensitivity in the realm of an audiophile without a base knowledge to build on and a willingness to learn further. Nor can one hope to discuss the minutia of identity or thought without putting in the work to build a foundational awareness of the topic.
This is all to say, if you want to make philosophy more approachable and increase acceptance you must start with a foundational awareness of logic and philosophical discourse. This can be done by offering logic, speech and debate, and introduction to philosophy earlier in schools. Learning to question ones beliefs/assumptions and to form philosophically sound arguments goes a long way towards breaking the "intellectual" barrier. A guide along the way can help but there is no knowledge that exists that is locked behind the door of academia any longer.
Pick up a book of Philosophy by Socrates, Aristotle, Albert Camus, or George Carlin, and begin to read your way to the knowledge you wish to obtain as any institute of higher education would require of you at an astronomical expense. Abraham Lincoln did it, without the expense, so can you.