In her latest publication, “Open Socrates,” Agnes Callard advocates for a lifestyle that embraces philosophical inquiry, drawing inspiration from Socrates. The book explores how individuals can integrate philosophical thinking into their daily lives, moving beyond superficial engagement with philosophical ideas. Callard challenges the tendency even among academic philosophers to compartmentalize their personal lives and philosophical pursuits, arguing for a life of continuous inquiry and reflective principles.
The book begins by addressing the “Tolstoy Problem,” a concept derived from the existential introspection of Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoy grappled with profound life questions but often found himself without answers, leading him to abandon certain inquiries altogether. Callard argues that such a surrender avoids the deeper existential challenge of examining one’s life through a consistent and principled lens—a hallmark of Socratic philosophy.
Callard insists that the examined life should emulate Socrates’ relentless questioning, applying it to all facets of existence, including personal relationships and mortality. However, she focuses predominantly on conversational roles within philosophical discourse, possibly overlooking larger societal structures and hierarchies that influence these dialogues.
The book examines the significance of Socratic dialogue in philosophical progress, highlighting that such discussions involve role-play between theory builders and refuters. This form of dialogue underscores the collaborative nature of seeking truth and the necessity of diverse perspectives in cultivating philosophical understanding.
In critiquing Callard’s approach, it is highlighted that she seems to sidestep the political implications of philosophical discourse, particularly when addressing concepts like justice, liberty, and equality. Instances from Callard’s personal anecdotes, such as her U.S. naturalization process, serve to question contemporary “politicized” issues, yet they do not fully engage with the material realities and systemic inequalities that underpin these philosophical concerns.
Furthermore, Callard’s analysis of equality and justice tends to remain within the realm of conversational achievements rather than tackling the broader socio-political structures that influence philosophical discourse. There is a noted absence of discussion on how external societal factors affect the possibility and nature of philosophical inquiry and dialogue.
The narrative also contrasts Socratic and Tolstoyan approaches to life, drawing attention to how societal position and resources can shape the capacity for philosophical engagement. While Socrates’ philosophical life intertwined with his societal environment, Callard’s examination remains largely focused on individual philosophical pursuit, potentially neglecting the communal and structural dimensions influencing the examined life.
In conclusion, the book calls for a life modeled on Socratic ideals of inquiry and discourse but faces criticism for not fully integrating these perspectives with consideration of the broader socio-political contexts.
