The Analytic Philosophy in Everyday Life Dossier

The following text is the first session of the dossier series “Analytic Philosophy in Everyday Life,” which was held as 14 Instagram conversations hosted by Mohammad Reza Vaez and organized by the Pidayesh (Ruyesh-e Digar) Cultural and Artistic Institute in the spring of 1401 (2022). Videos of all sessions are available at the bottom of this page.

.

---

.

First Roundtable: Analytic Philosophy and Everyday Life

Featuring: Dr. Babak Abbasi, Dr. Hossein Sheikh-Rezaei, Dr. Ebrahim Azadegan, and Dr. Mohammad Reza Vaez Shahrestani

Mohammad Reza Vaez: Analytic philosophy in everyday life is a broad topic, and perhaps many who have seen this title found it interesting or even strange, and we have encountered different perspectives on it. An interesting point is that our three guests on this program are heads of philosophy departments at various Iranian universities. We are joined by Dr. Sheikh-Rezaei, head of the Science Studies department at the Iranian Institute of Philosophy, Dr. Ebrahim Azadegan, head of the Faculty of Philosophy of Science at Sharif University, and Dr. Babak Abbasi, head of the Philosophy department at the Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch in Tehran.

Dr. Sheikh-Rezaei suggested the book what is analytic philosophy[1] from Cambridge University Press, which is a very reputable book. This book is used as a source both in Iran and elsewhere, and in Iran it has been translated by the esteemed Dr. Yaser Khoshnevis. In this book, Hans-Johann Glock addresses the definition of analytic philosophy with an analytic and metaphilosophical approach and tries to offer various definitions of it. He explains and critiques the view that “analytic philosophy lacks a historicist approach, is incompatible with metaphysics, or merely uses the logical-analytic method.” From his perspective, critics of analytic philosophy usually confine it to just a few philosophers or specific schools. However, from the second half of the twentieth century onwards, theology, ethics, aesthetics, philosophy of religion, and political philosophy have also been discussed and examined within analytic philosophy, and it is not the case that analytic philosophy is entirely separate from practical and applied philosophy. Ultimately, the author says that we cannot provide a comprehensive and exclusive definition of analytic philosophy. He finally uses Wittgenstein’s “family resemblances” approach and says we can only say that all these share a set of family resemblances, and he offers such a definition of analytic philosophy.

But analytic philosophy initially falls under the umbrella of philosophy, and perhaps it is better, as an introduction, to first examine the relationship of philosophy with everyday life and state what we might mean by philosophy in everyday life, and investigate the relationship of philosophy with everyday life, and then turn to analytic philosophy.

Hossein Sheikh-Rezaei: The topic you have chosen for this series of meetings is a very important one, and as far as I know, it has not been addressed in a coherent manner, at least in Iran, until now. This is a significant subject about which books and dissertations could be written, and it has been addressed very little internationally as well, but nonetheless, some people’s attention has been drawn to this topic.

The question that arises is this;

What is the relationship between philosophy and everyday life?

And the second question;

In analytic philosophy, which is one of the branches of philosophy, is this relationship distinct or not?

It is better to start with the philosophy part first. Almost everyone who has addressed the issue of the relationship between philosophy and everyday life has pointed out that if we return to the roots of philosophy in ancient Greece, and specifically speak of Socrates and Plato, philosophy in that period was historically introduced fundamentally as a way of life; that is, in contrast to other lifestyles offered by the Sophists, for instance, Socrates defines a new kind of life in society as a “way of life.” If what is meant by philosophy is the search for and pursuit of truth, this truth in Greek thought meant virtue and the good, which was precisely related to human living. That is, what Socrates demonstrated both in his dialogues and in his personal life is that he sacrificed himself for an ideal; that ideal was that philosophy, as a mode of living, is the pursuit of truth, and that truth has a firm and intimate connection with virtue and the good. That is, if we say that, for example, discussions concerning everyday life fall within the domain of the good, in the sense that they relate to what is “morally good,” at least at the starting point, these two coincided; that is, the search for virtue and the good, and the search for truth, were not separate from one another. Therefore, historically at least, this point is clear: philosophy, in its roots, had a connection with everyday life and was introduced fundamentally as a way of life. This idea has been more or less preserved throughout the historical development of philosophy, manifesting in various places in the Middle Ages and the Islamic era in the form that philosophizing is linked with a specific type of living, and that a philosopher does not do just anything, or does not speak his mind to just anyone, or that not everyone can understand the word of philosophy. Or in its newer forms, the idea that philosophy performs a kind of therapeutic work has been more or less maintained.

But what probably makes this issue seem strange to the ordinary listener is not philosophy itself, but the academic system of philosophy. This is an important point we can discuss. Many philosophers have also pointed to this and spoken of the relevance or irrelevance of the academic system of philosophy to everyday life. From the time philosophy became an academic system, and especially in the twentieth century when it entered a system of mass academic production—which, of course, was not unique to philosophy and was a characteristic of all academic disciplines—an environment whose slogan is “Publish or perish!”; thus, the connection between philosophy and life became much fainter, or fundamentally changed its nature, or took on a new form. In this system, it is as if philosophy is a wheel that turns, having no engagement with what is happening in society. For the general listener and viewer who is distant from philosophy, when we speak of philosophy, the academic system of philosophy might be evoked, and then the question arises: what connection is there between this system and everyday life?

Another point I should add here is that, specifically when we talk about the relationship between analytic philosophy and everyday life, some first-rate analytic philosophers of the twentieth century have explicitly stated that, in their view, analytic philosophy has no relevance to everyday life and should not have any. Two famous individuals who have made this statement are Scott Soames[2], who has written a book on the history of analytic philosophy and is known for this quote: philosophy fundamentally seeks truth and knowledge, and does not seek moral and spiritual elevation, and nothing about the art of living is taught in it. Others have also made this statement. There is also a quote from Kripke[3], where he explicitly stated in an interview that “the goal of philosophy is the pursuit of truth, and the idea that philosophy has any relevance to everyday life is a new and modern idea that has no precedent in the history of philosophy.” In fact, I want to say that this is a position held by some within the academy of analytic philosophy, and those outside, as general observers, may sometimes have such a feeling, especially when they look at the academic system of philosophy and philosophical articles.

Mohammadreza Vaez: As Dr. Sheikh-Rezaee pointed out, Scott Soames, in his two-volume work Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century—a reputable book in the history of philosophy published by Princeton University Press—argues that the task of analytic philosophy is fundamentally the pursuit and search for truth and knowledge, not the provision of useful guidelines for the art of living. [4] In contrast, however, what Dr. Sheikh-Rezaee mentioned regarding Socrates indicated that Socrates viewed philosophy as a model for life, aimed at improving life and attaining virtue and the good. This virtue can have various meanings: for instance, virtue in the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato is based on happiness, while in Kant's philosophy it is based on fulfilling duty. Yet philosophy, since the time of ancient Greece, has been a provider of models for living better, and the history of philosophy demonstrates this. An article has been published on this subject that precisely addresses this point. According to the two authors of this article, a misunderstanding arose at some point, propagated by several prominent analytic philosophers, that the aims of philosophy have been fundamentally altered. That is, the goal of philosophy was the improvement of life, which then veered in another direction. They have also used the term 'misunderstanding' in this regard.[5] So, another discussion we will have in this roundtable is whether we should, in accordance with the thinking of philosophy's pioneers, hold the view that an incorrect interpretation of philosophy has taken shape, that philosophy has been led astray by a few prominent philosophers and must return to its proper path? Or can we have other interpretations as well?

I would like to ask Dr. Azadegan to offer his observations based on our discussions.

Ebrahim Azadegan: I would like to disagree with Dr. Sheikh-Rezaee so that a more serious discussion can take shape and we can have a clearer perspective.

Dr. Sheikh-Rezaee made three claims with which I disagree; one, that the concern of philosophy from the beginning has been the matter of everyday life; the next claim is that the academic atmosphere in the twentieth century and thereafter caused analytic philosophy to become detached from people's everyday lives. The third claim is that Scott Soames, Kripke, and some other analytic philosophers assert that analytic philosophy did not come about to improve our human lives or the art of living.

We must distinguish between two things; first, the relationship of analytic philosophy with human existence and human life, the value of human beings, ethics, the meaning of human flourishing, the relationship of humans with one another, the issue of politics, and the issue of social relations; and second, the title of this program, which is Analytic Philosophy and Everyday Life.

The meaning of everyday life is that today, for instance, I buy oranges; I drink milk or I don't; I like other people's posts and photos on Instagram or I don't; this is everyday life. The notion that philosophy and philosophical thinking have a connection to everyday life is, in my opinion, one hundred percent wrong. It was not so from the beginning, nor is it now, nor should it be, and this stems entirely from a serious deviation, due to the trivialization of human life that we have fallen into; unfortunately, with the increasing intrusion of virtual space into our lives. Virtual space, apart from its merits which are not my topic now, has great harms, and one of the most important is filling the faculty of estimation and imagination of humans with contentless or low-content and fleeting images and news. Our minds become filled with images, and our

Regarding analytic philosophy and everyday life, it must be said that according to the principle of context, every question is raised within a context. The question, for example, "What time is it?" can have different meanings in different contexts. For instance, near the turn of the year and during Ramadan, this question "What time is it?" has one meaning, and when a passerby asks you this question, it has another meaning and expects a different answer from you. In the context we are in now, the question of what analytic philosophy is differs from when we ask this question in a doctoral dissertation defense session. So, when we ask what analytic philosophy is in everyday life, we must also discuss the concept of everyday life. We all know that analytic philosophy has multiple definitions, and there is dispute over it, and a single consensus on its definition has still not been reached.

In the context we are in for this discussion, when we ask "What is analytic philosophy?" we are not seeking a precise, analytical definition of analytic philosophy; rather, our point of emphasis in this discussion is everyday life. I define analytic philosophy within the general framework of philosophy, and I mean that definition of analytic philosophy which is characterized by two specific tasks: one is conceptual explanation and analysis, and the other is argumentation and justification, both of which, of course, take place within critical examination and scrutiny.

We can have two conceptions of what philosophy itself is, and consequently what analytic philosophy is. One is an elitist conception, and the other is a non-elitist conception. In the elitist conception, we consider philosophy to be specific and exclusive to a particular class of individuals who have specific academic training and have been educated to work in this field; but in the non-elitist conception, such a view does not exist. In the non-elitist conception, which, as it happens, was held by one of the important analytic philosophers, namely Popper, he says that every man and woman is a philosopher, only some are better philosophers. This non-elitist conception of philosophy and analytic philosophy is more relevant to our discussion. It has certainly happened to you that sometimes you encounter an individual who has wisdom in their speech, and when you sit down to listen to this person, you see that they speak of issues that, as it happens, top-tier philosophers might also speak about, and it is right here that analytic philosophy connects to everyday life.

Another point that can be made about the difference between philosophy and other disciplines is that disciplines like physics, chemistry, or mathematics cannot be understood in a non-elitist way, but the humanities in general, and especially philosophy, are not like this; that is, non-elitist and non-professional conceptions of the humanities are also possible. This is why, for example, if someone in a taxi asks you, "What is your job?" if you answer that you teach physics or chemistry, the question and answer end right there, and you subsequently talk about other things. But if you say you teach philosophy, the next question will be, "Well, what is this philosophy?" So we can present philosophy in such a framework.

In answer to the question of what the relationship of philosophy or analytic philosophy is to everyday life, we must fundamentally see what conceptions of philosophy exist and with what motivations individuals turn to philosophy. An error that may occur here is the conception that we have only one type of philosophizing, as if individuals turn to philosophy with only one motivation and philosophy is only one kind, whereas, as has been realized in the history of philosophy, we have various conceptions of philosophy. I will refer here to four conceptions of philosophy. My main source for this classification is Richard Creel's classification in the book Thinking Philosophically, with the explanation that I have made that classification more concise and, in my opinion, more streamlined.

The first conception is epistemic, meaning that philosophy is the understanding of the world and reality. In other words, philosophy as knowledge of the world, but multiple and fragmented knowledges, and, as Isaiah Berlin put it, a fox-like knowledge of the world. The fox knows many things. In this conception, people turn to philosophy with the motivation of seeking knowledge.

Another conception is the transcendental conception, and if we again wish to draw on Isaiah Berlin's terminology, it is a hedgehog-like knowledge; that is, it looks at the world as a whole and seeks to reduce the entire world to one, two, or three principles, arriving at a totalizing knowledge.

The third conception, the motive for turning to philosophy, is curiosity, and here we can regard philosophy as a puzzle or riddle, a kind of engaging intellectual game. This is philosophy for philosophy's sake. In this view, we have no particular aim in philosophizing. It seems that contemporary analytic philosophy sometimes holds this view of philosophy.

The fourth conception of philosophy, or the fourth motive for turning to philosophy, is the motive of living well, and philosophy as a kind of wisdom that helps us live in this world, and not merely live, but live well. This conception was most prominent in the period of ancient Greece.

So we have four motives for studying philosophy, corresponding to four conceptions of philosophy: the epistemic motive, the transcendental motive, the motive of curiosity and intellectual play, and the motive of living well.

If we keep these four conceptions in mind, we can also assess the relationship of analytic philosophy to these four conceptions. With these explanations, if I were to say "What is analytic philosophy?" in my view, the work of philosophy and analytic philosophy is clarification, analysis, and critique. Clarification in the sense that we try to reveal unstated presuppositions, unstated, unspecified, and unsaid claims; we even try, through conceptual analysis, assessment, and clarification, to reveal the prejudices we hold about reality, value, and about ourselves and others. We usually have beliefs acquired from family, school, and environment that are often uncriticized and harmful, and by examining and assessing them, we try to establish a better relationship with the world and with ourselves. These presuppositions often direct our actions and behavior, and by reviewing and assessing these presuppositions and prejudices, we may be able to steer our actions and thoughts in the right direction. Socrates' famous dictum, "The unexamined life is not worth living," is, in my opinion, raised in this context. Examining, testing, and scrutinizing life is the scrutiny of all these things, and after revealing these presuppositions, it is time for the critique and further examination of these beliefs. Here, philosophy is in the service of life and the examination and testing of life.

Another point I must mention regarding the relationship between philosophy and everyday life is that we can understand the relationship between philosophy and everyday life in two senses. Sometimes we mean a professional sense of this issue, and sometimes we may mean not the professional but the general sense. At the professional level, a philosopher might professionally engage with the categories of everyday life and analyze them at a professional, academic level. Concepts we encounter in everyday life, such as love, betrayal, fidelity, and even very mundane concepts like disgust! We have a philosopher who has conceptually analyzed disgust (not to mention that the phenomenon of disgust has also been studied by psychologists); that is, a philosopher may even conduct analysis at this level and have no qualms about being accused of engaging with superficial matters. At this level, it does not matter how transcendent and lofty or how mundane and everyday the subject of analysis is. What matters is the light shed upon these concepts and phenomena and the analysis we hear from that philosopher. It may seem paradoxical, but sometimes the analysis of superficial subjects causes our view of the world to become deeper, and what else did we want from philosophy?!

Another level of the relationship between philosophy and everyday life is what we call the more public level; that is, a philosopher addresses a larger number of people and speaks about everyday life. A good example of this level of philosophy and everyday life is the work of Alain de Botton[6], whose works have fortunately been widely translated in Iran and have also been well received. For instance, in the book Social Virtues, de Botton, through psychological and philosophical analyses, tries to give us a better understanding of these categories and, for example, tells us what politeness is. What is the difference between flattery and politeness? What is civility? All of these are everyday concepts, and after reading de Botton's analyses, we arrive at a better understanding of these categories.

Mohammad Reza Vaez: In your view, what does a philosopher do when they turn to the categories of everyday life? Or what does philosophy specifically do with everyday life?

Babak Abbasi: Here I would like to explain two axes regarding what a philosopher can do about everyday life.

I think the first thing a philosopher does is to deepen our understanding of ourselves and the world, and the second task is to enrich our lives.

To enter this discussion, I think no philosopher is more suitable than Socrates, and I choose him as an entry point to this discussion, because Socrates' work was dealing with everyday life in its most general sense. Everyday life can be encompassed in lofty concepts like justice as well as more mundane concepts. Here, the question might arise: was Socrates even an analytic philosopher? In response to this doubt, two points can be noted. One is that it is unlikely that analytic philosophers would want to deny their connection to Socrates and claim that what they do is completely alien to what Socrates did, and the second answer is that even today, what analytic philosophers do is very similar to what Socrates did; very prominent examples are Wittgenstein[7] and Russell. [8] Socrates, as evidenced by the dialogues Plato recorded, entered into conversations about everyday life in the deepest possible sense. In the sense that he took a conversation with a slave as seriously as a conversation with a free person, and he took a conversation with a prostitute as seriously as a conversation with a politician, and if it is no coincidence that we consider Socrates the father of philosophy, this point should clarify a great deal about what the main task of philosophy is.

If we consider understanding to be one of the most important intellectual virtues, what Socrates did was to question concepts, question beliefs, question prejudices and presuppositions with the aim of deeper understanding, and as I said before, one of the things a philosopher does in relation to everyday life is to bring us to a deeper understanding, and in this endeavor, the philosopher's intention is not necessarily to find answers. Socrates was not seeking a final answer and was more in pursuit of enlightenment. By posing good questions, Socrates tried to expand and broaden the horizon of his interlocutor's awareness and make them more conscious of themselves and the world. Sometimes Socrates did what is today called confrontation in psychology, which is a kind of facing, and if this is done correctly, at the right time, in its proper place, and in an effective manner, it can transfer the individual to a new level of awareness.

Another point we see in the Socratic dialogues is that those conversations do not necessarily and always lead to an answer, and most of the time they remain unanswered. And this, of course, is the nature of philosophical thinking. When we begin to think about concepts, we only then realize that matters are not as simple as we thought. A famous saying attributed to Augustine goes: "As long as no one asks me what time is, I know what it is. But as soon as I am asked about it, I no longer know what it is." In fact, what Socrates was doing, namely conceptual analysis, is one of the places where this deeper understanding occurs, and it is one of the things common in contemporary analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophers, for example, analyze the concept of knowledge or value, and they may not reach a definitive answer either. For instance, this situation arises very often in university epistemology classes. For example, we begin to define the concept of knowledge. We say it seems that knowledge is belief, then we say that sometimes our beliefs are false, so belief alone cannot be knowledge. Then we say knowledge is justified true belief and continue the analysis, saying we might have arrived at a true belief accidentally or by chance (like when we flip a coin and our guess turns out to be correct), and then we conclude that knowledge is a true belief for which we have evidence and insight, but later, with philosophical scrutiny, it turns out that even this definition is not without problems, and ultimately we conclude that we still do not know exactly what knowledge is. I usually tell students at the end of these discussions that they should not feel despair and think they have come away empty-handed; because by the end of the discussion, their understanding of knowledge has become deeper and more precise than before, and this should not be considered a small achievement.

In my view, this is the most important thing philosophy does. Philosophy is the enemy of superficiality and a superficial life, and from this perspective, we can once again establish a link between philosophy and everyday life, especially in a world where numerous factors exist: such as media and various ideologies that seek to manipulate our minds. It is here that the struggle against superficial thinking and the aid to deeper understanding can help us live a better life.

I said that philosophy does two things: one was deepening our understanding. The second task is enriching our lives. When philosophy reaches everyday life, by proposing new possibilities for being and thinking, it enriches our lives, and in this respect, the work of the philosopher resembles that of the artist and can put forward various, multiple, and diverse answers. For example, in response to the question "How should we live?", different philosophical schools have different answers. For instance, the Stoics and the Epicurean school in the ancient world showed us what different options we have for living and enriched life by proposing different values, or in the modern world, for example, the philosophy of Montaigne or the philosophy of Nietzsche opened up various possibilities of living before human beings.

The last point I should mention concerns the relationship that analytic philosophy can establish with reasons for action. Some believe that Socrates did not pose the question of how to live; rather, he mostly tried to enlighten with the motto "the unexamined life is not worth living" and compel the individual to rethink life, but he himself had no advice on how one should live. Nevertheless, and whether this interpretation is correct or not, in philosophy we have schools that answer this question of how one should live: like the Stoic school, which has been revived today in the contemporary world, or the Epicurean school, or other schools that are put forward in ethical systems; such as virtue ethics, which provide reasons for action to human beings and help individuals to have a coherent intellectual system for how to live.

Since the discussion is about analytic philosophy, it is better to say at the end, as a criticism of analytic philosophy, that according to those four conceptions I mentioned, if our conception of analytic philosophy is philosophy for philosophy's sake and philosophy as a puzzle and intellectual game, then the question of what relation philosophy has to everyday life is not a very relevant question. But if you consider philosophy as a way of life, this criticism of analytic philosophy is valid that analytic philosophy sharpens the knife of analysis more and more, but it is not clear what this sharp knife is supposed to cut.

As a final word, I would like to quote here a sentence by Unamuno from his book The Tragic Sense of Life. He says: "Sometimes analytic philosophy so thoroughly picks apart the cotton of truths that nothing remains of the truth but dust." In my view, if analytic philosophers are not entirely carefree and unburdened by the concern for relevance and connection, they must be careful about how far these analyses and this sharpening of the knife are supposed to continue and to which part of human life they relate. Fortunately, it seems that this concern for relevance and connection is also on the rise in our Iran today, and those engaged in analytic philosophy are increasingly trying to broaden their audience so that they can contribute to the improvement of our lives.

Mohammad Reza Vaez: If we consider all ethical, political, social, and cultural discussions as flowing within everyday life, does your discussion pertain to these concepts in everyday life or not? That is, in your view, are these subjects only examinable at a higher level and by philosophers?

Ebrahim Azadegan: I have separated two discussions; meaning, for example, if my car breaks down, I take it to a repair shop, or I eat food, or whether I like a certain food or not, that is one discussion, and the other discussion is human life in the general sense of the word. There is no doubt that analytic philosophy specifically addresses ethical, political, and other such issues, but with the phrase "everyday life," I think we are, in a way, trivializing philosophical discussions.

Mohammad Reza Vaez: Thomas Nagel[9] has an article derived from his famous lecture, titled "Analytic Philosophy and Human Life"[10]. The point here is, when we say everyday life, is its meaning different from human life? Or are both actually the same, or at least do they share commonalities?

Hossein Sheikhrezaei: The only point in the discussion so far that is my personal opinion and which I defend, and with which Dr. Azadegan, at least in the example I gave, did not disagree, is the issue of Socrates and the beginning of philosophy, which is specifically related to everyday life, and I will elaborate more on it. I also raised two other points, though not as my personal opinion. To say that Soames, Kripke, and the like mean something else is not, in my view, very defensible. I stated their sentences without my own interpretation. But regarding Socrates, I still believe that his work and words are related to everyday life. However, the main issue that I understood from Dr. Azadegan's formulation, and where I think the disagreement lies, is the underestimation of everyday life, and this, in my opinion, is a very lowly interpretation of everyday life.

Dr. Azadegan believes that everyday life means things like wanting to go to the supermarket in the morning or taking my car to the repair shop, whereas the meaning of philosophy is very lofty and profound, and if it is linked to such matters, it will become vulgar! I want to say that there is no such separation between everyday life and human life, and as soon as you consider any of the activities of everyday life, it will inevitably be connected to that human life. For example, in Dr. Azadegan's interpretation, going to the stadium and watching football is an act of everyday life, but at the same time, you live in a society that does not allow women into the stadium; some people, like me, are affected by such a situation prevailing in society, and there are also those who provide theoretical justifications for it, such as that it causes arousal and the like. From this point on, going or not going to the stadium for men is a meaningful act, and you cannot understand its meaning and make a decision about it unless you bring into it what we call human life. In the sense that here the issue of human dignity, democracy, and nationalism will arise, and it is not at all the case that you can decide on a very simple matter of everyday life without bringing in your human values. Dr. Azadegan, who to this day does not have an Instagram account, which pertains to everyday life, probably has a human reason for it, such as that this environment is, say, vulgar and causes a waste of time. Much has been discussed about the connection between the actions of everyday life and those values and things that Dr. Azadegan believes philosophy has been occupied with for two thousand years, and for me, neither philosophically nor practically, is it conceivable that one could draw a boundary line and say that here is the realm of trivial and vulgar everyday life, and philosophy pertains to a more transcendent realm. For example, if you want to change your car's oil and decide whether to use Iranian oil or foreign oil, that itself is an issue. The very fact that you believe you are using a poor-quality Iranian product but are using domestically produced goods, or that you must use a foreign product—all of this is everyday life in which thought and analysis are involved.

In our society, the issue of women, the issue of minorities, the type of governance, etc., are intertwined with buying lentils and beans, changing oil, and going to the stadium, and one cannot draw a line and say this part is everyday life and that part is human life. Therefore, my main issue is the difference of opinion I have with Dr. Azadegan regarding the interpretation of everyday life. The final point is that the depth of an issue is not in its appearance, but in how you look at it; that is, if you look at these very issues of everyday life from a philosophical perspective and with philosophical analysis, they will become philosophical issues.

Mohammad Reza Vaez: I am very sympathetic to your examples. For instance, we live in a country where transgender people face many problems.

Hossein Sheikh-Rezaei: That is precisely the point. I can give many examples, but what is common to all of them is that the smallest issues you choose, every decision you make, or without exaggeration, many of your decisions, are decisions that have social, political, and ethical dimensions, and you cannot resolve them without considering human values. The issue is not that we do not think about those values when we make routine everyday decisions; their involvement does not need to be conscious, but the very fact that you realize that when those values change, decisions will consequently change as well, means that these are interconnected. The fact that we do not think about them and do not consciously involve them in our lives will quickly become apparent when we change the context of our society or change time and history, revealing that these are intertwined.

Mohammadreza Vaez: So Dr. Azadegan drew a distinction between everyday life and human life, and considered philosophy to be more concerned with the truth of the world and with addressing higher and more transcendent matters. But Dr. Sheikh-Rezaee, through a conceptual analysis of everyday life and its relation and connection to human life, tried to show that these two cannot be considered as two separate things, and that one cannot say philosophy is related to one and not the other. Perhaps these two are not separable or distinguishable at all.

Ebrahim Azadegan: I agree one hundred percent with Dr. Sheikh-Rezaee's remarks. That our philosophical thoughts influence everything we do in life is entirely correct and beyond dispute. My point is whether the philosopher's task in doing philosophy is to address the problems of everyday life? Or, for instance, is the philosopher's task to speak about the importance of human rights and its foundations, to write books and give talks, and as a result, for a society to adopt philosophical and well-considered thoughts within its social, moral, and political system and to see its effect on the lifestyle of the individuals in that society? These two must be distinguished. Just like mathematics, where the mathematician's work may influence engineering calculations or even technological advances, but the mathematician is merely doing their own theoretical work. It is the same with philosophy. Philosophy addresses serious questions of life, and these answers and thoughts certainly influence our lives.

Mohammadreza Vaez: Dr. Azadegan, if you look at the topics of this dossier, you will realize that we perhaps do not have much difference of opinion, because we have explicitly titled it Analytic Philosophy and the Meaning of Life.

Ebrahim Azadegan: Now, words are important. I am worried that our philosophical systematicity might also fall prey to this; as I see it, we have philosophical schools that have approached this vulgarity. The reason, as I said, is the desire to become famous, to get more likes, and even to attract financial resources from organizations that want to embellish their own ideas under the guise of philosophical titles. Some, under the pretext of paying attention to application and the importance of everyday life, disseminate their unsubstantiated and contentless talk in the media space. I am sensitive to this manner of making philosophy everyday, but I have no problem with working on or thinking about human life. I am only afraid that we might all fall into vulgarity.

Mohammadreza Vaez: This discussion of what vulgarity means also needs to be unpacked to some extent. Your initial view was that you saw philosophy as sublime, in a way that it deals with the truth of the world, yet at the same time, you are sympathetic to the idea that philosophy deals with humanity and ethics. I think you are making philosophy exclusive in a way that it is only concerned with epistemology, practiced by specific individuals in specific universities, philosophers who have no connection to people's lives at all. Perhaps I personally oppose this, lest analytic philosophy seeks to make philosophy exclusive with this viewpoint and separate it entirely from human life. It is true that we believe analytic philosophy also addresses ethics and politics, and you agree with that, but your fear is the use of the word

Hossein Sheykh Rezaei: We have now moved from Dr. Azadegan’s initial claim that everyday life is banal or lacks the depth it should have, to another claim of his, which is whether it is the task of the philosopher and analytic philosophy to address the subjects of everyday life or not. My personal view is that there is no doubt that analytic philosophy, in many cases, takes the form of its problems from everyday life. All the issues raised in moral philosophy, political philosophy, the philosophy of social sciences, and the philosophy of science take their form from everyday life. So, this connection is clearly established from one side; that is, if you did not have the act of torture, for instance, there would be no discussion about the concept of torture, white torture, and its permissibility or impermissibility in ethics.

But I am fundamentally opposed to defining a mold and saying that philosophy must be this way, and usually defining that mold based on the work we ourselves do and saying that philosophy is nothing other than this. I have no problem with a philosopher theorizing about the most abstract subjects that have no connection whatsoever to everyday life, but I do have a problem with saying that this is the task of philosophy or that philosophy must do this.

Dr. Azadegan and I share a common point, which is that what is raised in high philosophy has an impact on everyday life. However, a philosopher might say that since this impact has been proven, I, as a philosopher, have a duty to do something to enhance life and everyday existence. Another philosopher might say that this part is none of his concern, that an intermediary link is needed, a reformer who listens to the philosopher’s words and uses them to reform society. In my opinion, both of these conceptions are respectable, and one cannot say that philosophy should never, under any circumstances, address how to help enhance everyday life, and that if it does so, this is not philosophical work. Unfortunately, this attitude is common in our society, where everyone makes the work they themselves do the standard. For example, if I am interested in one branch of philosophy, I consider the other branches worthless and unsanitary. In my view, it is entirely possible for someone to be a genuine philosopher and for their goal to be the enhancement of everyday life.

It is interesting to note that at the very heart of analytic philosophy, people like the logical positivists engaged in purely theoretical work with the fundamental motivation of social betterment. It is very interesting that figures like Carnap, Neurath, and Schlick had a motivation for social reform with a leftist approach and thought that if we could reduce the evil of certain things in philosophy and metaphysics, we could achieve a more ethical life. Therefore, diversity must be recognized. Someone might have a motivation for social reform and do purely theoretical work; someone else might not believe at all that one must do something for society and only do theoretical work; and yet another person might think the philosopher’s task is the enhancement of everyday life.

I should also say something about vulgarization, and that is that Dr. Azadegan rightly believes that we must be concerned about vulgarization, meaning that not just anyone can state obvious things and claim to be elevating society, calling it philosophy. I completely agree with this. However, another kind of vulgarization can lie in wait for us on the other side. Analytic philosophy is to a large extent apolitical, and this apolitical nature is the best thing in societies where rulers prefer citizens not to engage in political issues. In this respect, analytic philosophy actually has a weakness, in that it does not concern itself with the individual's larger worldview frameworks and can turn into a kind of scholastic philosophy; in this way, in analytic philosophy you enter into discussions of very minute matters and leave untouched how you think at a higher level. Indeed, one meaning of the vulgarization of philosophy in Iran, in a specific form, is precisely this: that analytic philosophy says it has no concern for everyday life, that it is thinking at a higher level, that its questions are universal, and that it is connected to an international community. Becoming vulgarized here means that a philosopher constantly narrows and restricts the conditions of their own rational life and says that no matter how much superstition and ignorant beliefs exist outside, as long as my academic position remains untouched and I live in my academic bubble, there is no problem. This philosophy is entirely acceptable from the viewpoint of governments that do not want the university environment to become politicized. It is, in fact, an interesting point that analytic philosophy was very well received in the seminaries, because it bears interesting resemblances to our traditional and scholastic type of philosophizing. So vulgarization is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, you might say that yes, analytic philosophy is vulgarized, because anyone who talks about everyday life lacks that philosophical precision but claims to be philosophical, and people think this is philosophy. This is completely true, but another danger also lies in wait, and that is that you constantly nitpick the arguments of your peers in the academic world and are absorbed in your own philosophy, but are indifferent to external events and say that your only duty is to reveal deep truths and consider your audience to be only the specific people who write articles on your subject. This indirectly reinforces the undemocratic conditions in which we live and is desirable for the type of governance we have in many countries.

Mohammadreza Vaez: We are faced with two viewpoints here. The first viewpoint sees analytic philosophy in connection with life, and the second says that although analytic philosophy deals with matters and discussions about human life, its connection to everyday life, from Dr. Azadegan's perspective, is the vulgarization of philosophy, and philosophy should not be brought down to this level.

Dr. Azadegan, do you agree with the raising of philosophical discussions in social media, such as the live holding of this very current dossier "Analytic Philosophy in Everyday Life" or past dossiers like "From Science to Pseudoscience," "Feminism in Our Time," and "An Analysis of the Implementation of Philosophy for Children in Iran" on the Instagram platform? In each of these dossiers, we addressed the subject at hand with a critical and philosophical perspective, and the general public who were on Instagram were also able to view it. The general public, for example, does not attend the sessions of the "Iranian Institute of Philosophy" or go to the philosophy of science group at Sharif University to sit and listen to a philosophy professor. It is very interesting that, for instance, three hundred people simultaneously watched our program "A Critique and Review of Energy Healing" on Instagram, and when we conducted a survey after the program, the audience feedback showed very good effects. Overall, I intend to say that minimal or even deep impacts can be seen in these very public spaces. In general, are you opposed to raising philosophical discussions in the public sphere, or at least using the philosophical and critical method for everyday life issues—not merely presenting philosophical content—in social media like Instagram?

Ebrahim Azadegan: Yesterday Dr. Legenhausen[11] sent me an article that was, in a way, a critique of the space in which human beings are trapped and cannot express their idealistic humanist views. There was an interesting example in that article about an NBA official who tweeted about the events that took place in Hong Kong last year, where the Chinese government had put pressure on the region's democracy and people had demonstrated, and in that tweet he had supported the people of Hong Kong. The next day, the Chinese government banned the broadcast of American basketball on Chinese television. The author of that article wrote that the National Basketball Association lost millions of dollars, and afterwards, everyone involved in American basketball fell silent, and the official in question implicitly apologized, and after that apology, the television broadcast of American basketball games in China resumed.

The fact that individuals in this space seek a large number of followers and commenters might be important for a restaurant or a clothing brand store, but the only place where it should not matter at all is a philosophical lecture. Worse than this is a situation where philosophical theories are constructed and adjusted based on the demands of government organizations, and philosophizing is done to support a particular type of idea based on payment. These are the points of the vulgarization of philosophy, which can happen under the pretext of being useful, being efficient, and bringing philosophy closer to the issues of the day.

Furthermore, the context itself, and even the environment of philosophical discussion, must be far from populism. For instance, where various platforms exist for social activities and can be used to disseminate theories and debate with thinkers, a space like Instagram, which is limited to photos, videos, and audience taste, is not a suitable place for philosophical discussion. The place for philosophical discussion is in universities, where individuals have read papers in the field under discussion or are at least serious thinkers; and of course, the discussions that take shape there, if deep and correct, will gradually have their impact on society.

Dr. Sheikh-Rezaee agreed with me on the first type of vulgarization, that individuals make superficial statements, label them as philosophy, and seek to advance their ideology through those discussions. But regarding the second type of vulgarization he mentioned, I do not know why he used the word vulgarization for it. If philosophy addresses questions that are not necessarily our questions today, this is a kind of ivory tower retreat and a kind of separation from the masses, which is not a flaw at all. This has always existed in the philosophical community. Avicenna and Ghazali debated among themselves about God's knowledge of particulars, but this was not a question people asked each other on the street! Or, for example, Hegel's dispute with Kant over whether individuals or society are the source of the normativity[12] of ethics was not the talk of the people in Germany. Therefore, it is not necessary for philosophical discussions to relate to everyday life; but in the long run, they may enter everyday life, and I do not consider this vulgarization, but rather a kind of elitism[13]. You might say that the current social climate in Iran requires individuals, instead of this type of philosophizing, to engage in a kind of philosophizing that is more related to our people's problems and our social and political issues, and these matters are more serious for us. I agree with this to some extent, and I think our philosophical perspective can be influenced by or based on the political and social concerns of today's society, and on this point, I agree with Dr. Sheikh-Rezaee.

Mohammad Reza Vaez: I think this point of commonality is also an important point, because I know people who do serious philosophical work in the field of analytic philosophy and reject even this point of commonality, rejecting the belief that the social climate in Iran needs such activities.

Dr. Azadegan considers the place of philosophy to be the philosophy faculty or philosophical associations, which we do not deny, but the philosophical discussions that take place at the academic level and are intended for a philosophical audience differ from the philosophical method used on social media; in other words, the use of a critical approach—that is, questioning, creating inquiry, and deep analysis of social issues on social media, whose audience is, in fact, more general. Certainly, the discussions that Dr. Sheikhrezaei, Dr. Abbasi, and I raise on Instagram are either not addressed in the philosophy faculty, or are addressed with a different style and method. We are all active on social networks with a shared social concern.

Hossein Sheikhrezaei: These few points I want to make may help the discussion. An issue we did not address, but which you alluded to in your remarks, is that how we define analytic philosophy influences the stance we take toward it. If we understand analytic philosophy in its traditional sense and in its origins, the result is that philosophy advances through the understanding of ideas and linguistic analysis. But if we understand analytic philosophy as a philosophical method that tries to be argumentative and conceptual, it enters into classification and details, and proceeds by first having a definition, then addressing counterexamples to it, and then refining it; this philosophical method has a different relationship with everyday life. On the other hand, if we consider analytic philosophy to include post-analytic philosophy—that is, a philosophy in which a turn has occurred and topics of metaphysics, empirical sciences, ethics, and politics have entered—then this relationship takes on yet another meaning. Therefore, it is important how we understand analytic philosophy. This is precisely what Glock also tries to do in that book, and other people have this project as well. At least my personal view is that, for now, we should understand the issue in terms of style and method, although this conception is not without problems, meaning that not all analytic philosophy necessarily falls under this umbrella. But for now, we understand analytic philosophy in this sense: analytic philosophy means argumentative philosophy, and we are going to talk about the relationship of this argumentative philosophy with everyday life.

Another point is that we had the concept of everyday life even before the emergence of cyberspace and social networks, and these two should not be considered synonymous or identical in meaning. If social networks and the internet space are now dominant, we should not confine all of everyday life to this; although an important part of everyday life now consists of virtual issues, a large part of it still lies outside. So, when we speak of this relationship, we should consider it more broadly and not confine it solely to pathology or discussion about cyberspace.

The third point that will clarify my position is that we must draw a line between applied philosophy[14] and practical philosophy[15] on the one hand, and public philosophy[16] on the other. No one has any problem with those two, applied and practical philosophy, as branches of philosophy. I know of no philosopher who does not consider a philosophy directed at a specific domain of life to be philosophy. Today we have a practical and applied philosophy for everything. For example, in medicine, football, and the internet. This is not the point of our disagreement, and Dr. Azadegan has no issue with it either; when we speak of the relationship between analytic philosophy and everyday life, we must classify and understand it under public philosophy. Public philosophy is where one tries to express, for the general public, something of that analytic philosophy which is discussed at the university, academic level, and in articles, and thereby enhance the quality of everyday life. This, too, is a style of philosophizing that must be recognized and is defensible, and those who do this work may be top-tier academic philosophers who have devoted part of their time to academic work but also hold a public commitment for themselves. Alongside these, there are also those who may not be top-tier philosophers but are intermediaries and try to build a two-way bridge, meaning they present philosophical discussions to ordinary citizens in a way that helps people's lives, and on the other hand, extract issues from what citizens are grappling with, formulate them philosophically, and perhaps provide problems to philosophers who are more distant from the society of ordinary people. Therefore, if you ask my opinion, I fully believe that public philosophy is a part of philosophy and not an intellectual endeavor.

We all have theories that we might bring up at a party or write on our personal pages in cyberspace as citizens, expressing our satisfaction or dissatisfaction with something. But, if as someone who has studied philosophy we can formulate them philosophically, present them in the form of arguments, and thereby help enhance the quality of citizenship, this is a recognized and important branch of philosophy, and it does not mean the vulgarization of philosophy, nor is it non-philosophical work. Certain parts of pure philosophy, such as ethics, critical thinking, or political philosophy and the like, are much more suitable for this, whereas philosophy of language and metaphysics may not be suitable for this, and this is neither a virtue nor a flaw, because according to the teachings of analytic philosophy, we know that these form networks with one another, and for example, what you say in metaphysics can quickly manifest itself in moral philosophy, and what moral philosophy says can manifest itself in aesthetics. Therefore, if someone can express the problems of everyday life for the general public in the form of philosophy and, as a philosopher, have added value, and on the other hand, present the problems of everyday life in a way that attracts the attention of philosophers distant from society, this is a part belonging to philosophy and is entirely respectable, and doing this work becomes more important day by day, and this is, in a way, the social responsibility of philosophy.

The final point is that some professional philosophers do this work as a secondary interest. For example, Simon Blackburn[17] is a professional philosopher who has theories in ethics, but he also likes to do public work, and there are some philosophers who do this as their sole work, such as David Edmonds[18] and Nigel Warburton[19]. A philosopher may also not want to do such work or may not have the ability to do it, and this does not diminish their value in any way. In my opinion, what is important is that we recognize this branch of philosophy, to which some may be inclined and some may be indifferent.

Mohammadreza Vaez: What you articulated was an important distinction. Thank you for your explanations.

Dr. Azadegan, if you have any comments on this matter, please share them, and in the context of your remarks, kindly address this point as well: given that analytic philosophy has been around for over twenty years and has received more attention in recent years, have you examined its emergence and manifestation in political, social, and cultural relations? What is your lived experience in this regard?

Ebrahim Azadegan: I would like to correct a point that Dr. Sheikh-Rezaee made in the previous segment, and that is the socio-political impact of analytic philosophy. He believed that governments that are not pro-democracy or have no inclination toward democracy support this type of philosophizing. Contrary to his view, I want to say that one of the problems our society has is the problem of logical thinking. We face a serious lack of logical and rational thinking in our society. For example, a member of parliament speaks for an hour, and none of the sentences they use to reach a conclusion actually lead to the conclusion they intend. This model of illogical thinking will ultimately become the day-to-day politics in our society, and even if you ask that MP why they did something, they cannot find a justifiable reason for their action, because they have not received the necessary training in logical thinking and avoiding fallacies, and the importance of rational thinking has not been established for them. One of the things that analytic philosophy does, and which is influential in the long term, is that it prevents anyone from using any word carelessly, making them pay attention to the words they use and the sentences they utter, and see how they can rationally justify their work. This is one impact of analytic philosophy.

Another point, which I am sure Dr. Sheikh-Rezaee himself has noticed, is that there is a strange opposition to analytic philosophy and its development in Iran, and this is solely due to a superficial view of analytic philosophy. Many people imagine that analytic philosophy means logical positivism and try to portray it as dangerous. Perhaps it is also the case that serious thinking itself is opposed, and its growth and development are difficult.

In response to your question about how the development of analytic philosophy in Iran has been over the past twenty years, I must say that the philosophy department at the University of Tehran still, to this day, has not established a connection with analytic philosophy and is far removed from many contemporary analytic philosophical discussions; even though it is the engine of philosophy in the country. Even this level of development of analytic philosophy in Iran is thanks to the blessing of individuals who have returned from abroad. This development has made the philosophical atmosphere in Iran more up-to-date, and compared to twenty years ago, we see that Iranian philosophical thoughts are being published in the world, and serious philosophical connections have been established, all of which is thanks to the development of analytic philosophy.

Mohammadreza Vaez: Has the connection between this development and the political, social, and cultural relations of society become clear?

Ebrahim Azadegan: I don't have a specific opinion on this matter. Dr. Soroush has a book called Knowledge and Value, of which one million copies were printed in 1980, and the same goes for the books of Dr. Shariati and Professor Motahhari. Now, all philosophy books have a print run of no more than five hundred or a thousand copies. If our socio-political climate were to open up a bit and there were room for new thoughts to be valued, those working in analytic philosophy could also see the impact of their thoughts. But currently, our society's climate is very closed, and one cannot speak of these impacts.

Hossein Sheykh Rezaei: There are two points I need to raise here. Dr. Azadegan's remarks about the part on logical thinking and critical thinking, regarding our having better arguments in society, are certainly correct, but we must be careful that, firstly, this discussion falls within the very domain of public philosophy, and currently, in none of the philosophy departments in Iran do we have a course called critical thinking or applied logic at all, and as it happens, some officials and professional philosophers, when logic seeks to enter the public sphere, do not consider it proper logic based on mathematics. I completely agree with Dr. Azadegan on this, that this is among the services philosophy can offer society in the area of public philosophy, but we ourselves do not recognize it. So, that is the very nature of the problem, meaning you will not see work being done on this subject in any philosophy department in Iran.

Regarding the second point, that is, the state of Iran in the field of analytic philosophy, concerning the very book Dr. Azadegan mentioned, I must say that in the early years of the revolution in Iran, there was a period when expectations were extremely high for both Islamic philosophy and analytic philosophy, which had become linked with religious intellectualism, and philosophy was expected to reform the social situation, but this expectation gradually diminished. Yet, philosophy still holds a respected position in our society. The number of book titles published in the field of philosophy in Iran is perhaps unmatched in other disciplines, and philosophy still enjoys a respected status compared to many other subjects that are, as it happens, more relevant to society. The most important place where analytic philosophy has had a direct impact on everyday life is precisely the religious intellectualism movement of Dr. Soroush and many of his other students, whose work is analytic philosophy in the broad sense, meaning a kind of reasoning and avoidance of vague claims. This is the most important effect of analytic philosophy in our contemporary society. At one time, the analytic-continental divide in our society had become aligned with the reformist-conservative divide, or the divide between change and preserving the status quo, and this was the case at least for many years. Social relations in Iran underwent significant changes from the year 2009 onwards, but at least in the 1990s and 2000s, the analytic-continental philosophy divide seemed, in a sense, to have had such a condition.

A final point is that, in my view, if we consider public philosophy as a branch of philosophy, compared to other disciplines, philosophy still has little impact. Perhaps the point Dr. Azadegan made shows the difference in our perspectives. He believes that if the situation improves, analytic philosophy can manifest itself in society. But my question is, who should do something to achieve that better situation? A progressive force is needed to improve conditions. For example, comparing sociology with philosophy, I must say that the influence of sociology in Iran, through fueling discussions from a sociological perspective, has been much greater. Sociologists have made citizens look at events that occur from a sociological point of view. Analytic philosophy has not played such a role in society. Perhaps in an idealistic view, there is room for that philosophy, but analytic philosophy has never been a progressive social force for analyzing what happens in society.

Ebrahim Azadegan: I just wanted to say that I am grateful to you for these sessions and for your efforts to introduce philosophical discussions into the Iranian social space.

The final point I must make is that one cannot expect analytic philosophy, with its historical background and content, to be a pioneer of political and social transformations in Iran, and analytic philosophy was not built for this context, but it can, if needed, improve logical thinking and reasoning in Iranian society. If our society experiences a social rupture, there may be a need for a rationality to govern society and for ethical principles to be the basis of social movements, and that is the time when analytic philosophy can help our society achieve the necessary stability, and this will become clear in the future.

.

---

.

[1] Hans-Johann Glock, What is Analytic Philosophy?, translated by Yaser Khoshnevis, Tarjoman-e Olum-e Ensani Publications, 2015, Tehran.

[2] Scott Soames

[3] Saul Aaron Kripke 1940

[4] Soames, Scott (2003), Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century. Vol. 2: The Age of Meaning, Princeton University Press, p. xiv.

[5] Chick, Matt & LaVine, Matthew (2014). The Relevance of Analytic Philosophy to Personal, Public, and Democratic Life. Essays in Philosophy, 15 (1):138-155.

[6] Alian de Botton 1969

[7] Ludwing Josef Wittgenstein 1889-1951

[8] Bertrand William Russel 1872-1970

[9] Thomas Nagel 1937

[10] Analytic Philosophy and Human Life

[11] Muhammad legenhausen 1953

[12] normativity

[13] Elitism

[14] Applied philosophy

[15] Practical philosophy

[16] General philosophy

[17] Simon Blackburn is a contemporary English philosopher. His area of expertise is ethics. Blackburn is a follower of David Hume and has sought to offer a neo-Humean approach to philosophical questions. He is an opponent of figures such as Sam Harris, who believe that science can resolve moral issues. He is currently a professor of philosophy at the University of Cambridge and a research professor of philosophy at the University of North Carolina.

[18] David Edmonds (born 1964) is a producer of radio programs at the BBC. He holds a PhD in philosophy.

[19] Nigel Warburton (born 1962) is an English philosopher and a senior lecturer at the Open University in the UK, several of whose books have been translated into Persian.

.

---

.

It should be noted that the media outlet "Zeitoon" has edited and published the written text of the conversations in this dossier. The text of these conversations is accessible through this media outlet's Telegram channel:

https://t.me/zeitoons

Source: Zeitoon

.

---

.

The Analytic Philosophy in Everyday Life Dossier

14 conversations with philosophy professors and researchers; March and April 2022;

1. Roundtable: Analytic Philosophy and Everyday Life?! Participants: Hossein Sheykh Rezaee (Head of the Department of Science Studies, Iranian Institute of Philosophy), Ebrahim Azadegan (Head of the Faculty of Philosophy of Science, Sharif University), Babak Abbasi (Head of the Philosophy Department, Islamic Azad University, Tehran Science and Research Branch), Mohammadreza Vaez (Philosophy Researcher, University of Bonn, Germany);

Watch the video on YouTube | Aparat

.

2. Analytic Philosophy and the Meaning of Life from Thomas Nagel's Perspective

Guest: Javad Heydari, Faculty Member at Shahed University and Translator of Thomas Nagel's Works;

Watch the video on YouTube | Aparat

.

3. Analytic Philosophy and Critical Thinking Guest: Ali Hossein Khani (Faculty Member, Department of Science Studies, Iranian Institute of Philosophy, and Researcher at the Analytic Philosophy Research Group, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM));

Watch the video on YouTube | Aparat .

4. Roundtable: "Living Well in Analytic Philosophy and Continental Philosophy"; Guests: Babak Abbasi and Masoud Zanjani (Philosophy Instructor and Researcher);

Watch the video on YouTube | Aparat .

5. Analytic Philosophy and Aesthetics; Guest: Kaveh Behbahani (Translator and Philosophy Researcher);

Watch the video on YouTube | Aparat .

6. Analytic Philosophy and Science; Guest: Amir Ehsan Karbasizadeh (Faculty Member, Department of Philosophy, University of Isfahan);

Watch the video on YouTube | Aparat

.

7. Analytic Philosophy and Politics (John Rawls, Robert Nozick); Guests: Ali Moazami (Former Faculty Member, Islamic Azad University, Tehran Science and Research Branch);

Watch the video on YouTube | Aparat .

8. Roundtable: Analytic Philosophy and the Environment; Guests: Hossein Sheykh Rezaee and Amir Ehsan Karbasizadeh;

Watch the video on YouTube | Aparat .

9. Analytic Philosophy and Creative Tourism; Guest: Mozhgan Khalili (PhD in Philosophy);

Watch the video on YouTube | Aparat

.

10. Analytic Philosophy and Art; Guest: Amir Maziar (Faculty Member, Tehran University of Art);

Watch the video on YouTube | Aparat

.

11. Roundtable: Analytic Philosophy and the "Relationship between Science and Religion"; Guests: Ebrahim Azadegan, Hamed Safaeipour (PhD in Philosophy of Science);

Watch the video on YouTube | Aparat

.

12. Analytic Philosophy and Mathematics; Guests: Arezoo Eslami (Faculty Member, Department of Philosophy, San Francisco State University, USA) and Hossein Bayat (PhD in Philosophy of Science);

Watch the video on YouTube | Aparat .

13. Analytic Moral Philosophy and Psychotherapy

Guest: Mahmoud Moghaddasi, PhD in Philosophy and MA in Clinical Psychology;

Watch the video on YouTube | Aparat

.

14. Analytic Philosophy of Mind and Psychotherapy; Guest: Mehdi Nasrin (Psychotherapist and former faculty member of the Iranian Institute of Philosophy);

Watch the video on YouTube | Aparat

.

---

.