1. Why do you call yourself a citizen philosopher?

Because that seems to be the best description for my own perspective. I am committed to a type of philosophy which is not the same as the formats operative in contemporary academic philosophy. This does not mean that I am opposed to the latter, and there may well be points of convergence here and there, for example, a recognition of the need for due analysis and reasoning. However, academic philosophy is so often bewildering to the public, who frequently tend to regard that activity as an aloof and impractical pursuit. At one extreme are those thinkers who incline to relativism and nihilism. Some of them find no ultimate meaning in anything.

I think that it is partly because of these drawbacks, and also because of the declining role of the Christian Church in modern society, that there has been so much popular interest in subjects like occultism and the hybrid “mind, body, spirit” trend celebrated in bookshops and alternative organisations. People so often do want a sense of meaning, and they are surely entitled to that, but they get fed with the license of consumerism and contrivance.

There are many things at issue in this complex situation, and academic philosophy is not answering the questions satisfactorily, if at all. Nor is the so-called new age of spiritual vision that has been aired in the alternative media. Nor is the Christian Church. Nor are the politicians and bureaucrats penetrating the surface of routine to what is often most needed but which instead gets neglected. The current performance of the Labour government in Britain is considered by many to be an appalling retrogression in terms of national wellbeing. When even violent crime on the streets is not tackled adequately, what hope is there of remedy for more advanced matters?

In stating my preference for a citizen philosophy, one of the things I am indicating is independence from establishment modes but a simultaneous avoidance of the “alternative” confusion that is now widespread. Viable philosophy is a discipline of the mind (and body), and great care has to be taken in distinguishing such due priorities from entertainments, superstition, cults, and commercial mysticism.

My version of philosophy does not rest content with abstractions. Instead, my approach includes analysis of social problems such as crime and yob delinquency (no. 5 below), and also the related hazard of drug use (no. 11 below). I have for long been concerned with ecological matters (no. 3 below). In some backward sectors, the problem of commercial mysticism is appended to ecological interests (no. 13 below), and there are related drawbacks in this “new spirituality” zone that require attention (no. 10 and no. 12 below). I also endeavour to survey data relating to the history of religion and philosophy (14-16 and 18-21 below). The obverse dimension to that data is the cult question, now an increasing social problem which is gaining attention from the more alert governments in Europe (22-24 below).

In more general cultural terms, art is not irrelevant to the discussion as a whole, though my orientation here is not the flippant contemporary yardstick now in favour (no. 25 below). There are also other subjects included in my published output and on this website.

See further my web entry Aspects of Citizen Philosophy (2009) and Philosophical Anthropography (2011).