Organized by the Langages, Literature, Society, Cross-Border and International Studies (LLSETI) at USMB and the Association of Public School Philosophy Teachers, the “Science, Opinion, Society” philosophy lecture series continues this Thursday, April 6, at 6:00 p.m. with the theme “Opinion in Democracy: From the Masses to the Public.” This lecture will take place at the University of Savoie Mont Blanc (USMB) administration building in Chambéry. It is open to the public with no registration required and will be held in Room 3 (27 Rue Marcoz, Chambéry).
Drawing on John Dewey’s pragmatist philosophy, philosophy professor Céline Bonicco sets out to reflect on the role of public opinion in democracy and how it can invigorate democracy—provided it is truly made public. The challenge of such a perspective is to move beyond the well-known critiques, dating back to Plato, regarding the ability of ordinary people to form relevant political judgments, without, however, succumbing to an irresponsible idealism that would accord equal value to all statements in the name of freedom of expression.
By distinguishing the public from the masses and the people, John Dewey offers a thought-provoking perspective for considering the conditions that enable citizens to define common interests and, building on that foundation, to develop the skills needed to fulfill them. Thus, reaching a common understanding appears to be a prerequisite for linking participation in democratic life with the acquisition of the qualities necessary to make sound judgments about matters of common concern. But a crucial question then arises: how can this common agreement emerge, and how can such common interests be defined?
This lecture will be led by Céline Bonicco, Professor of Philosophy at the Grenoble School of Architecture.
About the "Science, Opinion, Society" series
Our democracy, which should allow for open conflict of opinions, has instead become the scene of agonistic clashes of sensibilities that seem to have disqualified reason and rationality. Science, which cannot be dogmatic, is often rejected as a form of power, no doubt because it is used by those in power. Does this mean that the struggle to understand and make others understand is futile? If methodical and reasonable skepticism is a prerequisite for enlightenment, it cannot degenerate into denialist relativism or open the door to harmful obscurantism without causing damage. How, then, can we create genuine spaces for discussion?
LEARN MORE
- 2022-2023 Philosophy Lecture Series Program
- Summary of lectures
- LLSETI laboratory website
- Contact:Pascal Bouvier, member of the LLSETI laboratory and organizer of this conference series