We have chosen Mark Kingwell as the first apocalyptic refugee to plead his case in defense of philosophy. Kingwell is an established author, academic, journalist and teacher. He has published 15 books (in the diverse fields of political philosophy, cultural theory, aesthetics and some more irreverent works), written for every media rag worth its salt (New York Times, Globe and Mail, This Magazine, The *ahem* Varsity), and garnered some impressive accolades (The Spitz Prize, an Honorary Doctorate from NSCAD). He is best known around campus for his years as the dynamic professor of PHL100 - Intro to Philosophy.

- Diana Wilson

My fellow travellers:

I’m going to leave aside the obvious point that, if push came to shove, you could combust my body for energy or consume it as food. The same can be said of almost anyone, and there are probably better fuel sources, certainly more delectable gustatory opportunities, among my colleagues.

So let me tell you a few of the things that philosophers do which they think they can do better than other people. This is the sort of thing we say when accused of infirm purpose or when accosted by some kid at career day who wants to go to law school. Here are the arguments we use:

1. The argument from critical thinking. Yes, philosophy is good for the brain. Argument is the derivation of conclusions from premises. Can’t tell what counts as a premise? Can’t say whether a derivation is valid or not? Come to us. Even the most apparently rational people are bad at argument. They just are. It’s not their fault. But refusing to do something about it is. Yes, this is why philosophy majors do so well on the LSAT.

2. The argument from conceptual clarification. You think you know what ‘real’ means. I can assure you that you don’t. It may take a while.

3. The argument from disciplinary investigation. The English philosopher R. G. Collingwood liked to imagine a scenario in which he confronts a physicist or medico and asks, with deepening emphasis, why they carry on the way they do. At some point, he notes, they will get frustrated and angry and just shout the equivalent of “It’s just what we do.” They assume, in other words, some ‘absolute presuppositions’ which are the conditions of possibility, typically tacit, of physics or medicine. Philosophers think it’s their job to make those tacit assumptions explicit. We’re pretty good at it, and yes, it does tend to make people angry. As a former student of mine said, “At parties people are always shouting at me, ‘Stop telling me what I’ trying to say’.”

4. The argument from literary diversion. Dialogues, fragments, poems, koans, meditations, confessions, treatises, critiques, essays, discourses, investigations, prolegomenas, tractatuses, notebooks, reflections, prefaces, polemics, manifestos, Philosophy is not literature in the sense of being fictional, but it is literary in the sense of always having a form. We’ve got all that covered.

5. The argument from crowd control. Noble lies, useful fictions, advice about cruelty and deception for princes and kings. We’ve got all that covered too. This could get messy, but you are in safe hands.

6. The argument from the meaning of life. Well, yes, there’s that. Philosophers aren’t necessarily wiser or better than other people. Many of them are quite nasty, to be honest. But at least they’re honest.

Of course, everything presented in arguments (1) through (6) is in the nature of distraction. Worse, such arguments surrender the field in advance to bad assumptions about utility—as if philosophy needs to be rescued from its uselessness. This cannot be done. Philosophy bakes no bread.

But it’s also the case that man does not live by bread alone. The paradox of philosophy is that you can only see that it’s worth doing when you’re already doing it. And so you cannot convince who hasn’t started that it is worth starting. It follows that you can never do philosophy for the first time. And so, finally:

7. The argument from because. I have questions for you, not answers; I offer problems rather than solutions. From your point of view, there is no good reason for me to get this seat.

And that’s exactly why you should give it to me.