A “Philos” of We
If you like reading about philosophy, here's a free, weekly newsletter with articles just like this one: Send it to me!
A “Philos” of We
As it is now, philosophy seems to exist in an isolated sphere, speaking without being heard by anyone but other philosophers. Who but other philosophers knows the details of Kant’s categorical imperative or Kuhn’s depiction of scientific revolutions? Philosophy of science, ethics, aesthetics — even we as philosophers seem to be limited to a mere sliver of knowledge, talking only amongst other specialists and to-be-specialists. We have overlooked another key function of philosophy as well as just acquiring knowledge: bridging gaps beyond itself.
In this essay, I will argue that, by acting as a common language, philosophy will allow us as a global society to build toward a more cohesive and integrated “we.” First, I will assert the need for a “philos” of we by discussing the crises at hand and considering the current state of the world. Next, I will delve deeper into the concept of a “philos” of we and discuss how philosophy can bring it about by serving as a lingua franca that allows for adequate communication. Then, I will explore how exactly we can use philosophy and implement it so that it can play a more central role in our society in a practical sense, addressing possible counterarguments along the way. Finally, I will describe what an ideal world — tied together by a “philos” of we — might look like, expressing how philosophy will ensure, not just a future, but the best future for humanity.
The Need for a “Philos” of We
The root cause of many existential threats is the ever-widening gap between disciplines, individuals, and societies. Like the cosmic acceleration of our physical universe, the universe containing our disciplines continues to expand, pulling them farther and farther away from each other in the process. Individual disciplines climbing higher and higher means little when progress — and by extension, humanity as a whole — remains fractured. Today’s politics and ethics, for example, seem to be playing a constant catch-up game when it comes to new technologies — a prominent contemporary case being artificial intelligence. What happens when we create something that we cannot backtrack from? What is science without the ethics and politics that are meant to guide it? A runaway car, with a blasting engine and no driver. This disconnect between disciplines — and the resulting chaos that ensues — is not limited to science, ethics, and politics; other disciplines, from medicine to art, seem to be plagued by the same issue. Thus, it is clear that the isolated expansion of disciplines can cause crises that we may not be able to fix, spelling disaster for humanity.
In addition to a disconnect between fields, a more general disconnect between individuals and societies exists. We are the most connected and isolated we have ever been. Platforms like social media and the larger Internet were intended to connect people across the world; despite this, it has become a battleground of competing narratives rather than a place for rational discussion. Every narrative seems to become more dogmatic — hoping to talk louder than the chaos of voices instead of resolving the chaos itself, shouting: “Louder, louder, louder! Give up on unattainable harmony; it is enough if we win.” Threats of large-scale wars and nuclear warfare loom over us, fed by widespread fear and the divisions that polarize us. We have lost the sense of the “we” that would help bridge these disconnects.
Historically, we have performed the best and accomplished the most when given a concrete “we” that binds us together. One context that has repeatedly confirmed this is war, where strategies are used to emphasize a sense of belonging within nations or allied groups — such as identifying a common enemy or shared threat. Doing this establishes a strong in-group identity (“us”) that stands against the out-group (“them”), increasing morale and a sense of belonging within the in-group. Despite this, the unity that war creates is a limited one; while war can strengthen the concept of “we” for one group, it often does so at the cost of overall societal divisions that can result in polarization and dehumanization of the out-group. Thus, anything other than an all-encompassing “we” is insufficient to ensure the future of humanity.
Fostering a love of the “we” that includes the entirety of humanity means establishing a universal language that transcends geographical, ideological, and cultural barriers. The isolation of disciplines, individuals, and societies mentioned previously creates a raucous confusion of voices, with each one disorientedly scouring for dominance. In a situation where people are unable to understand each other, they eventually become unwilling to listen. Resolving this chaos requires talking to each other instead of over each other, but this remains impossible so long as people cannot truly understand each other. A love of the “we” requires adequate communication between the members of that “we.” Therefore, what we are missing is a common language that would allow us to understand and communicate with each other.
Philosophy’s Role
I argue that philosophy, with its emphasis on intellectual humility and the facilitation of rational dialogue, can serve as this necessary bridge language. In other words, philosophy pushes us to recognize the limits of our own knowledge; by extension, it pushes us to seek out and have conversations with others who have differing perspectives, which can thus help us go beyond these limits. This can help foster a space where ideas can be exchanged and collaboration can occur — without the isolation-inducing defensive posturing that characterizes our contemporary society. Philosophy can link disparate disciplines and groups of people, allowing them to grow together in a more stable way.
In its current state, however, even philosophy is not exempt from the isolation that other disciplines are experiencing. It remains in an echo chamber, separated from the practical disciplines and people that it is supposed to help guide. Although certain fragments of philosophical ideas remain in an implicit form in societies today, the vast majority of philosophical methods — from systematic doubt to dialectical reasoning — remain unknown by the general public and experts in other fields. These methods are often confined to philosophical circles and classrooms, preventing philosophy from fulfilling its true potential at shaping discussions beyond just academic ones. Philosophy is not a secluded field, nor should it be treated like one: how can philosophers change the world if they cannot even touch it?
Regarding the isolation of both philosophy and other disciplines, various attempts have been made to address the issue by encouraging interdisciplinary learning in higher education (i.e. undergraduate studies). This can be seen through the efforts of educational institutions to implement strategies like mandatory general education courses, interdisciplinary majors that incorporate multiple fields, or even open curricula. Although this is a step in the right direction, it is not enough. The effects of these changes are still limited to those in higher academia. Consider a biology undergraduate student who is required to take a few courses on Kantian ethics. If they had no prior interest in philosophy, there is no guarantee that the ethical theories will be taught in a way that feels relevant or applicable to their primary field of study — biology. The mere act of exposing students to ideas within philosophy does not necessarily teach them to think like a philosopher — to practically apply philosophical methods to actual ethical dilemmas they face in the world. Even if the student was unusually receptive to these philosophical ideas, this does not do anything to change the fact that philosophy is an isolated echo chamber; it merely brings more people into it. Because of these factors, the philosophy learned in these courses often stays abstract and detached, as opposed to becoming a tool for navigating complex problems outside of academia.
An alternative way to address this within educational institutions might be to focus on teaching applied philosophy as well as the theory within philosophy. In addition to teaching classes that cover only the theory behind philosophy, it may be effective to implement seminars where students from a variety of disciplines (e.g. political science, philosophy, medicine, biology, etc.) can work on collaborative projects that tackle real-world problems. For instance, a project team could consist of philosophy, biology, and political science students working together on a case study about climate change, where philosophical frameworks help shape ethical and policy-oriented discussions. This would not only encourage students to consider multiple perspectives, but would also demonstrate the practical value of philosophy in large-scale, interdisciplinary problem-solving.
A Realized “Philos” of We
If successfully implemented in the real world, philosophy opens up the possibility of a true and concrete “philos” of we. This may look like scientists, politicians, and moral philosophers working together for the sake of humanity to end the constant catch-up game they are all bound to. More specifically, a philosophical education may encourage pioneers of science to pause, acknowledging their limitations and participating in rational dialogue with politicians and moral philosophers about the political and ethical implications of their work. This may also look like architecture/urban planning experts consulting the perspectives of medical professionals and environmental scientists to create healthier, more sustainable cities that keep humanity’s future in mind.
Your ad-blocker ate the form? Just click here to subscribe!
Going beyond just interdisciplinary connections, international connections also become possible. Consider the past example of the Montreal Protocol, a global agreement finalized in 1987 that was designed to save the ozone layer by stopping the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). It was successful, not only because of scientific consensus about the harmful effects of these substances, but also because of ethical, political, and economic cooperation across countries. A shared philosophical understanding of our responsibility to the planet and future generations was what allowed diverse nations to transcend differences and come together to respond to an existential threat.
This kind of international and interdisciplinary collaboration seems to be a crucial missing element when it comes to large-scale existential threats in the present. In order for this to happen, however, a global “philos” of we that prioritizes collective well-being over narrow national or ideological interests is needed. Therefore, it is imperative that we are able to recognize philosophy’s role as a common language that can establish this love of the “we.” It is imperative that we actively work to integrate philosophy with practical aspects, such as education, governance, and daily life. By doing so, we can shift from the chaotic isolation of the present toward a world that values empathy, reasoned debate, and a deep understanding of our shared responsibilities.
In this ideal future, guided by a “philos” of we, leaders from various countries could engage in structured dialogues grounded in shared ethical considerations, recognizing the interconnectedness of their actions. Through a common philosophical framework, more coordinated and collaborative efforts could be organized to address global challenges that will continue to plague our future, such as climate change, pandemics, economic inequality, and technological risks. Instead of being driven by short-term national interests or power dynamics, such collaboration would be motivated by a commitment to the collective good of humanity.
In practical terms, this could involve establishing international philosophical councils that bring together scholars, policymakers, scientists, and representatives from various fields to deliberate on global issues. These councils could serve as platforms where philosophical principles guide discussions, policy formulations, and decision-making processes. By making philosophy a “common language” for public discourse, we can foster a culture of reflective thinking and cooperative problem-solving that extends beyond national borders.
Moreover, philosophy, when taught and practiced as a dynamic and living discipline, can become the foundation for education systems worldwide. From primary schools and universities, educational institutions can emphasize the importance of critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and dialectical engagement — teaching students not just to absorb knowledge but to question, analyze, and apply it to real-world scenarios. Such an education would prepare future generations to think globally, act ethically, and collaborate across disciplines and cultures.
Addressing Counterarguments
Despite having the potential to ensure the best future for humanity, philosophy faces several interconnected challenges in serving as a common language when addressing large-scale global issues. One of these difficulties is fragmentation within the discipline of philosophy itself. Philosophy is not a monolithic discipline; it consists of many schools of thought that often disagree on fundamental issues regarding epistemology, ethics, philosophy of science, etc. Because of this internal diversity, it can be difficult to establish a cohesive philosophical framework that would be widely accepted for guiding interdisciplinary or global cooperation. In response to this, I argue for encouraging meta-philosophical reflection that seeks to identify shared methods (e.g. logical analysis, dialectical reasoning) rather than imposing a single doctrine. Philosophy should be a methodological tool that facilitates discussions between experts and leaders, not a set of specific doctrines that should be internalized.
Additionally, addressing large-scale global issues like climate change, economic inequality, or nuclear war involves navigating complex terrain with stakeholders — each of whom hold competing interests and worldviews. Even if philosophy could be agreed upon as a kind of common language, implementing it in a way that incorporates the values of all parties would require careful negotiation and compromise. The diversity of perspectives and the complexity of these global issues can lead to a kind of paralysis by analysis, where endless debates and ideological contention prevent decisive action. I respond to this by saying that philosophy should be seen as a complement to other disciplines — a catalyst for ethical and logical clarity — rather than as a total replacement for them. Interdisciplinary collaboration should combine philosophical insight with practical expertise to create balanced, actionable solutions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, philosophy’s purpose should not be confined to the abstract realm of academic discourse, or limited to the specialized knowledge of a select few within an echo chamber. Its true potential in relation to humanity’s future lies in its capacity to serve as a unifying force — a common language that has the ability to transcend disciplinary, cultural, and ideological boundaries. When applied effectively, philosophy can bridge divides and foster a deeper understanding in a variety of contexts, encouraging cooperation among diverse groups of people — whether they are scientists, policymakers, or environmentalists. In this sense, philosophy goes beyond being a tool for contemplation, and becomes a dynamic framework that can actively address real-world challenges, guiding humanity toward a more cohesive and enlightened future.
A “philos” of we, rooted in philosophical inquiry and dialogue, offers us the opportunity to create a shared foundation upon which to build a more inclusive and integrated global society. This kind of collective understanding is essential in our increasingly interconnected world, where problems such as climate change, technological advancement, and political conflicts cannot be tackled in isolation. Through philosophical engagement, we can cultivate the intellectual humility needed to recognize our limitations and embrace perspectives that differ from our own, paving the way for more meaningful collaborations across disciplines and cultures.
Moreover, envisioning a “philos” of we requires a shift from philosophy being seen merely as a theoretical or academic pursuit to it becoming a practical tool for guiding ethical decision-making and fostering empathy and solidarity. By instilling philosophical thinking in various sectors — such as education, governance, science, and art — we can encourage a more reflective, critical, and ethically aware approach to the decisions that shape our world. Philosophy can thus help create spaces for rational dialogue, where the complexities of modern life are approached not with rigid dogmatism but with open-mindedness and a willingness to engage constructively with the unfamiliar.
Ultimately, a philosophy-driven global society is one where progress is shared, where knowledge is integrated across various domains, and where every voice, regardless of origin or expertise, has the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the collective good. In this ideal future, the pursuit of wisdom becomes a communal endeavor, guiding us toward more thoughtful and just resolutions to the pressing challenges of our time. By embracing a “philos” of we, grounded in the principles of philosophy, we are not only ensuring a future for humanity but striving for the best possible future — one where harmony, understanding, and shared purpose guide our evolution as a global society.
◊ ◊ ◊
Deanna S. Lee on Daily Philosophy:
