The term ‘pop philosophy’ is often used among philosophers and philosophy enthusiasts. Sometimes it’s used neutrally – about how neutrally someone would use the term ‘pop music.’ Other times, it’s used in a derogatory manner. People who read original texts from ‘real philosophers’ may look down on those who read ‘pop philosophers.’
But despite how often the term is used, we’re much more likely to find examples of pop philosophy than an actual definition.
People may mention a name like William Irvine – the former philosophy professor who is known for his writings on Stoicism. Irvine’s books are about philosophy, but they are not necessarily for philosophers, or at least not exclusively philosophers. He says on the bio for his website:
“My intended audience can best be described as intellectually-upscale general readers who have a minimal background in philosophy but who are interested in carefully rethinking the assumptions of everyday life.”
William Irvine
Another name that may be brought up with ‘pop philosophy’ is Alan Watts – a philosopher, writer, and lecturer that popularized eastern religion and philosophy in the west mainly during the 1950s and 1960s. His writings and lectures on Zen Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism were especially popular. And, as detailed in his nytimes obituary, when occasionally criticized for his interpretations or lack of formal practice in the religions of his interest, he would take the criticism lightly.
There are plenty more examples of ‘pop philosophers.’ The examples help us understand what the term means to an extent, but labels are always confusing. (People thought they had groups of animals labeled clearly until they stumbled across a platypus.) Further exploration into philosophy and so-called pop philosophy may help provide some clarity on the term.
What is Philosophy?
Before understanding pop philosophy, we of course have to understand what philosophy is. And philosophy, like any subject, is hard to define directly and completely.
If I was trying to explain what math was to someone, my instinct would immediately be to provide some examples. I may say “You know, like 2+2=4. That’s math.” It would be tougher to give a full definition. And as I think about it more, I’m not sure I could.
Similarly, If I was trying to explain philosophy to someone, I would want to start with examples of common philosophical questions: Does God exist? What is the relationship between mind and body? What makes a good person? To encompass such questions, my working definition of philosophy for the purpose of this blog is this:
The practice of asking foundational and often important questions that are either impossible or difficult to answer.
Range of the Subject
The practice of asking these foundational questions can vary in many ways. When considering pop philosophy, the variation of setting and application is important. Take Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy as an example. In this philosophical text, Descartes worked from his home to rid himself of all potentially false beliefs with the hope that he could build a foundation of rationality for scientists to come. And while he did build a foundation, other philosophers poked plenty of holes in it. Also, while this work is fascinating and massively influential, it turns out science did not need such a foundation to thrive.
Contrast this with Socrates – the guy who wandered Athens asking people questions. Probing deeper, he would discuss things like justice, virtue, and much more with them. He never wrote anything down, yet his teachings have inspired people to closely examine their lives for thousands of years.
Here we see two extremes in setting and application of philosophy. Descartes worked in an academic setting (he was a brilliant intellectual afterall) and wrote about a subject mostly applicable to other academics. With Socrates, he established his philosophy in public and spoke about things that applied to the public.
These two lie on opposite ends of the spectrum with regards to public setting and application. We can clearly see that Descartes was less involved with the general public than Socrates. Such a comparison is not always so clear. (For example, academic philosophers today may write papers on applied ethics which are relevant to public interests, but not really read by the public.) Still, the comparison shows how some philosophical works are more public or popular than others.
What is Pop Philosophy?
Pop philosophy then, can be lazily defined as philosophy that is popular. But that definition, just like defining pop music in the same way, isn’t really helpful.
If we define pop music as music that gets popular, it doesn’t really help us understand the genre. Really, if popularity was our only criteria, we would end up with too broad and confusing of a definition. Currently, the Billboard Hot 100 features songs from Jack Harlow and Noah Kahan in its top 10. Other than the fact that they’re both English-speaking, these two artists have next to nothing in common.
But are they in the same genre because they’re both popular? Of course not, putting their music in the same genre would completely ignore their different styles. What makes a song “pop” isn’t just its popularity, but whether it contains certain elements which make it more geared towards the public. Some of these elements are danceable beats, catchy melodies, and simple instrumentals.
We encounter a similar problem when trying to define pop philosophy. If we define it as philosophy that gets popular, the definition isn’t very helpful. Academic philosophers can be popular, and aspiring pop philosophers can be unpopular. The key isn’t what gets popular, but what is intended for public consumption. Keeping that in mind, here is, as I understand it, a clear definition of pop philosophy:
The practice of discussing philosophical concepts in a manner that is more understandable for and applicable to the general public.
Setting and Application
As mentioned when comparing Descartes and Socrates, thinking about setting and application can help us understand how public or popular a work of philosophy is.
Academic philosophy is done in an academic setting (often by college professors). The work may apply to the public in some way, but it’s typically geared towards other college professors and students. Further, though the work may apply to the public, its relevance is usually not obvious. And it’s typically not very accessible to the public either.
Pop philosophy is done in a more public setting. The work, often books and lectures, is meant for widespread publication and consumption. Because it is intended for the public, the subject matter is often clearly relevant to the public. Dealing with challenging emotions, feeling a greater sense of connection, and living a fulfilling life are common topics for pop philosophers. Also, just like pop music, pop philosophy uses common elements to keep the public interested. Some of these elements include fascinating stories, humor, and interesting metaphors and imagery.
The Distinction Is New
Today, there is a relatively clear line between academic and pop philosophers. This is largely because most of the time you can guess whether someone is an academic or popular philosopher based on whether they’re a philosophy professor. If they teach philosophy in a college, their work is probably academic philosophy. Though there are exceptions – William Irvine wrote pop philosophy while he was a college professor.
This line between the academic and the pop philosopher has not always been so clear. And really, such a distinction wasn’t important for a long time. The topics often addressed by today’s pop philosophy used to be treated similarly to other philosophical topics. Some of the most famous ancient philosophers (Socrates, Lao Tzu, Confucius, etc) focused on how to live a good life and be a good person. These topics, though not absent from academic philosophy, are more common in pop philosophy and even positive psychology today.
Some people have criticized the state of today’s academic philosophy. A lot of it is hard to read and not clearly aimed at helping people live a good life. The reputation of a philosopher today is typically not a wise and publicly involved person, but an overly-technical intellectual who writes abstract academic journals for a living. As philosopher William Earle joked, today’s academic philosopher “would be delighted to teach his classes in a white laboratory coat.”
Thankfully, the philosophy professors I had in college were not deserving of such a reputation. But, the reputation of inapplicable material was somewhat true. It was more common to question the trustworthiness of our senses or the existence of God than to learn how to live a good life. And while I enjoyed the former, it wasn’t exactly applicable.
The Role of Pop Philosophy
Given that academic philosophy is often too confusing or irrelevant to the general public, the role of the pop philosopher becomes clear. A pop philosopher covers philosophical topics in a way that is clearer and more engaging for a broad audience. This often takes the shape of offering people advice from philosophers packaged within entertaining stories.
For example, one excellent work of pop philosophy is Benjamin Hoff’s The Tao of Pooh. In this book, Hoff explains the ancient Chinese philosophy Taoism by using characters from Winnie the Pooh. Readers of The Tao of Pooh can learn about philosophy and apply advice from ancient thinkers in a way that is fun and accessible.
And of course, it’s hard to talk about pop philosophy without mentioning Ryan Holiday’s work. Mainly writing about the ancient Greek and Roman philosophy Stoicism, Holiday covers philosophical topics through stories about history, pop culture, and more. Talking about virtue alone is obviously a good thing. But talking about virtue as exhibited by historical figures, professional athletes, and celebrities is simply more enticing.
Bridge to Academic and Ancient Philosophy?
Authors like Hoff, Holiday, and more serve an important role in the philosophical community. First of all, they spark interest in philosophical concepts. That alone is a good thing. Whether it’s the virtue discussed by folks like Holiday and Irvine, the approach to living well as discussed by Hoff, or the sense of wonder folks like Watts evoke in their audience, these things are valuable in themselves.
The work of pop philosophers is often inspiring to readers and listeners. It’s commonly described by its supporters as helpful and even life-changing. There is a ton of value to be derived from just reading pop philosophy. But also, pop philosophy can help introduce people to ancient philosophy and academic philosophy.
Ancient and academic philosophy, just like wine or french fries dipped in ice cream, are an acquired taste. After people get accustomed to philosophy from pop philosophers, they may dive deeper into philosophical concepts. In doing so, they may turn to ancient or academic philosophy.
This was my journey exactly. My introduction to philosophical books was through Ryan Holiday. Then, I read original philosophical texts and majored in philosophy in college. I wouldn’t have been very interested in reading ancient or academic philosophy before reading Holiday’s books about Stoicism. But after reading them, I wanted to read original Stoic texts and much more about philosophy.
Enjoy Both
Now, I’m in a place where I can enjoy pop philosophy and academic philosophy. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. Pop philosophy is thought-provoking, entertaining, and digestible, but it can lack in detail and nuance. Academic philosophy is logically consistent, exhaustive, and still thought-provoking, but it can be confusing and unexciting at times.
Understanding these differences helps us know what to expect when we read philosophy. When we read pop philosophy, we can expect to be entertained but miss a little detail. When we read academic philosophy, we can expect to get all important details, but be less entertained.
But no matter what we read, the best way to keep the philosophical tradition going is to stay curious, evaluate arguments and assumptions carefully, and apply advice we may find useful.