The Public Philosophy

by Hans Jürgen Eysenck

自由与责任密不可分。20世纪极具影响力的新闻评论家及传播学学者李普曼的这部经典作品对西方民主社会的变化展开了透彻而令人信服的分析，为20世纪每一位公民所面临的关键性决策困境进行了清晰明了的总结。他呼吁所有追求自由的人们积极主动且负责任地关注政府决策，以保障自身自由权利不受侵犯，避免陷入极权主义。

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Psychology, History

210 pages, Paperback

First published May 31, 1956

About the author

= Hans J. Eysenck = H.J. Eysenck
Hans Jürgen Eysenck (/ˈaɪzɛŋk/; 4 March 1916 – 4 September 1997) was a psychologist born in Germany, who spent his professional career in Great Britain. He is best remembered for his work on intelligence and personality, though he worked in a wide range of areas. At the time of his death, Eysenck was the living psychologist most frequently cited in science journals

Reviews

[Steven Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Walter Lippmann was an interesting political thinker in the United States during the 20th Century. This is one of his most interesting works. And his ruminations are quite relevant today. A key point at the outset of this work (Page 19): "If I am right in what I have been saying, there has developed in this century a functional derangement of the relationship between the mass of people and the government. The people have acquired power which they are incapable of exercising and the governments--they have lost power which they must recover if they are to govern."

He notes another disjunction--between "the people" and "THE PEOPLE" (my distinction in caps). As Edmund Burke, he does not believe that the people, as in government by the people, refers just to those living. In his view, THE PEOPLE is (Page 32) ". . .a community of the entire living population, and their predecessors and successors." Applicability? In today's toxic political atmosphere, the parties are only interested in their current base and those independents whom they can claim and, perhaps, scraping away some of the other party's supporters. In the process, the past and the future are neglected (again, Burke speaks to the same issue).

De3mocracies need civility to function; they also need a "public philosophy," based on core values, to bind the country together and to structure political discourse. I suspect that Lippmann would be most distressed to see the partisan divide today (although this is certainly nothing new in American political history). For instance, he argues that such things as an absolute right to property is not appropriate when one has a public philosophy. There is a greater good than the right to property. That gives a taste of his views with one specific example.

It might be that many Americans would be richly rewarded by reading Lippmann's work. I surely have many questions about his argument, but the seemingly quaint arguments that he makes might lead to a more productive political process. The current "blood sport" does little good for the larger public's interest.

[Evan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This had some key insights I hadn't previously considered—namely the painful one that democracies by nature avoid tough decisions and tend to choose the easy way out: the political equivalent of avoiding the dentist. When it comes to questions of war and peace, for example, and making unpopular sacrifices, democracies often choose to sit on the couch, he claims, a defect that often renders them more dangerous than other forms of governance. Though it's hard to disagree with his larger conclusions about the need to reclaim 'the public philosophy', he fails to spell out precisely just how to do that. As someone spoiled by the vivacity of his earlier prose ("Public Opinion," a real masterpiece), this was a mild disappointment, especially since he spent 20 years working on it. But still worth a read for those willing to sift through its dryer odes to the founding fathers and English legal theory.

[WaldenOgre · Rating 4 out of 5]

虽然距这本小册子的出版年代已相隔久远，作者的文风也显得颇为古旧，但它讨论的问题依然还是我们这个时代难解的症结。

李普曼相信，西方世界的危机植根于公共哲学的衰落。当自由民主国家逐渐把把塑造其公民品格的信仰视为一种私人事务时，谋求共识的进程就开始瓦解了。因为“若不认识到超越其多元利益之上存在着一个具有共同律法的理性秩序的话，一个大的多元社会是无法得到治理的。”当公共哲学消失后，自由的生活方式其防御措施就只是一种基于反对强制信仰的外部法律。然而此时，这个堡垒的内部却是中空的，它所要保卫的实质就只剩下了一种公共的中立性和不可知论了。

毕竟，自由是一种权利和义务紧密勾连的体系，而不是一项神圣却刻板的教条。就好比说，自由言说的权利究其本质，是一种公共必需品，它的合法性源于公共对话和公共辩论的需要，而非为了满足私人的愉悦。“言说的权利受到辩论意愿的保护”。

归根结底，公共哲学是一种试图用后天习来的天性来统治我们的欲望和激情的努力。如果这个定义成立，那么它就既不会是受欢迎的，也必然是相当稀缺的。这是我们这个时代正面临的挑战，恐怕也是古今往来众多时代的永恒难题。

[Ethan Rogers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lippmann gives two different accounts in the two main sections of this book of the causes of democratic backsliding in the 20th century. In a vein that will be familiar to readers of his Public Opinion, Lippmann argues that the public's understanding of the political issues is too simplistic and, even worse, tends to lag well behind the tempo of events, for the public to be able to make competent executive decisions. In Lippmann's opinion, the mobilization of the first world war required western governments to democratize executive functions in a way that made the executive less capable of resisting popular passions. As a result government actions became increasingly arbitrary and ineffectual, leading ultimately to a loss of faith in democracy and, in some cases, to full counter revolution. This is roughly the line of thought that I associate with Lippmann, and it remains frightening and timely.

In the second half of his book, Lippmann pivots to a different explanation of democratic backsliding. In Lippmann's view, the ideology that must undergird democratic institutions had already been lost by 1955. This ideology or "public philosophy" basically holds that individuals with different views who engage in good faith and rigorous dialogue will through dialogue get closer to objective truth and to wisdom. Lippmann argues interestingly that forms of political speech that are not conducive to this kind of dialogue have no adequate reason for being unrestricted. Turning to ideology gives Lippmann a way to try to reverse democratic decline by acting as an ideologist for the public philosophy. If the causes of our troubles are ideological, teachers and writers can work to bring back the public philosophy. Hence Lippmann repeatedly states that his reasoning in this second half of his book is "hopeful."

I highly recommend the book. The first half is a succinct statement of Lippmann's important critique of public opinion in democratic states. The second half is the strongest and most plausible criticism of the perceived political consequences of modern epistemological pluralism that I have read. Whether or not one agrees with the critique, Lippmann deserves to be engaged with. My one complaint is that the two halves of the book do not really lead to a synthesis. I would have liked to have read how Lippmann thinks the decay of the public philosophy relates to the technological problems of mass media and democracy. As it is, The Public Philosophy reads as two thematically related but separate books.

[Rob Smith, Jr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here is a balanced inspection as to how a society believes. Author Lippmann takes those ideas and projects them as to future possibilities and compares to results of past ideas. The philosophical journey is a bit simplistic to more complicated philosophical examinations. This being a mass market book, it is perfect for the general public...at that time of 1954.

This book is light years over the heads of the general public today. The ejection of emotional influence would leave Americans of today lost and confused. Thinking has left us and the results are much as Lippmann projected. Just much worst.

This is fascinating reading realizing where the world was in 1954 and knowing Lippmann had no idea how warped the mindset of Americans would be in 2016. I highly recommend this book along with much of the bibliography used to build it.

Bottom line: I recommend this book. 8 out of 10 points.

[Red Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting to read a book written in 1955 and draw lessons that still apply to the global and domestic environment today.

Lippmann sees it as error to give the executive power of "decision" to the people - the masses need input, but the elected and appointed must decide, and must be proactive.

"With exceptions so rare that they are regarded as miracles and freaks of nature, successful democratic politicians are insecure and intimidated men."

Notes that the American people did not vote for their freedom - it was given to them by the founders.

"Statesmen" are those who can resist the inclination of the voters.

[Ed Barton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lippmann is rarely mentioned in the 21st Century as a great political and philosophical writer. That would have been a shock to those reading his prolific columns 75 years ago. In this, his final book, he discusses the need for an informed citizenry and the limitations of democracy as it was practiced in the 1950's. His observations on the dangers of Jacobinism and Leninism on each polar end of the spectrum and in the importance of an active, knowledgeable society resonate as much today as they did 70 years ago. A good read.

[Eric Baldwin]

excellent explanation of the current political and social situation. He wrote this text in the mid-century but the principles are timeless and today they are more applicable than ever before.

[JimZ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Walter Lippman, a great 20th century thinker.

[Rural Sellers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some of the phrasing is dated but the views on the dangers to democracy seem just as relevant today.