Interactivity Foundation
Search the site...
  • Email
  • Facebook
Engaging citizens in the exploration and development of possibilities for public policy.
theInteractivity Foundation
Menu
  • Home
  • About IF
    • About IF
      • IF Discussions
      • IF Mission
      • IF History
      • IF People
      • Stern Sanctuary House
      • Contact Us
    • IF Fellows
      • Dennis Boyer
      • Adolf Gundersen
      • Shannon Wheatley Hartman
      • Natalie Hopkinson
      • Sue Goodney Lea
      • Ieva Notturno
      • Jeff Prudhomme
      • Pete Shively
    • Staff & other IF People
      • Jack Byrd, Jr.
      • Jennifer Erb
      • Tim Steffensmeier
      • Julius (Jay) Stern
      • Taiyi Sun
    • IF Discussions
      • Project Discussions
      • Public Discussions
      • IF Education
      • Info for Participants
      • What Project Panelists Say
      • FAQs
    • Close
  • IF Discussions
    • See All IF Discussion Guides & Projects (by topic/title)
      • Project Discussions
        • What Project Panelists Say
      • Public Discussions
        • Wisconsin Public Discussions
      • IF Education
        • Teaching Aids
        • Wesleyan-IF Collaboration
        • Summer Institutes
      • Info for Discussion Participants
      • FAQs
    • Close
  • Blog
  • Resources
      • Discussion Guides
      • Facilitation Resources
      • Teaching Aids
      • Papers
      • Other IF Publications
      • IF Multimedia
      • Links
      • Request Printed Copies
    • Close
  • Participate!
    • Participate, find out more, get involved
      • Contact Us
      • Request Printed Copies
    • Close
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Why Spend Time in Public Discussion on “Concepts”?

Why Spend Time in Public Discussion on “Concepts”?

February 8, 2010 / Adolf Gundersen / Blog

A lot of people wonder why IF public discussions focus on conceptual possibilities.  Instead of talking about abstract ideas, why not deal with something really practical?  The short answer is that, from one perspective at least, nothing could be more practical than talking about concepts.

Being practical means getting something done, yes.  But solving immediate problems isn’t the only way to be practical.  Being “practical” can also mean deepening one’s grasp of a problem and widening one’s understanding of the possible ways of moving forward.  This was what our philosophical and religious traditions meant by the phrase “practical wisdom.”  And it is at the core of what a wide range of modern philosophers of otherwise very different perspectives have meant when they used the word “freedom.”  It is only much more recently that our understanding has narrowed to the point that we have forgotten these richer meanings of the term.

To know how to do something, the right “answer” might be enough.  But to really know what you’re doing, you need concepts.  Only concepts can help you reflect on which problems are worth paying attention to; only concepts can help you become aware of the variety of ways they might be approached.  There are a lot of repetitive things we do every day that require little or no thought—because they deviate neither in aim nor in performance from past similar things we’ve done in the past.  We have a term for them: mindless tasks.  But the more important the task, or the further out in the future it is, the more we have reason to think it through.  The only way we can do that is with concepts.  Only concepts can help us describe and explore what we want, our ideals.  The same is true of any distant or complex future.  Ditto for the many ways these might intersect.

We need concepts to think through our ideals, the always-uncertain future, and how these interact:  because (1) ideals aren’t about anything singular; (2) the future is never an exact replica of the past; and (3) their interactivity is by nature conceptual.  All three, separately and interactively, are key elements in any wise choice.  And all three require thinking in terms of more general categories, that is, concepts.

So, no, IF public discussions are not practical in the sense of providing immediate answers to questions that might just as well be left to those who job it is to do them repetitively and well (though notice that even being sure of that is a conceptual question!).  But they are practical in the sense of exploring what needs doing and who or what should be called on to do it.  And they couldn’t be a vehicle for practical wisdom of that sort without relying from start to finish on concepts.

citizen discussions, conceptual possibilities, Public Discussions, reasoning skills

Comments

Share This Post

Recent Posts

  • Nine Minutes of Wisdom with Jack Byrd
  • Financial Fragility and the Future of Retirement Discussions
  • Summer Concert, Conversation, and Lunch Series
  • The High Rocks Academy & Collaborative Discussion Program
  • ‘Communicating Across Cultures’ collaboration with Humanities DC and Howard University launches
Join us on Facebook!

Or on Twitter at @IFTalks or @IN_IF_Fellow or on our–

  • Facebook “group” page

  • LinkedIn page

Subscribe to our E-newsletter

Enter your email below to receive periodic email updates from the Interactivity Foundation.

Useful Resources

  • IF Multimedia
  • Teaching Aids
  • Discussion Guides
  • Links

Interactivity Foundation

  • 304-424-3605
  • [email protected]
  • Contact Us
    • Facebook
    • Email

Sitemap

  • Home
  • About IF
  • IF Discussions
    • Project Discussions
    • Public Discussions
    • IF Education
  • Blog
  • Resources & Downloads
  • Contact Us

Recent Blog Posts

  • Nine Minutes of Wisdom with Jack Byrd
  • Financial Fragility and the Future of Retirement Discussions
  • Summer Concert, Conversation, and Lunch Series
  • The High Rocks Academy & Collaborative Discussion Program
  • ‘Communicating Across Cultures’ collaboration with Humanities DC and Howard University launches
(c) 2012 Interactivity Foundation - Web Design by Jonah Coyote Design