I'm never sure how to react when I hear people talking about "selling" philosophy. Surely philosophy is not something to be sold, but something that you either have an interest in or you do not: there's nothing that can (or ought) be done to liven up its image? But, as Edward pointed out, philosophy is often viewed as being involved with purely abstract or theoretical problems; and this, as my department is finding to its cost, presents real problems when trying to recruit potential students. Why study philosophy at all if it won't bring you fame and fortune? (At least, so the thinking goes.) Perhaps, instead of talking about how to "sell" philosophy, we ought to think about how the general public can be made aware of how relevant philosophy is to their daily lives?
However philosophy is defined, it always involved with asking questions whose
scope is much wider and deeper than that with which we concern ourselves in everyday situations. In order to ask such questions, far more is required than just intelligence and perseverance. Specific methodologies are required, tailored to the question at hand (along with a willingness to argue one's point, accept defeat, and be critical of one's own position). In short, a whole range of skills are required in order for a person to be considered a good philosopher (though not necessarily, a successful one): skills that are valuable to the everyman just as much as they are to the academic or professional philosopher.
The problem, then, is not how to justify or "sell" philosophy in any sense, but how to make it accessible to the layman -- without oversimplifying complex arguments or ideas.
Edward mentioned some of the pro's and con's of dealing with philosophical issues through the media (books, films, television and so on). And, on the whole, I have to say I agree with the points that he raised. On the one hand, popular media can get people interested in philosophy and philosophical questions by presenting ideas in a format that is both entertaining and informative (usually by approaching difficult topics in unorthodox ways). I am sure everybody is familiar with, for example, that oft quoted scene from 'The Matrix', where Morpheus gives Neo the choice between the red and blue pills (Plato's story of the cave re-told: the choice between truth and continued ignorance).
This method of approaching philosophy can be very effective, and can provoke an interest from people who would usually shun the subject altogether. (I am
thinking here of a number of recent discussions I had with a friend on existentialist philosophy and epistemology, using 'The Matrix' as a backdrop for our discussion). The utilisation of television and cinema to get people to engage with philosophical issues is not restricted to Hollywood either. I remember my professor at Lancaster using clips from 'USS Darkstar' and 'Back to the Future' to help undergraduates get their heads around some of the difficult concepts surrounding freewill, determinism and causality.
But for all the success that these approaches have, there are of course drawbacks. Just because someone has shown interest in a film or book that has a general philosophical theme within the main storyline (or one that makes reference to specific philosopher and their ideas), doesn't mean that such interest will continue or lead to a
more focused study of the questions or problems raised. There have been many times when I have offered reading material to my father, for example, and he will take up my offer (reluctantly). But he will never pursue questions raised, or talk to me about any of his thoughts on what he has seen or read. And this pattern continues with friends (all of whom are intelligent and capable of meaningful debate). I receive feedback from my offers, but only in very superficial detail. It seems to be enough to have seen this film or read that book, to be able to consider the question 'dealt with' (or oneself sufficiently knowledgeable in that particular area).
In addition, using the media to present philosophy to the public faces difficulties beyond the limited attention-span of its audience. In cinema, if producers and distributors
want 'bums on seats', then they are not going to include content that will alienate or offend large portions of the audience. An editor of a newspaper or magazine, will set strict word-length restrictions and deadlines for journalists and contributors to their publication (and that's even before the censors have given the prospective article the once over). Television has similar obstacles to overcome. The 'ratings war' ensures that no channel will dare screen anything too controversial (or challenging) at prime time. Programmes that are dedicated to more intellectual topics (either specialised documentaries or current affairs style productions) have to edit the material down to fit a specific time-slot. All the while, controllers and producers have to keep their audience in mind: educated (probably), but not necessarily with much background or specialist knowledge (therefore, arguments and ideas must be 'cut down to size'). About 10 years
ago, the BBC did a series of 3 documentaries on Nietzsche, Sartre and Heidegger. The ones on Nietzsche and Sartre I thought were fairly well researched and put together (considering the restrictions listed above), but the Heidegger one barely scratched the surface -- instead, choosing to focus on his involvements with Nazism for most of the programme.
In short, the media is restricted in its ability to accurately convey philosophical ideas, due to the limitations of its various formats (and its need to cater for the broad intellectual range of its audience).
So is the alternative to the media, as Edward suggested, to make academic papers more accessible? The advantages of presenting arguments, questions, and ideas in the form of papers and journal articles are
obvious. The format encourages open and involved debate, papers are pretty much guaranteed to be received by an intelligent audience (who is willing to put the effort in when attempting to tackle more challenging questions), and those that submit their ideas are less likely to be hampered with unrealistic word-limits or demands to 'spice up' the content for entertainment's sake.
But for all the advantages of the academic world, when it comes to publishing ideas, its limited readership means than some of the most exciting advancements in philosophical thinking is limited to the confines of the ivory tower.
Is there a solution to any of these problems? Well, there is some hope. As Edward's thoughts on poetry demonstrate, there are other ways of conveying philosophical themes and provoking
original thought, other than presenting them in very dry technical papers. My own interest in Nietzsche and Heidegger, for example, began because of both of these philosophers' use of poetic language and imagery to transmit their ideas. (As I have great difficulties in understanding the arguments of philosophers who, particularly in the analytic tradition, use of copious amounts of abstract symbolic logic, without ever relating their ideas to concrete reality.)
However, I think what will make the biggest difference in making the public aware of the importance of philosophy is Internet groups like these (and the publications that go with them!). Of course, not all web forums deal exclusively with philosophy. But, from time to time, messages and threads will pop-up that deal with certain moral dilemmas, questions about faith or value
maybe even asking for assistance in making an important life-changing decision. Now I'm sure that many of us here are also members of other Internet forums that cater to our other interests outside of philosophy (yes I'm sure we have some). By bringing our general knowledge, critical methods of investigation, structured questioning techniques and (above all) wisdom to these topics we may be able to get others thinking about their problems in ways which they had never before considered (and may choose to research further).
I'm not saying that in making philosophy accessible we ought to be turning it into some kind of 'self-help' service. But it is my firm belief that interest in philosophy begins from one's real-life problems (to which conventional wisdom can offer no solutions).
The advantage of technologies such as web forums and e-mail is that they are accessible to a vast audience around the world in an instant (and because people can download the content and read it off-line, they have time to reflect privately and commit time and thought to their responses -- perhaps even discuss their thinking with others -- before replying). As a case in point, a few months ago I visited an Internet forum where a thread had been created on the origins and nature of 'truth' (and, no, this was definitely NOT a philosophy forum). And so I began by adding my own two-pence worth, and then the discussion developed, over the coming days, into a series of open 'seminars' on Heidegger's ideas about truth. Whilst it lasted, my contributions were very gratefully received, by people who had little, if any, philosophical background (but who had had their eyes opened by a totally new perspective
on the world, and were willing to give it their all).
So, in conclusion, I think it is perfectly possible to integrate philosophy with 'modern culture'. It's just not a case of "selling" it or watering it down, but of finding the right medium and language to enable people to identify with it. Philosophy is that which calls on us to think; and as we are ALL beings capable of original thought, we are all capable of answering this call -- we just have to hear it in a language we can understand.