Editor's note: This paper was read at the fourth annual University of Dayton Philosophy Colloquium, held in 1974.

Not inappropriately, as an invitation to conversation, the title of this colloquium — “The Philosopher: Neutral or Committed?" — is ambiguous and provocative. For one, the word “neutral” opposes “committed,” thereby suggesting the conflation of the meanings of “neutral” and “uncommitted,” as the latter is the formal opposite of committed.

To understand the meaning of “uncommitted” as positive hostility and abnegation of political action, however, would bring forward few advocates: Diogenes or Sinope, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche come to mind.

Included in

Philosophy Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.