@article{aup:/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2016.2.KALI, author = "Kalis, Annemarie", title = "Hoe zaagt men van dik hout planken?", journal= "Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte", year = "2016", volume = "108", number = "2", pages = "225-238", doi = "https://doi.org/10.5117/ANTW2016.2.KALI", url = "https://www.aup-online.com/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2016.2.KALI", publisher = "Amsterdam University Press", issn = "2352-1244", type = "Journal Article", keywords = "philosophical writing", keywords = "academic philosophy", keywords = "philosophy for the general public", keywords = "De Botton", keywords = "Filosofie Magazine", abstract = "Abstract Do Heidegger-teabags give philosophy a bad name? An essay about philosophy for the general public Among many academic philosophers, philosophy for the general public has a bad reputation. In this paper I give an overview of the main points of criticism, and use these to develop a positive account of what good philosophy for the general public could be. As a first step towards such an account, I outline different views on how philosophy for the general public can relate to academic philosophy. Subsequently, I argue that what makes philosophy for the general public ‘good’, is just what makes philosophical work in general ‘good’: good philosophical work has a philosophical aim, employs philosophical methods and employs these methods in a sound way. Finally I argue that communicability of philosophical ideas should not be seen as a bonus feature but as the sine qua non of philosophical thinking: if academic philosophy paid more attention to communicability, we might not even need a distinct discipline of philosophy for the general public. I conclude with some concrete suggestions for improving such communicability.", }