This article starts from the observation that Socratic dialogues in the Nelson-Heckmann tradition can create a sense of belonging or community among participants. This observation has led me to the current argument that Socratic dialogue offers an alternative to more prominent forms of conversation, which I have called 'discussion' and 'discourse of uncritical acceptance'. I explain the difference between these forms of conversation by considering the role of experience in Socratic dialogue and the requirement that participants put themselves in each other's shoes. My argument is structured according to the different phases in a Socratic dialogue and placed within the literature on this method, as well as Hannah Arendt's writing on imagination.

Philosophy is one of the least inclusive disciplines in the humanities and this situation is changing only very slowly. In this article I consider how one of the women of the Wartime Quartet, Iris Murdoch, can help to challenge this situation. Taking my cue from feminist and philosophical practices, I focus on Murdoch's experience of being a woman and a philosopher and on the role experience plays in her philosophical writing. I argue that her thinking is best characterised with the notion of common sense or sensus communis. This term recognises her understanding of philosophy as based in experience and as a shared effort ‘to make sense of our life’, as Mary Midgley puts it.

Dialogue, like peace or hope, seems to be one of those rare terms that is almost universally appreciated. This is even recognised by those who are critical of dialogue (see for instance Burbules, 2006). Dialogue is associated with genuine discussion and conversation. In dialogue, people do not just talk, nor is their sole aim to win an argument. Dialogue is welcomed when two parties decide to cease violence, or stop ignoring each other, and instead start talking. Opponents of dialogue per se are rare. Opposition to dialogue usually concerns specific forms of dialogue, or it tends to be put in terms of context: it is either not the time or the place for dialogue (Now is the time for action), or some participants will not allow for it, or cannot be trusted to genuinely engage (Dialogue with terrorists is a lost cause). Dialogue is also understood to play a central role in higher education, especially in the arts and the humanities. Some go even as far as to claim that 'universities are defined by their pursuit of knowledge and understanding through dialogue' (Campaign for the Public University, 2013). Thus understood, dialogue allows for open conversations about ambiguous works and controversial concepts, and for reflection on our lives and ourselves. In a dialogue, our unfinished thoughts can be explored while judgment is suspended or open to change. The art of dialogue encourages, rather than plays down, such exploration and such changes. It even encourages critical assessment of its own practice. These aspects of dialogue are emphasised in contemporary defences of the arts and humanities, and of universities as a public good. Universities are regarded as the pre-eminent places for open dialogue. Students learn through dialogue and thus become citizens able to engage in dialogue. In Cultivating Humanity Martha C. Nussbaum emphasises the 'great importance of reasoned debate and dialogue in a pluralistic democracy' (Nussbaum, 1997: 253). Cultivating Humanity is a prominent defence of dialogue and of the humanities in general, and yet it shows a surprisingly limited interest in the exact working of dialogue. This limitation is not coincidental,

Footnotes to Plato. A plea for writing philosophical dialoguesThis article aims to encourage writing philosophical dialogues. Its main focus is education. Writing philosophical dialogues introduces students to a genre that was once widely practiced. It can teach philosophical skills, such as the ability to put oneself in the position of another. Yet, writing philosophical dialogues is not as common as it used to be and this creates difficulties when teaching students to write such dialogues. In order to deal with these difficulties I first consider reasons for the contemporary scarcity of philosophical dialogues. I then provide possible ways to help students write philosophical dialogues. I show that writing philosophical dialogues today can benefit from working with other disciplines, especially creative writing and it thus has the additional benefit of encouraging reflection on philosophical practices. My argument is based on my own experience of writing (and failing to write) philosophical dialogues and as well as the experience of teaching philosophical dialogue writing to students.

If you ask people ‘What does a philosopher look like?’, their first response is often an image of an elderly man with a beard. This image can be explained by looking at philosophy's history, which has been dominated by a very select group of men. Yet, in recent years it has become obvious that the history of philosophy is not as monochrome as is often assumed. In this article, I consider how the inclusion of different voices in the history of philosophy should impel us to rethink the ways in which the history of philosophy is told.