This letter was published in The Phoenix‘s Winter 2026 print issue. Read the full issue at uchicagophoenix.com/magazine.

Sir, One of the things which struck me when I gave my job talk at the University of Chicago almost exactly 23 years ago is that the people in the audience asked genuine questions. The questions were tough, of course. 

Philosophy audiences tend to be direct about disagreement and do not shy away from pointing out what appear to be flaws of logic or fact. But whereas one sometimes feels that philosophers’ “questions” are really attempts to prove their intellectual superiority by destroying the speaker’s argument, here, I felt that the questioners were actually wondering about what I had said. They were asking because they wanted to better understand my topic. That, in turn, spurred me to think more clearly about what I was saying. It was thrilling. I knew that the University of Chicago was a place where knowledge was alive and growing. That is our motto—let knowledge grow from more to more; and so be human life enriched. This is the point of our commitment to free speech. What I want to suggest is that in the context of the university’s pursuit of knowledge, freedom of speech is better conceived as freedom of conversation, and that freedom of conversation involves fruitful questioning. Good questions are the soil from which knowledge grows. How can we get better at that? The problem is not only that we may fear the consequences of doubting local or more distant orthodoxy, although that is a very real problem. The problem is also how to cultivate the sense of leisureliness and playfulness which allows us to open ourselves to being puzzled. In this time of financial constraint and intense political friction, it can seem decadent to ruminate, especially when our inquiries have no immediate social applicability. And if the applicability of our topic is obvious, it can seem trivial or even dangerous to insist on articulating our on-going ignorance. Isn’t it more important to broadcast our answers?! We are all familiar with the sort of question that aims to shut down a speaker’s line of thinking or that is just a pretext for saying what one already believes. This is the kind of question that deadens thought. How do we ward off that temptation? Would it be easier to open our minds to genuine wondering if the walls of the ivory tower were not so porous? More space between social media and our conversations in the lecture hall, for example? I firmly believe that the knowledge we pursue in universities should matter to the wider world. But the spirit of free conversation which yields such knowledge requires room for rumination and wondering. My question is how we can better support that.

Gabriel Lear

Arthur and Joann Rasmussen Professor in Western Civilization in Philosophy and John U. Nef Committee on Social Thought The University of Chicago