News of a significant change at The Philosophers’ Magazine, in issue 51’s editorial

A philosopher confessing to being superstitious would be a bit like a priest admitting to being an atheist: true more often than you’d think but totally unacceptable to admit. However, it’s probable that virtually no one is without superstition whatsoever. In my own case, the closest I come to having one is that I don’t like to “tempt fate”. There are no “wills”, only “should bes”; no plans without a qualifying “I’m hoping that…” or “I’m planning to…”

Of course, I know it is absurd to think that the course of history will change just because I have the temerity to believe I know what’s going to happen next. I like to think that my caution here is based on the more intellectually respectable thought that the future is unknown and so we should never be so complacent as to assume tomorrow will involve anything more specific than the revolving of the planets or the spinning of atoms.

This is counter to the spirit of age, which asserts that we must think positively, almost willing a better future to arrive. The success of Barbara Ehrenreich’s recent Smile or Die (Bright-sided in the US), along with a rash of sceptical articles, provides some hope that the cult of positivity is losing its appeal. What should replace it is not negative thinking but realism, and the most brutal realistic fact we need to accept is that it all can end any … second … now!

I find this thought helpful rather than dispiriting. It should encourage us to make the most of the time we have, and to ensure that we do our best to make things happen, rather than assume they just will. The religious appending of “God willing” or “Insha’Allah” to any statement about the future is a helpful reminder of this uncertainty, but it can also go too far in understating the importance of our own actions in creating the future we want. In search of a secular alternative, I came across a Stoic phrase “if nothing prevents”. It seems it was never used like “God willing” as an everyday expression, but it does the trick for me.

The downside to this way of thinking, however, is one you’re currently observing: it becomes hard to say anything simple about the future without first getting all sorts of caveats out of the way. Assuming I’ve done that, and without tempting fate, let me just say that tpm is looking forward to a changed future. After 13 years, I’ll be moving out of the magazine editor’s chair and onto what I image to be the editor-in-chief’s chaise longue. I’ll still be very much involved, so this is not a time to start peeling onions as I say my goodbyes. But from issue 52, tpm will have a fresh, energetic and inspiring new editor, James Garvey, who many of you will know from our Talking Philosophy blog. James has been the stand-out candidate for my successor ever since we’ve been thinking of moving me on, and I’m delighted that he is crazy enough to try to build on the anarchic behind-the scenes mess I leave in my trail. I am confident James is going to reinvigorate the magazine without abandoning the values and qualities that have brought us this far.

If nothing prevents, that is.