"Philosophy is like that person in high school who is bullied because no one understands them, because they have odd tastes compared to the other kids who have normative tastes, and who is left out when in reality they have a wonderful inner world that could contribute a lot to others." This metaphor is from Francisco Macías, a young philosopher from Málaga who, along with Simón Cano and Esperanza Aguilar, will star in a talk on March 4th at 7:30 PM at El Corte Inglés about what they are thinking about: democracy, technological change, and animal cognition.

These three young people, in addition to researching their different specializations within philosophy, are determined to introduce thinking, this "love of wisdom" that etymologically means the word that designates their discipline, into Málaga society. Because, as Cano argues, "philosophy is the last frontier against ignorance." And, as Macías adds, they, the philosophers, are "the surgeons of ideas": "We care about understanding how they work, not organs, but concepts. And we design a way to intervene in problems, in the cancers of society, in its diseases, in a way that is both humane and precise." That is, perhaps, what those who go through philosophy classes in high school classrooms do not fully understand. And Aguilar complains: "It's an education focused on the history of ideas, not so much on what philosophy is and what a philosopher does in society. In our courses, we try to train students on how to communicate philosophical ideas, but among us, among philosophers, that has nothing to do with later disseminating these ideas in society."

For philosophy (and philosophers) to leave their ivory tower and break through the walls of the university, classrooms, and their meetings, Simón Cano introduces an uncomfortable concept, almost an anathema to talk about something as pure as philosophy. But he had already warned by quoting Michel Foucault that "to philosophize is to poke society in the eye": "Behind a philosopher's reflections is work that seeks to discomfort." Or to question what is normalized. Or to, and here we remember Pier Paolo Pasolini, to scandalize for the mere pleasure of doing so.

What is Cano's provocation that even stirs his own colleagues? The one that consists of saying that "philosophy is a product" and the one with which he invites philosophers to become their own marketing agents so that their discipline can reclaim the space it deserves in the public sphere in general. Because Cano complains: "Today the figure of the pundit has expelled the intellectual and the philosopher from the media because it represents the appeal of conclusions instead of the interest in premises."

Cano saying "philosophy is a product" causes Macías to squirm in his chair. This meeting organized by SUR prior to the public talk turns into a high philosophy conversation where, according to the cliché, only a thick cloud of tobacco smoke is missing, for example. "If you want to engage in media dissemination, you have to know how to sell yourself and you have to know how to sell philosophy. With certain limits. There are concessions that have to be made, although I am not going to make all of them," continues Cano. Macías counters, elegantly: "Philosophy is not a product in that its creation does not respond to a desire to be sold and generate an impact, an effect, but rather to tell the truth. Now messages in the media do not care about whether what they say is true or false, but what they seek is to generate an effect, likes, views, emotions." Esperanza Aguilar mediates: "In pursuit of the truth that Francisco talks about, you have to strategize. For me, it is justified. You have to make them listen to you." Between thinking for the sake of thinking of the philosophical ideal and the commodification of thought, Aguilar suggests, there are many grays. For example, trying to get into the pages of a newspaper with language that aims to be precise but also popular. Although they complain: "No physicist is criticized for using technical terms, but social scientists are," they complain.

Philosophy, like poetry, often calls in adolescence. But few go through youth and remain tied to them. Only the resilient. In fact, they admit that many of their peers left the course. Esperanza Aguilar explains that she was first thrilled by the Presocratics and then found Freud, whose reading predestined her to study philosophy, although she acknowledges that the decision made her suffer: "The debate opened about what was going to happen after studying a career like philosophy. But in my case, the challenge was not so much dealing with the family – who did not object – but with myself."

Meanwhile, Simón Cano first studied a year of Law, left it, and started working at night: "It's a place that is full of what civilization supposedly represses. When you work at night, you see how consumption is ritualized, how it socializes in such an environment, the role that substances play... in the end, it makes you reflect a lot on the human condition." And then he came to Soren Kierkegaard, to 'The Concept of Anxiety', the book with which he recommends delving into philosophy: "There is a given moment in our lives when we get the vertigo of living, the moment when we see that the world is a place of many possibilities before which we feel the chill of a huge void."

And, finally, Francisco Macías, the first generation of university students in his family, began studying Mathematics first. Although he already knew that was not his thing in the first year, he endured a second course. After that, he left it. "My parents never questioned me about anything. I am the living example that parents should let their children make their own mistakes. They never told me to study a career that I could work in; if later I had to work in something else, it would not be a problem, that would not be a failure."

For the moment, the three continue at the University, in their own fields and fighting to disseminate. Although they know it is difficult: "It is impossible for someone who comes home after a twelve-hour shift in hospitality to be interested in this; especially because they haven't even been told that this exists," acknowledges Esperanza Aguilar. "Ortega already commented on this in his 'Invertebrate Spain' or in his essay on introspection: for him philosophy was a step back to be able to analyze things with perspective, but obviously his times, and now even less, do not invite pause. Philosophy clashes with that vital eagerness to always be present," adds Simón Cano.

They do not want to shelter in an ivory tower; they want their message to reach society and what they study is very much attached to today, to the problems of the present. Thus, Francisco Macías studies the role of truth and the impact that social networks have on democracy: "When we spend many hours a day on social networks, we almost become other people. It's almost as if we have two personalities: when we are on social networks, perhaps we are more prone to disrespect or to insult, while in person we have much more patience and are able to respond politely or not respond. Although the way we behave on social networks influences the way we do it in real life. There is more and more political violence because in Congress and the Senate short videos are taken out for networks," he reflects, and warns: "Democracy is always at risk because it is a house of cards. There are many of us who support it by respecting democratic values and being generous and understanding. I look here at a reference, José Antonio Marina, a great disseminator, who says that ideas are not all respectable, but people are." And he invites, in this emotionally polarized environment, to build bridges even between people who think diametrically opposite things.

Simón Cano, for his part, analyzes the risks of technological change: "My research is directed at making a critical analysis of the discourses of the techno-oligarchs, of techno-optimism or of technological solutionism, of the naturalization of technology and of how it has invaded communicative areas that were merely intended for human interaction," he explains, to elaborate on how he questions the role of technology as something liberating, as something neutral, ideas that, he says, ignore that technology is introduced into a culture with a system of values that are not egalitarian. Cano also addresses issues related to "human enhancement" which he believes will deepen existing social inequalities, because it will not be accessible to everyone equally. Or artificial intelligence and bioethics. He argues that these are matters in which philosophy has to intervene. "In the end, what is at the bottom is the question of whether or not there is a human authenticity and whether it should be protected: one thing is that following Ortega we know ourselves to be artificial – every technical act of our existence is artificial – and another thing is that this artificiality should have no limits," he concludes.

And, finally, Esperanza Aguilar, who jumps from human authenticity to animal authenticity. Perhaps she has the hardest time disseminating her message, presenting the most uncomfortable discourse. To start, her field of study is the connection between philosophy, biology, and psychology, between the social and natural sciences, and she reflects on the ethical implications of animal cognition, whether they think and the capacities they have. "I fight against that idea of science as an institution of objective knowledge: science has biases and they have to do with a morally speciesist view of the world." Speciesist? What is speciesism? we ask her. And she explains: "It's the anthropocentric vision of the world; it's thinking that the human species has some kind of privilege over the rest for various reasons: you can find speciesisms based on cognitive, religious, or dignity issues." And to delve further into the understanding of the matter, we ask her again: So are all species equal? "It's not so much about seeing us all as equal, but that equality is not what makes things or individuals deserving of respect. Peter Singer proposed an ethics of suffering: if a being is capable of suffering, that suffering is sufficient to have ethical consideration for that individual." And another question: Why talk about animal dignity when so many human beings suffer undignified conditions of life? "It's a false dichotomy. There are research groups that focus on much less interesting things. This is an issue that interests us all, not only does it affect animals, it has consequences for our own long-term survival on the planet," she concludes.