The Royal Institute of Philosophy
The Royal Institute of Philosophy is the UK’s largest independent charitable foundation dedicated entirely to the advancement of philosophical thought. With a proud history and an ambitious vision, it plays a vital role in promoting rigorous, inclusive, and accessible discussion about life’s biggest questions. Our task was to help the Institute reach further: to raise its profile, celebrate its work, and open up philosophy to new audiences.
At the heart of the strategy was a clear, powerful brand idea: Question everything. This phrase reflects both the nature of philosophy and the character of the Institute – open, enquiring, and intellectually free. It acts as a call to action for curious minds of all backgrounds and beliefs, encouraging people to think more deeply and engage with the world more consciously.
Our creative approach was guided by a simple ambition: to create an identity that feels serious but not exclusive, warm but not casual, intellectually credible but widely engaging. It had to be something that could feel at home in academic contexts, but equally inviting in schools, prisons and public events.
At the core of the new visual identity is a distinctive marque: a symbol that suggests continuous questioning through time. Simple, circular and elegant, it reflects the never-ending nature of philosophical inquiry.
The wider identity leans on F37 Caslon, a serif typeface that evokes tradition and clarity while feeling contemporary and confident. It is supported by F37 Blanka, a clean sans serif that adds versatility and modernity. Together, they give the brand a flexible voice, one that works equally well for deep academic papers and accessible public materials.
The identity system enables a small in-house team to create a wide range of assets with consistency and confidence. From journals and publications to posters, videos and social media graphics, the brand flexes without ever losing its sense of coherence.
More than just a visual update, this rebrand supports the Institute’s long-term ambitions: to create opportunities for all to discover and discuss philosophy, for personal good and for the good of society. It reflects a renewed focus on inclusion, intellectual freedom and cultural relevance, and helps the Royal Institute of Philosophy take its rightful place as a powerful and progressive voice in public life.
4 Comments on “The Royal Institute of Philosophy”
Once again, these contributors are very chatty to convincing us of the quality of their methodology and their work.
Since we are invited to question everything, why is democracy totally irrational?
Is making a wheel by duplicating a question mark enough to make a good logo?
We would have liked this wheel turning in the sens of reading, so that « the brand flexes without ever losing its coherence.»
And don’t we find the same dilemma with The British Academy brand identity, where we tend to read BV rather than BA?
While using very classic solutions, these creators defy the laws of reading with great talent and success.
For my part, I’m fond of the symbol. I would have described it rather as a blossom (or florette ✾) than a wheel. It’s simple – not a bad thing for a logo – and yet decorative. I give you that patterns made from repeating glyphs often are exclusively decorative, which is something I’ve criticized in a different context. But here, the question marks with their shared dot aren’t random. On the contrary, they’re derived direcly from the identity’s theme of “questioning everything”.
Why the pluralis maiestatis? ;-)
It’s true that there’s a perceived counter-clockwise rotation. That’s because the question mark is a left-pointing character. I don’t see the issue of readability: the symbol isn’t used inline with text; it’s an isolated, circular mark. Now one could reverse the direction of movement by mirroring the question mark – but that would cause actual harm in term of readability.
Hello Florian,
for the blossom logo, since that formula has your preference, I agree on the priority given to simplicity. But it’s precisely on the decorative aspect that the result does not seem to me to fulfill its promise: perhaps once the idea established, redesigning the whole thing would have been welcome to better link it all and put a distance with the “basic” sign.
On the direction of rotation, however, I rely on the conventions of the ancients: there is a sympathetic axis that goes from left to right, and a dramatic axis in the other direction — at least on this side of the planet. This falling to the left does not seem very pleasant to me (one more…), and rolls in the opposite direction to the mark block.
There was also a language among millers who saw their windmills oriented in one direction as a good omen and a bad one in the other.
On these entirely subjective considerations and view of the mind, including those concerning the identity of The British Academy, I believe that a precautionary principle should prevail, in identity works principaly, to discard without regret anything that does not guarantee its good readability.
Pluralis Maiestatis, said you, is it because of my use of “we”? This reminds me of a long discussion with a friend about the direction in which the water turns as it disappears in the siphon in Alfred H.’s Psychose, and about the Coriolis force. It’s not easy to all agree on that question, I grant you.