Philosopher King?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Philosopher King? » Philosopher King?

Philosopher King?

Page: 1 2

Philosopher King?

Berkeley's Ghost
Moonlighting Idealist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 101

Posted 06/12/08 - 08:54 AM: Subject: Philosopher King?	#1
While listening to the aggrandized cockfight we call politics lately I wondered. Does the western world need philosopher kings? I mean people who are not radical on the "issue" but radical in their essence. A leader who is not just a variation of the political philosophy of the current state, but a complete political philosophy of his own. Someone who would change the core premises on which the state is founded. At this point I don't care if I agree with the philosophy of the politician I vote for, I just want to vote for someone who has a philosophy and is not just a Frankenstinian monster of various issues and a dash of charisma. Tell me, will my dream ever come true? Is it time for a revolution?
Faith which does not doubt is dead faith.-Miguel de Unamuno Ceiling Cat is watching you post.

oxumoron
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 65

Posted 08/01/08 - 05:56 AM:	#2
I fully understand a desire to have a philosopher king, more escpecially to have a philosopher of a humanistic hue with a power. But I would say whatever philosopher kings the humanity has had they have been ivariably killed. That's the unbrilliant reality deprived of hopes and illusions. I wonder what the reason has been for all those slaughters. As there are different kinds of philosophers there are different kinds of kings. There has been philosophers who enjoyed the relative freedom and there has been philosophers being held in chains like Aesop. Most of the kings are not freer in their actions than the slaves of ancient Rome, whatever nonsense the student books on history tell us. If a king of such a kind is a philosopher he will be more miserable than a slave Aesop due to his knowledge that he helps passively to fool the whole nation by his kingly masquerading while Aesop the slave did'n deceive anybody so that his conscience was free. oxumoron. Edited by oxumoron on 08/01/08 - 06:04 AM

Dirtgrain
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 09, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 08/09/08 - 02:53 PM:	#3
If we acknowledge a philosopher king as our leader, we hold that he or she sees things that we cannot comprehend. We would be committing to being blindly led, to some degree. When has that ever turned out well? Still we are blindly led, and I have similar feelings to yours, Berkeley's Ghost. Instead of having to choose from vapid political constructs, couldn't have a system where the candidates have substance? But I'm not looking for a philosopher king. "Founding Fathers" has become a glittering generality today. I think it is often being used by or for people who have a similar desire for a philosopher king--a father who can decide what's best for us. The scariest leaders are the ones who claim to be absolutely certain that they are correct, that they are infallible, and in the case of religious leaders, that they know exactly what God (or gods) wants for us. Plato was maybe such a person, and I would hate for a person like him to be our leader. If only the system were truly democratic and educated the public so that we could make informed decisions. If only our leaders were more like facilitators, doing their best to serve our interests (as opposed to the special interests).
- "Have you ever noticed how anyone driving faster than you is an a@#hole and anyone driving slower than you is a moron?" - George Carlin - "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" - Hunter S. Thompson - Do you have ideas, or do ideas have you?

Sooperfly
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 12

Posted 09/09/08 - 12:42 PM:	#4
Dirtgrain, Can true democracy ever be attained? Democracy puts the individual's interest before the state's. If we were a people who all put the nation before ourselves then the nation would be strong and give back to us much more than it does now. It is run by people who have only self interest in mind and why shouldn't they? Isn't this what democracy promotes? Individual man's wants and needs are more important than the whole of society's wants and needs is the theme of democracy. Don't get me wrong, the ideal democracy is something I would be very proud and priveledged to call my government, but it will never exist because it relies on the notion that all (or most) men will do what is right when very few do the right thing. Plato critcisms of democracy over 2500 years ago all apply to our government today. Think about that for a minute. If shortcomings of democracy haven't changed in over 2500 years, when will they start changing? Why will they start changing? Because you want it to? It will never happen. It's time to start fresh or we'll spend the rest of our lives wondering how to plug the holes in the boat faster than they spring up when we could have bought a new boat 10 times over. Also, I think the assertion that Plato thought he was all-knowing is incorrect. How could a man who dedicated his life to learning think he knows everything? Why would he waste his time attempting to learn new things instead of using his omniscient nature to rule (or attempt to rule) all things? He merely states in the Republic his opinion for the ideal state and offers vast support for it. Isn't that all anyone really wants out of our politicians? To have a plan and offer vast support for their ideas? What's wrong with that? Plato even says of several of his more far-fetched ideals of his state that "Almost certainly the masses would never go along with this" so his plan does not completely discard the notions and opinions of the masses, just puts them secondary to the state itself.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 55
Total Posts: 883

Posted 09/11/08 - 03:45 PM:	#5
I don't know, it depends entirely on what you mean by "philosopher kings." If you mean a person that does not subscribe to any particular political party, but instead a person who espouses a "philosophy" of their own - well, you can see these people in our societies ..right? What about Chomsky? If you don't mean this, then you will have to explain what you do mean. For one thing, there will still need to be a political system, and hopefully this will be one where the people have their freedoms - free to vote, free to make opinions. I am sure Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot may have thought of themselves as "philosopher Kings" - and certainly their followers thought so. This means that your "philosopher king" (if inside the political system) will be operating in a particular mode e.g., a member of parliament, a member of a particular political party with a political philosophy.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing can only come from nothing.

JagerJagger
It Is What It Is

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2006
Location: New Jack City
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 62

Posted 09/12/08 - 11:57 AM:	#6
Berkeley's Ghost wrote: While listening to the aggrandized cockfight we call politics lately I wondered. Does the western world need philosopher kings? I mean people who are not radical on the "issue" but radical in their essence. A leader who is not just a variation of the political philosophy of the current state, but a complete political philosophy of his own. Someone who would change the core premises on which the state is founded. At this point I don't care if I agree with the philosophy of the politician I vote for, I just want to vote for someone who has a philosophy and is not just a Frankenstinian monster of various issues and a dash of charisma. Tell me, will my dream ever come true? Is it time for a revolution? A Philosopher King simply can't work in a democracy. And I assume you mean in a democracy at least similar to the one we're in. First of all, nobody likes anybody smarter than them. Americans hate people who think they're smart - that's why we don't have any famous intellectuals. Sure, there are intellectuals with some fame, but nobody pays any attention to them at all except some students and academic/ivory tower types. They don't have any influence over the public mind at all. Furthermore, even if we were to accept a leader who we believed had a very wise, virtuous, and workable philosophy that would make our society better, there is still the problem with outside cultures that may not agree and therefore interfere with us doing our thing. I don't necessarily mean "terrorists" as I personally believe that threat is blown out of proportion, but I mean economic competition, competition for minerals, and of course governments without "philosopher kings" who won't like the fact some guy or gal thinks they're a "philosopher king"...or queen, I guess. The only way a philosopher king would work is in an entirely closed off society or if he or she literally ruled the world and could control every aspect of the global economy. It would be something akin to a humanistic empire where the main goal is the happiness and virtue of the world.
"The people saw the opening and rushed for it euphorically." - Paul (and please stop taking your name off this quote, Paul)

unenlightened
psychobabble

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1596

Posted 09/12/08 - 12:37 PM:	#7
Berkeley's Ghost wrote: While listening to the aggrandized cockfight we call politics lately I wondered. Does the western world need philosopher kings? I mean people who are not radical on the "issue" but radical in their essence. A leader who is not just a variation of the political philosophy of the current state, but a complete political philosophy of his own. Someone who would change the core premises on which the state is founded. At this point I don't care if I agree with the philosophy of the politician I vote for, I just want to vote for someone who has a philosophy and is not just a Frankenstinian monster of various issues and a dash of charisma. Tell me, will my dream ever come true? Is it time for a revolution? Here is an exerpt from the retirement speech of the last philosopher king: Krishnamurti wrote: If I talk frankly, please remember that I do so, not out of harshness, not out of cruelty, not out of the enthusiasm of my purpose, but because I want you to understand what I am saying. That is the reason why you are here, and it would be a waste of time if I did not explain clearly, decisively, my point of view. “For eighteen years you have been preparing for this event, for the Coming of the World Teacher. For eighteen years you have organized, you have looked for someone who would give a new delight to your hearts and minds, who would transform your whole life, who would give you a new understanding; for someone who would raise you to a new plane of life, who would give you a new encouragement, who would set you free–and now look what is happening! Consider, reason with yourselves, and discover in what way that belief has made you different–not with the superficial difference of the wearing of a badge, which is trivial, absurd. In what manner has such a belief swept away all the unessential things of life? That is the only way to judge: in what way are you freer, greater, more dangerous to every Society which is based on the false and the unessential? In what way have the members of this organization of the Star become different? “As I said, you have been preparing for eighteen years for me. I do not care if you believe that I am the World–Teacher or not. That is of very little importance. Since you belong to the organization of the Order of the Star, you have given your sympathy, your energy, acknowledging that Krishnamurti is the World–Teacher– partially or wholly: wholly for those who are really seeking, only partially for those who are satisfied with their own half-truths. You have been preparing for eighteen years, and look how many difficulties there are in the way of your understanding, how many complications, how many trivial things. Your prejudices, your fears, your authorities, your churches new and old–all these, I maintain, are a barrier to understanding. I cannot make myself clearer than this. I do not want you to agree with me, I do not want you to follow me, I want you to understand what I am saying. Politicians and demagogues are followers of people, always waiting to see if what they are saying is going down well - we follow who pleases us best, who tells us the most comfortable lies, and their need to please means we follow a will o' the wisp. So be your own authority, philosopher.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 55
Total Posts: 883

Posted 09/13/08 - 09:51 AM:	#8
Good quote. When you look at todays politics, especially in the US, you have to think it is off the mark of what it ought to be - considering all the rhetoric about "free speech", "democracy", blah, blah, blah, I recently watched a good DVD, and I recommend it to folk that are interested: party 2000. Philip Seymour Hoffman hosts it. IT basically looked at the run up to the 2000 elections. It was less biased, I think, than Michael Moore. Not that Moore's bias is untrue - just that PSH and the events that unfolded during this time do the talking for themselves: the police brutality. And there was one GREAT SHOT, a member of congress saying that all the demonstrators and protesters are idiots, and he goes on to say "This isn't a police state..." And directly behing him about 50-100 police marching in line with clubs come into the frame. You couldn't make that shit up. Philosopher Kings? Yes, there are many out there, but one must be discerning in choice, i'd stick my neck out and say George W Bush wasn't one. But, would we prefer him to McCain, and Palin? OAf....run for the hills folks.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing can only come from nothing.

yiming
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 310

Posted 10/10/08 - 02:44 PM:	#9
litkey wrote: Philosopher Kings? Yes, there are many out there, but one must be discerning in choice, i'd stick my neck out and say George W Bush wasn't one. But, would we prefer him to McCain, and Palin? OAf....run for the hills folks. Would we prefer Obama then?

Atropos
Hungry

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 15

Posted 10/11/08 - 10:12 AM:	#10
If there are actually many philosopher kings out there, I would certainly like to hear of them.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.