Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Why do Philosophers never run for Political Office?
Print Why do Philosophers never run for Political Office? | |
|
Odin
Assistant Professor  Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 09, 2009 Total Topics: 9 Total Posts: 441 |
 #1
Subject: Why do Philosophers never run for Political Office? It seems to me that most people on this forum could trounce most politicians in debate. Most politicians do not have clear principles guiding their beliefs, whereas "philosophers" generally recognize the supremacy of reason in coming to any point of view or making any decision. Someone who understands philosophy, you would think, would have consistent views based on their underlying principles or values. Why is this not popular in politics? Are "philosophers" just not interested in political life? Instead all we get are rediculous appeals to emotion, the Constitution, the vague notions of conscience and "justice", and the Founding Fathers (many of whom could themselves be considered philosophers). Will it ever change? |
|
thewatcher
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 19, 2009 Total Topics: 47 Total Posts: 1465
|
#2
Odin wrote: It seems to me that most people on this forum could trounce most politicians in debate. Most politicians do not have clear principles guiding their beliefs, whereas "philosophers" generally recognize the supremacy of reason in coming to any point of view or making any decision. Someone who understands philosophy, you would think, would have consistent views based on their underlying principles or values. Why is this not popular in politics? Are "philosophers" just not interested in political life? Instead all we get are rediculous appeals to emotion, the Constitution, the vague notions of conscience and "justice", and the Founding Fathers (many of whom could themselves be considered philosophers). Will it ever change? I think it depends on what you mean by "philosophers." President Obama was a Law Professor and has a respectable academic background in Critical Race theory, which certainly intersects with philosophy on a number of levels (Cornell West's "Prophetic Pragmatism" being just the most explicit example). |
|
Arkady
Tenured Poster  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 29, 2009 Total Topics: 24 Total Posts: 1611 |
#3
thewatcher wrote: President Obama was a Law Professor and has a respectable academic background in Critical Race theory... He does? thewatcher wrote: ...which certainly intersects with philosophy on a number of levels... It does? "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume |
|
Odin
Assistant Professor Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 09, 2009 Total Topics: 9 Total Posts: 441 |
#4
thewatcher wrote: I think it depends on what you mean by "philosophers." President Obama was a Law Professor and has a respectable academic background in Critical Race theory, which certainly intersects with philosophy on a number of levels (Cornell West's "Prophetic Pragmatism" being just the most explicit example). I mostly mean someone who knows how to think rationally and consistently. I never hear politicians talk about principles or values, and how they derive their views from those values. Neither party is consistent in their values, on many issues they apply different sets of values to specific issues and rationalize them accordingly, which is doing it backwards. You derive your beliefs from applying reason to your values/principles. So I don't see how a rational person can advocate the platform of the Democratic Party or Republican party. It seems like everyone is a utilitarian now and just disagree on how best to accomplish happiness. But even so, no politician calls themselves a utilitarian or advocates its principles. It is all about "what will work." Even if morality is not objective, which I personally believe it is (so I judge politicians on whether the positions they advocate are morally right or wrong), I still expect politicians to use rationality to derive their positions from their subjective values. Quick example: It makes no sense to me that Republicans or Conservatives can advocate public education, yet oppose universal health care (at least for children). On public education, they claim it is an obligation of the state (rarely their own obligation) to educate their children. Yet they do not see it as an obligation to keep their children healthy and provide them with good medical care? Given the choice, they should choose health care first, since most parents are incapable of operating on their children if they are sick without health insurance, but yet most parents are easily capable of educating their children if they applied themselves. I could draw many similar comparisons with President Obama, but suffice it to say that his views are not rationally consistent with whatever his values are (I don't think we even know). Also many of these politicians claim to advocate the doctrine of Christianity, but their views are not rationally derived from any type of Christian principle at all (if you really think about what the Bible says). |
|
thewatcher
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 19, 2009 Total Topics: 47 Total Posts: 1465
|
#5
Arkady wrote: He does? It does? http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/08/obama-the-postm.html You might find that good for a laugh and (somewhat) informative to boot. Take with salt. Lots and lots of salt. Actually, you may want to find a salt mine, descend into its depths and then read the article. |
|
Arkady
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 29, 2009 Total Topics: 24 Total Posts: 1611 |
#6
thewatcher wrote: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/08/obama-the-postm.html You might find that good for a laugh and (somewhat) informative to boot. Take with salt. Lots and lots of salt. Actually, you may want to find a salt mine, descend into its depths and then read the article. Ah, good old Jonah Goldberg (author of 'Liberal Fascism' if I'm not mistaken?). While I have serious misgivings about po-mo nonsense (even when it's deployed in the name of racial equality), Goldberg and his ilk on the Right are the ones who have long since lost contact with reality. As obnoxious, silly, and embarrassing for philosophy as po-mo is, it is more or less safely confined to universities. The lunatic fringe of the Right, however, has become the new mainstream Right. "Birthers", "Tea Baggers", "Minutemen", and the assorted other lunatics of modern political movements aren't pulling the lever for anyone with a "(D)" after their name. "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume |
|
sheps
Partial Zizek Enthusiast  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Dec 15, 2008 Location: The One and The Many Total Topics: 49 Total Posts: 2162 |
#7
There seems to be a drought in modern politics of leading figures who write real books (i.e. not just memoirs and autobiographies). Look back to the late 1800s, early 1900s, and you'll see that J.S. Mill (who even put forward the first ever bill on the vote for women) was an MP - Churchill, Lenin, De Gaulle, Che Guavera and Trotsky were all prolific writers on things outside and within their respective fields of expertise. Even David Hume was, I believe, an ambassador or involved in the British government in some capacity. You could argue that its a demise in the traditional 'classical' education, but I think that its probably more to do with the fact that politics (not political philosophy, real politics, so to speak) is about action, whereas philosophy is about thought theory and thought. Some have said that you can combine the two - this is not true. As far back as Plato, philosophers have been discouraged from entering the political sphere. "Learn everything: you will see afterwards that nothing is superfluous." - Hugh of St. Victor "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's Relativity." - Albert Einstein |
|
Arkady
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 29, 2009 Total Topics: 24 Total Posts: 1611 |
#8
sheps wrote: You could argue that its a demise in the traditional 'classical' education, but I think that its probably more to do with the fact that politics (not political philosophy, real politics, so to speak) is about action, whereas philosophy is about thought theory and thought. Some have said that you can combine the two - this is not true. As far back as Plato, philosophers have been discouraged from entering the political sphere. Yes. As philosophers are accustomed to reasoned argumentation, stepping into politics would likely be pretty jarring for them. "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume |
|
mayor of simpleton
CAT v. DOGMA  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Feb 20, 2009 Location: Vienna, Austria Total Topics: 39 Total Posts: 1616 |
#9
In Austria, Johannes Hahn is our minister of education and science. He will be our European Union Commissioner. He could even become the Prime Minister here in a few years. He has a PhD in Philosophy, but... if you listen to him he only makes use of fallacies to deceive the public. I guess if you do go into politics, don't forget to forget everything you have ever learned.  Meow! GREG I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS THE JOKE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTo6kSZlPI Atheism is the invention of the theist to place non-believers into context with their belief. - MOS Where facts are few, faith abounds. - MOS Atheism is a unique "-ism": followers are not bound by a shared form of belief in, but rather a shared form of disbelief in. - MOS |
|
Cadrache
Tenured Poster  Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 09, 2006 Location: AB, Canada Total Topics: 108 Total Posts: 3181 |
#10
Politicians don't talk to improve individuals but rather to the higher being. Philosphers talk a um.. -let's just go with 'ideology' or 9- but they do however chat it up with the individual locals. The difference between asking questions concerning the glue between the elements of a group versus actually talking to the relationships an element can have. Words the wiser become the name you do not know. - Some guy with a surname Blanchard. _____________________________________________ For Wit to happen; one must first play in shadows. |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.