European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Too many philosophers

by STA
Tue Oct 31st, 2006 at 09:05:15 AM EST

A passage from a speech given yesterday by President Bush:

Let me start with taxes. Max and I have a philosophy: We believe that you know how to spend your money far better than the federal government does. (Applause.) We believe that when you have more of your own money in your pocket to save, spend or invest, the economy benefits. (Applause.) Democrats believe they can spend your money better than you can. So over the past five years we have acted on our philosophy and passed the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. (Applause.)
In other words, we just didn't talk about philosophy --there's too many philosophers in Washington -- we acted.

As a philosophy professor in Washington, I am particularly concerned. May be if I stopped teaching there would peace in the Middle East and the Budget would be balanced and the poor would eat.

The again, in our defense:

1 -- Apparently philosophy is everywhere in the District.

2 -- This is not the first time we have been blamed. Forget Socrates' corruption of the youth and remember Gavroche:

Je suis tombé par terre, c'est la faute à Voltaire
Le nez dans le ruisseau, c'est la faute à Rousseau
Je ne suis pas notaire, c'est la faute à Voltaire
Je suis petit oiseau, c'est la faute à Rousseau

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Too many philosophers | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

He's right (none / 0)

we have acted on our philosophy

That's the problem, isn't it? Policy based on ideology rather than on facts?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Oct 31st, 2006 at 09:23:20 AM EST

Re: He's right (4.00 / 2)

Actually, you're right, the problem is that he calls it philosophy and not ideology.

by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Tue Oct 31st, 2006 at 09:43:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's right (none / 1)

His philosophy is "more riches for the rich, screw and lie to everyone else"

Half the population is under the age of 18. Tanzania's future is NOW...join the 50% campaign!

by whataboutbob on Tue Oct 31st, 2006 at 10:06:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's right (4.00 / 7)

It's not even ideology. I've realised that what Bush has been playing to is a fantasy of cartoon US machismo.

And it's not even an empty shell. Not only is there no substance to it, even in simple military terms, but it's oozing corruption and based on the petulant adolescent narcissism of a cabal of fascist fantasists.

There is no ideology, beyond fuck the poor, fuck the constitution, fuck democracy, get as rich as you can, and pretend you're an all-American hero.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Oct 31st, 2006 at 10:11:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too many philosophers (none / 0)

The problem is that too many philosophers are academics who confine their efforts to largely technical and safe concerns, or to ways to get the next grant or tenure:

"In the autumn of 1939, Wittgenstein and his friend Norman Malcolm were walking along the river Cam in Cambridge when they saw a newspaper vendor's sign announcing that the German government had accused the British government of instigating an attempt to assassinate Hitler. When Wittgenstein remarked that it wouldn't surprise him at all if it were true, Malcolm retorted that "the British were too civilized and decent to attempt anything so underhand, and . . . such an act was incompatible with the British 'national character'." Wittgenstein was furious, and the incident broke off his relations to Malcolm for some time (Malcolm, p. 30). Five years later, he wrote to Malcolm:

Whenever I thought of you I couldn't help thinking of a particular incident which seemed to me very important. . . . you made a remark about 'national character' that shocked me by its primitiveness. I then thought: what is the use of studying philosophy if all that it does for you is to enable you to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse questions of logic, etc., & if it does not improve your thinking about the important questions of everyday life, if it does not make you more conscientious than any . . . journalist in the use of the DANGEROUS phrases such people use for their own ends. (Malcolm, p. 93)

What is the use of studying philosophy if it doesn't improve your thinking about the important questions of everyday life? Contradicting the standard academic account of what Wittgenstein was up to, we believe that this is the pressing question he asked himself throughout his philosophical career. It was also a question Wittgenstein thought of as outweighing any specific philosophical theses or theories. But it is also exactly the question that has been forgotten and even laughed at by the mainstream of today's professional philosophy.

Why does Wittgenstein refer to Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer, of all possible philosophers, as paragons of philosophical depth? Why does he have nothing but abuse for most of his contemporaries? Why does Wittgenstein reject his professorship in Cambridge? Because in Wittgenstein, as in Kierkegaard and in Schopenhauer, the ancient promise of philosophy lives on, defining the self-conception of the philosopher. According to this conception of philosophy, the philosopher does not see himself as an expert among experts, a commander of his specific square millimetre, a producer of academically respectable and academically meriting results, or a scientist of arguments and concepts.

Rather, the philosopher seems himself in terms of his impact vis-à-vis the grand themes of a good life, the questions of everyday life that everyone - including the philosopher himself - is addressing in his own daily living. There is a long tradition in philosophy of forcefully criticizing approaches in philosophy that "wished to stand out by making an ostentatious display of their philosophical discourse, but did not exercise themselves in the things of life" (Davidson, p. 21). This tradition, so prevalent in ancient Greek philosophy, has been completely neglected by present-day academic philosophy. Most philosophers are currently simply not interested in the Socratic question of a good life, but to us it is as central as it can be."

http://www.helsinki.fi/~tuschano/writings/service/

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Oct 31st, 2006 at 11:07:12 AM EST

Re: Too many philosophers (4.00 / 5)

Getting on professional philosophy' case is not too hard, indeed. I essentially can get on board with that, being an academic philosopher myself.

That said, there are a couple of points that are worth noting.

First, there is indeed a need for scholarship. Like any other field, philosophy needs a space and the means to ask questions that one cannot casually address or answer, such as what a particular passage in Wittgenstein refers to. This requires an academic library and the ability to converse to other people who have studied the matter in depth. Philosophy occurs in ordinary conversations -- not often enough -- but this does not mean that there is no need for academic philosophy.

Second, while I agree that the Greek concern with the meaning of life has been displaced, I am surprised that you use Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard and Davidson. None of them was a political thinker. As a matter of fact, going back to the Greek stoic tradition, they were mostly concerned with the question of what it means for me to lead a good life. They neglected what it means for "us" -- a group -- to lead such a life. In other words, politics was out. In sum, even though the Greek pursuit is valuable, there is an important element -- politics -- in philosophy that the view that you advocate -- the meaning of life -- has traditionally neglected.

by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Tue Oct 31st, 2006 at 03:03:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too many philosophers (4.00 / 2)

On your first point, I don't think any sensible person would disagree in general; as usual, it's not a case of either/or but rather of emphasis. Unfortunately a lot of academic philosophers tend not to give much emphasis to non-specialist questions. I did a degree in philosophy myself, at Birkbeck College, London; fortunately, as a mature student, I had already read a bit more widely than the syllabus, and was independent enough to question the general focus.

On your second point, the quotation seemed to me to raise the question of the neglect of more general issues, focusing on Wittgenstein, one the philosophers who led many philosophers to focus on language. The evidence in the quotation indicates that this would not be much to his taste.

Socrates' most famous follower, Plato, certainly did see consideration of the good life as involving politics, even if from a very elitist approach and see I. F. Stone on Socrates, e.g:

"Socrates was neither exiled with the democrats nor forced to flee with the moderate oppositionists. He did not suffer at the hands of the thirty Tyrants unlike his chief accuser, Anytus, who lost much of his property when he fled and joined the fight to free the city. Socrates, in Plato's "Apology," calls himself "the gadfly" of Athens, but it seems his sting was not much in evidence when Athens needed it most."

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/essays/ifstoneonsocrates.html

Personally I'm with Marx: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." And Chomsky and Said:

"It also seems beyond controversy that moral responsibilities are greater to the extent that people "have the resources, the training, the facilities and opportunities to speak and act effectively." This has nothing particular to do with academia, except insofar as those within it tend to be unusually privileged in the respects just mentioned. And the responsibilities of someone in a more free and open society are, again obviously, greater than those who may pay some cost for honesty and integrity. If commissars in Soviet Russia agreed to subordinate themselves to state power, they could at least plead fear in extenuation. Their counterparts in more free and open societies can plead only cowardice.

RELATION TO SAID'S SENSE OF THE INTELLECTUAL

RB: Edward Said writes, in Representations of the Intellectual, that: the intellectual is an individual with a specific public role in society that cannot be reduced simply to . . a faceless professional . . . the intellectual is . . . endowed with a faculty for . . . articulating a . . . philosophy or opinion to, as well as for, a public. And this role has an edge to it, [involving] someone whose place it is publicly to raise embarrassing questions, to confront orthodoxy . . . to be someone who cannot easily be co-opted by governments . . . whose raison d'être is to represent all those people and issues that are routinely swept under the rug. Would you agree with Said?

NC: Edward Said is a very honorable representative of the "intellectual" in the sense of the term that he defines. That is his proposal as to how the term should be used. It surely does not describe those who are called "intellectuals" in standard usage, as he would be the first to agree. One can neither agree nor disagree with a terminological proposal, as long as it is clear that it is just that: terminological. As to whether those who fit the common meaning of the term "intellectual" should act in the manner that Said prescribes, that's another question. Needless to say, I agree with him that they should, and that they commonly do not."

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20010527.htm

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Oct 31st, 2006 at 05:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too many philosophers (none / 1)

I've also got a degree in Philosophy and don't know that I can totally agree that Socrates is not a political philosopher. If you look at his arguments about the sophists his work he's looking at spin as we understand it nowadays.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Oct 31st, 2006 at 06:23:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too many philosophers (4.00 / 2)

I don't have a degree in Philosophy, so I'm not qualified to comment.

But I'll use this drive-by post to mention that philosophers don't seem to agree on anything much.

I don't think you can use philosophical arguments to justify ethical or political positions. Positions are arbitrary. Personal convictions seem to come first, the rationalisation - sorry, I mean the philosophical foundation - second.

The best you can hope for with philosophy is to use it as argument from authority to persuade people who might not be persuaded otherwise.

That's not a bad thing - when it works, and in the right direction - but it seems difficult to be more absolute about it than that.

In fact if you take out the reality checking - that way leads to science - moral philosophy seems to be about being persuasive. As long as there's a vaguely plausible argument in there, some people will buy it, and if it's interesting and original enough, they'll keep repeating it after you're dead.

Expecting more than that may be a little ambitious.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Oct 31st, 2006 at 07:23:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too many philosophers (none / 1)

I don't have a degree in Philosophy, so I'm not qualified to comment.

I'd argue that that is the only thing you say that is absolutely wrong. if you're willing to ask questions, listen to the answers and then either take on board the position, or refute it with reason, then you are a philosopher, Piece of paper or not.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Oct 31st, 2006 at 07:30:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too many philosophers (none / 0)

"I don't have a degree in Philosophy, so I'm not qualified to comment.
But I'll use this drive-by post to mention that philosophers don't seem to agree on anything much."

What is that based on ? This is like looking at the frontiers of any science and making the same sort of claim, but those frontiers are at the edge of a great hinterland of generally agreed stuff. Similarly there is a lot of agreed stuff in philosophy, often about what are bad arguments from the past. But also one would expect a lot of disagreement when philosophy is about considering some of the most difficult and fundamental questions, ones which are more complex than some of the deliberately narrow questions that much of science deals with, in controlled conditions.

"I don't think you can use philosophical arguments to justify ethical or political positions."

How strange that apparently intelligent people have been doing so for centuries - but you "think" they were all wrong. Not very convincing.

"Positions are arbitrary." This seems to be an arbitrary claim, based on what ? What you happen to think ? People do change their minds and not only in an arbitrary way. Some dramatic recent examples are some better-known columnists who supported the Iraq war and then changed their minds publicly and rather humiliatingly as the facts about WMD, opposition in Iraq, etc. become too clear to ignore, though a few arrogant dogmatists, e.g. Christopher Hitchens, Nick Cohen, go on trying to defend the indefensible. Thousands of lesser-known people have also changed their minds about the Iraq war and not just in an arbitrary way, but because facts and logic persuade them.

"Personal convictions seem to come first, the rationalisation - sorry, I mean the philosophical foundation - second."

This is just another statement of belief. Where do these convictions come from, and why do they change ?

"The best you can hope for with philosophy is to use it as argument from authority to persuade people who might not be persuaded otherwise."

No it's not. In my own case it was reading Chomsky and the power of his arguments which made me take a greater interest in politics and become more radical - I don't just follow any old authority, nor do a great many other people, though, sadly, some do.

"That's not a bad thing - when it works, and in the right direction - but it seems difficult to be more absolute about it than that."

The problem is that you have been pretty absolute - in a rather arbitrary way.

"In fact if you take out the reality checking - that way leads to science - moral philosophy seems to be about being persuasive."

You can't just take out the fact-checking because, in the academic carve-up, that is made the exclusive property of science. Of course facts are relevant to moral issues in the real world and so should be included in any general consideration of such problems.

"As long as there's a vaguely plausible argument in there, some people will buy it, and if it's interesting and original enough, they'll keep repeating it after you're dead."

So this is what "some" people will do - at least you're less sweeping here - but so what ?

"Expecting more than that may be a little ambitious."

I expected some better arguments - maybe that was too ambitious :-)

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Oct 31st, 2006 at 08:35:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too many philosophers (none / 0)

"I don't think you can use philosophical arguments to justify ethical or political positions."
How strange that apparently intelligent people have been doing so for centuries - but you "think" they were all wrong. Not very convincing.

Right. When they were not using "'cause God said so", or "'cause that's the way things are", or some other form of "whatever I assume to be true is". Ethical and political positions are about what kind of society we would like to live in. I don't see how they could be argued from, um, from what? "pure reason??"

"Positions are arbitrary." This seems to be an arbitrary claim, based on what ? What you happen to think ? People do change their minds and not only in an arbitrary way. Some dramatic recent examples are some better-known columnists who supported the Iraq war and then changed their minds publicly and rather humiliatingly as the facts about WMD, opposition in Iraq, etc. become too clear to ignore...

Or they saw the way the wind of opinion was blowing and got onboard for this change as well, just as they have in the past? 'Cause the new "hip" is against rather than for the war?

"Personal convictions seem to come first, the rationalisation - sorry, I mean the philosophical foundation - second."
This is just another statement of belief. Where do these convictions come from, and why do they change ?

But self consistent! Personal conviction first, then arguments for it. What's wrong with that? Where do you get your convictions from?? How are they not just stuff you made up in your head??

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Wed Nov 1st, 2006 at 04:13:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too many philosophers (none / 0)

someone said: 'Right. When they were not using "'cause God said so", or "'cause that's the way things are", or some other form of "whatever I assume to be true is". Ethical and political positions are about what kind of society we would like to live in. I don't see how they could be argued from, um, from what? "pure reason??" '

Your argument is that because some people used bad arguments, any arguments used to justify political positions are bad, and that anyway you can't imagine any valid kinds of argument so there can't be any. These are rather obviously not good arguments.

"Or they saw the way the wind of opinion was blowing [re the Iraq war] and got onboard for this change as well, just as they have in the past? 'Cause the new "hip" is against rather than for the war?"

This argument is that SOME people MAY have changed their minds in these ways. Yes, and so ? All this shows is your general cynicism about people in general.

"But self consistent! Personal conviction first, then arguments for it. What's wrong with that?"

Your argument is that this convinces you - what's wrong is that it's a mere repitition of the original "argument", which is merely an assertion.

"Where do you get your convictions from?? How are they not just stuff you made up in your head??"

See what I said about Chomsky and my views about recent issues are formed by reading the arguments about them from a variety of sources, i.e. not "just stuff [I] made up in my head". This is true of many others if not, sadly, everybody. But more people might adopt a more rational and critical approach if more were taught philosophy of a non narrow, technical kind and shown how it could be applied to general issues, e.g. in politics.

But if you actually believe the above - why are you trying to convince me? - presumably with what you think are rational arguments, but which are unfortunately not good arguments. Also, I keep in mind what Nietzsche said: "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." So I try to read even Chomsky sceptically, but not cynically.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Nov 1st, 2006 at 04:51:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too many philosophers (none / 0)

I find some positions difficult to support by arguments. No, this is not quite right. I find that some positions would be weakened if one were to "rationally" argue them.
For example torture. Arguments like: "We should not torture because torture doesn't lead to useful information as people will say what they think you want to hear under duress." or "If we torture we loose our moral high ground and are in a weaker position to criticise others for human rights breaches." both completely miss the point. We should not torture because it is despicable, and evil, and wrong, and an absolutely terrible and awful thing to do to any human being, no matter what that person might have done in turn. I cannot present you rational arguments for this opinion. Torture is just completely unacceptable, and all those rational arguments against it are for me beside the point, or worse, they imply that if those things were not true, torture would be just fine. For me, if you torture, you are a despicable asshole, full stop.
To be convinced by Chomsky you need to already believe that human rights and social justice are important. You might read all he have to say about US involvement in South American politics and still conclude that this was a good policy, because it was beneficial to economic interests if this is were your values lie.

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Wed Nov 1st, 2006 at 05:13:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too many philosophers (none / 0)

someone makes no attempt tto defend their previous arguments, so presumably accepts my criticisms of them. Undaunted, someone tries again:

"I find some positions difficult to support by arguments. No, this is not quite right. I find that some positions would be weakened if one were to "rationally" argue them.
..."

Chomsky made a similar point in one of his early books: "American Power and the New Mandarins" where he says he finds it rather repugnant to be arguing why US involvement in Vietnam is wrong, thinking that by then it should have been self-evident. Nevertheless he went on with his critique, which enlightened me, amongst many others.

Your moral purity may make you feel good, and might influence some, but what about some who are not influenced by it but seem open to rational argument - do you just dismiss them ? I prefer this approach:

"The reason that the typical rhetorical strategies of anti-war activists fail to so much as convince conservatives that they ought to reconsider their views is easy to understand. Imagine that I am trying to convince you that one of your beliefs is false. It should be obvious that I won't be able to do this by appealing to beliefs of mine that you don't share. If you believe that it's wrong to kill someone in order to save two people from dying, I won't be able to convince you that you're wrong by invoking my belief that this would be for the greater good, and that we should always act for the greater good, if you don't already believe that we should always act for the greater good. If, however, I can convince you that one of your other beliefs, which you hold more strongly than your belief about the case of killing one to save two, entails that we should always act for the greater good, then you will be faced with an irreconcilable contradiction, and one of the beliefs will have to go."

http://brianberkey.blogspot.com/2005/12/moral-philosophy-for-anti-war.html

See the whole article.

"To be convinced by Chomsky you need to already believe that human rights and social justice are important. You might read all he have to say about US involvement in South American politics and still conclude that this was a good policy, because it was beneficial to economic interests if this is were your values lie."

That fact that one has a few, very general basic values, probably reflecting what was useful to us as a species, e.g. co-operation, doesn't mean that all one's attitudes and values are pre-determined. As I have already pointed out, some people have changed their minds about the Iraq War, even some of those who very publicly defended it. If you followed the feedback on Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 you would see that it had a dramatic effect on the views of many of those who had previously supported the war.

Amongst those basic values most of us share are truth (it's useful to know if that dark shape is a crouching predator or just a shadow) and dislike of cognitive dissonance (see the article linked above); if I have conflicting views I'm likely to be getting something wrong - with potentially dire consequences. This accounts for why we CAN be persuaded by arguments to change some previous views. And you still haven't explained why you're still putting forward arguments - presumably in an attempt to convince me to change mine. Unfortunately, yet again, they aren't good arguments.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 10:27:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too many philosophers (none / 1)

I agree. I said that Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein and Schopenhauer are not politically inclined. Many philosophers were. Not those three.

by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Wed Nov 1st, 2006 at 10:16:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too many philosophers (4.00 / 2)

Democrats believe they can spend your money better than you can. So over the past five years we have acted on our philosophy and passed the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan was in the White House.

The fact that people still believe this statement is a stunning triumph of propaganda.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Oct 31st, 2006 at 01:29:17 PM EST

Re: Too many philosophers (4.00 / 2)

well people who think that that is philosophy need pushing towards the trial of Socrates

"The unexamined life is not worth living"

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Oct 31st, 2006 at 06:13:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too many philosophers (none / 0)

How the.......

The world and the country worse than ever,
division, distrust and hatred the rule,
total ignorance praised,
insecurity for all,

a destructive new dictionary coined from misuse of words like: philosophy, ideology, information, propaganda, truth, lie, POW, war, invasion, secret, torture...

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. --Charu Saxena.

by metavision on Tue Oct 31st, 2006 at 05:37:46 PM EST

Too many philosophers | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]