Philosophers just keep on asking questions. Philosophy is about questioning, not answers. Philosophers never give solid answers. Philosophy is just a theoretical exercise with no real-world application. Right?
Wrong!
Philosophy may seem fruitless compared to more "results-based" disciplines. Philosophy may seem "airy" compared to things which give people money-tokens for doing it. But this is only because the task of the philosopher is the largest and hardest to quantify. With the theologian, the buck stops at God. With the scientist the buck stops at empirical evidence. With the politician, the buck stops at how well they can twist reality. But with the philosopher the stakes are larger and the buck stops nowhere - truth is by far the greatest category of them all. Philosophy has to wrestle not only with its problems but also with itself - what is the buck?
Just because philosophers have the greatest scope - the field of 'truth' is a big-un - that does not mean all they do is raise questions. Hegel thought he solved philosophy, predicting the inevitable end of history. Wittgenstein thought he had language all wrapped up, until he saw a Neopolitan insult someone with a hand-gesture. Leibniz had it all worked out with his monads (those tiny little soul-things), and Spinoza wrote a book about...well, everything, including the most ethical way to live. Prolific Plato wrote about every aspect of human existence, and wanted his own City-State ruled by philosopher-kings. Countless philosophers have tried their best to find truth and to influence the world with their ideas (and we might all hope, they will continue to do so into the future).
But for all its greatness, philosophy does not have the megalithic influence of a political institution - it cannot mindwash poorly educated citizens with rhetoric, or mass religion - it cannot make legions of superstitious people worship fetish-idols, or science - it cannot define itself supreme and laugh down any other form of looking at the world (insert Richard Dawkins reference here). But if philosophy could do these things, that would make it an authority, and philosophy should be an exercise against authority.
Philosophy should not triumph by its 'weight', or because people have mysticized it. Philosophy should not triumph by making people feel stupid, or inferior to its thinkers. Philosophy should triumph because people freely accept the conclusions that philosophers come to for themselves. Or, more productively, because people add to and improve existing ideas and find the methods of the philosophers the most inviting.
What is the use of it all? Philosophy is the great 'stepping back', challenging assumptions. That is one place philosophy will always be relevant - it can monitor other fields: history, science, politics, everything, revealing the assumptions and refining the goals of these disciplines.
But as a pure discipline philosophy is even more powerful. The quest for Truth is irresistible and valid beyond measure, and can transform humanity. Can you imagine post-war civilization, when all of Man adheres to a reasonable, flexible, ever-expanding method of deciding who is right and who is wrong? It is a quest too important not to undertake.
Philosophers do not all agree, and are definitely not saying the same thing. But maybe by the very pursuit of truth they are all in a kind of tacit agreement. In short, their means may be different, but their ends all the same: opening up minds to enlightenment through their intellectual contest; undertaking this epic quest which no one else truly can.
Selim Talat
Showing posts with label Plato. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Plato. Show all posts
What does Plato tell us about liberal democracy?
The ideas of Plato most widely discussed are found in the Republic. This is not surprising, as it is one of his most compelling works and is sometimes considered a centrepiece of his philosophy. The studies in political theory developed in this text have concluded and elucidated hiss thought towards democracy. Therefore, this article is based upon this specific text.
Plato´s vision of an ideal ruling system is different from our present system not only in its expression but at its core. Plato polarizes the problem of collectivism and individualism by not considering the existence of an altruistic individualism. Plato´s ideal system tries to create a community where the common good is a priority. To do so, ‘every single member of the community, from the other ranks as well as any of the guardians, has to dedicate himself to the single job for which he is naturally suited, because this specialization of function will ensure that every person is not a plurality but an unity, and thus that the community as a whole develops as a unity, not a plurality’. This concept is defined as ‘collectivism‘ by political-philosopher Karl Popper.
Plato’s sole function of the political art, properly conceived, is to make people as good as possible. He looks for a way in which it is possible to access the ‘virtuous life’, a ‘ life objectively worthwhile’ which intends to be the search of the truth, the good, and the beautiful (a completely coherent idea with his theory of forms). Plato says that these things can not be achieved in a democracy, because the democratic man will be distracted in achieving an equality of pleasures rather than seeking a 'virtuous life'. Plato takes it to the level of describing these individuals as ‘cattle’ and continues to use an analogy: ‘they spend their lives grazing, with their eyes turned down and heads bowed towards the ground and their tables. Food and sex are their only concerns, and their insatiable greed for more and more drives them to kick and butt one another to death with their horns and hoofs of iron, killing one another because they are seeking satisfaction in unreal things...'
Therefore, Platonic thought is sceptical about the possibility that a system such as democracy can achieve virtuosity in Man and rather misleads them to an existence away from transcendence: ‘Plato thinks that democracy prizes freedom far too much and knowledge far too little’, as pointed out by Santas.
This concerns him because the majority do not have a holistic understanding of the political demagogy, and risk the well being of the society as a whole. For Plato, this is really troubling because the demagogy practised by sophists is not part of a higher truth. According to Plato, at best the sophist intends to reach truth but ends up pursuing, personal interests or desires which are corrupted, and cannot reach transcendental truth, which relies on the Form of the Good (using right reasoning to understand what is good and what is not in objective terms).
We can see Plato's criticism at work in the modern world as demagogy is an essential dynamic in contemporary politics. A clear example is the way in which the polarization of politics leads to a race of popularity rather than an actual discussion of the issues.
Political concerns are not discussed but thrust into a war zone where there is hardly any agreement, nor at least an intention to overcome the problem that is presented. At the same time, the exponential rise of communications leads to a higher stage of the cult of personality. Image is not only shaping the concept of politics itself, and creating a void of meaning in political argumentation, but it is taking it to a new level where the personal life of each political leader is a more salient source rather than the actual political debate. Charisma and likeability are primary in comparison to the political aims and orientations of the politician. The formula for success lies with the ones who have ‘no skeletons in the closet, and for whom an attractive media image can be fashioned...’ (Pakulski & Higley, 2008).
This phenomenon of using the rhetorical power in politics is addressed, but not strongly considered by Calhoun who claims: ‘Politics has involved the cultivation of rhetorical powers of persuasion, and over the course of the past century, with the advent first of television and then of the internet, the importance of visual images has superseded that of the ideas of the men and women who vie for the votes of the populace.’ (2007, p. 65)
The society suggested in the Republic purports to solve the failures of democracy, but is not a realizable society or even a probable society. Plato’s theory relies on the existence of a Philosopher king, which is a troubling idea. The difficulty lies in determining which person is capable for this task, and the sheer complexity of the human being means we are not entirely rational beings. This certainly was not a discussed idea in the academic paradigm of ancient Greek philosophy.
Plato intends to use the human nature to describe the failures of the democratic system. Nevertheless, The natural lottery that is a key concept to back up Plato`s ideas, is a reductionist perspective of human nature and behaviour. The existence of a human being such as the Philosopher king is not only improbable but also dangerous.
First of all, because of the complexity of human behaviour it is impossible to determine the way in which a human being will continue to follow the virtues that Plato desired. At the same time, it is a mistake to rely on a single perspective of any kind of reality. Historically this has not only led to different types of tyrannical regime who use the excuse of the ‘noble’ lie in order to sustain their own opinions, but it is also part of an epistemological misconception by Plato`s considerations, in suggesting that objective knowledge is even possible.
Nevertheless, this improbability of Plato's political purposes are addressed not only by his critics but by the author itself. So, seeing as we cannot attain Plato's utopia, what is the use of such political critiques? As demonstrated before, the critique fits perfectly with the current use of liberal democracy. It aims for the basic principles of liberal democracy that are constantly taken for granted and are still present on the contemporary, continuing to be a serious threat to the correct development of politics.
Therefore, Plato`s consideration are not only right but are also relevant to the contemporary age of western civilisation that is too blindfolded to understand its situation.
Julian Santamaria
Plato´s vision of an ideal ruling system is different from our present system not only in its expression but at its core. Plato polarizes the problem of collectivism and individualism by not considering the existence of an altruistic individualism. Plato´s ideal system tries to create a community where the common good is a priority. To do so, ‘every single member of the community, from the other ranks as well as any of the guardians, has to dedicate himself to the single job for which he is naturally suited, because this specialization of function will ensure that every person is not a plurality but an unity, and thus that the community as a whole develops as a unity, not a plurality’. This concept is defined as ‘collectivism‘ by political-philosopher Karl Popper.
Plato’s sole function of the political art, properly conceived, is to make people as good as possible. He looks for a way in which it is possible to access the ‘virtuous life’, a ‘ life objectively worthwhile’ which intends to be the search of the truth, the good, and the beautiful (a completely coherent idea with his theory of forms). Plato says that these things can not be achieved in a democracy, because the democratic man will be distracted in achieving an equality of pleasures rather than seeking a 'virtuous life'. Plato takes it to the level of describing these individuals as ‘cattle’ and continues to use an analogy: ‘they spend their lives grazing, with their eyes turned down and heads bowed towards the ground and their tables. Food and sex are their only concerns, and their insatiable greed for more and more drives them to kick and butt one another to death with their horns and hoofs of iron, killing one another because they are seeking satisfaction in unreal things...'
Therefore, Platonic thought is sceptical about the possibility that a system such as democracy can achieve virtuosity in Man and rather misleads them to an existence away from transcendence: ‘Plato thinks that democracy prizes freedom far too much and knowledge far too little’, as pointed out by Santas.
This concerns him because the majority do not have a holistic understanding of the political demagogy, and risk the well being of the society as a whole. For Plato, this is really troubling because the demagogy practised by sophists is not part of a higher truth. According to Plato, at best the sophist intends to reach truth but ends up pursuing, personal interests or desires which are corrupted, and cannot reach transcendental truth, which relies on the Form of the Good (using right reasoning to understand what is good and what is not in objective terms).
We can see Plato's criticism at work in the modern world as demagogy is an essential dynamic in contemporary politics. A clear example is the way in which the polarization of politics leads to a race of popularity rather than an actual discussion of the issues.
Political concerns are not discussed but thrust into a war zone where there is hardly any agreement, nor at least an intention to overcome the problem that is presented. At the same time, the exponential rise of communications leads to a higher stage of the cult of personality. Image is not only shaping the concept of politics itself, and creating a void of meaning in political argumentation, but it is taking it to a new level where the personal life of each political leader is a more salient source rather than the actual political debate. Charisma and likeability are primary in comparison to the political aims and orientations of the politician. The formula for success lies with the ones who have ‘no skeletons in the closet, and for whom an attractive media image can be fashioned...’ (Pakulski & Higley, 2008).
This phenomenon of using the rhetorical power in politics is addressed, but not strongly considered by Calhoun who claims: ‘Politics has involved the cultivation of rhetorical powers of persuasion, and over the course of the past century, with the advent first of television and then of the internet, the importance of visual images has superseded that of the ideas of the men and women who vie for the votes of the populace.’ (2007, p. 65)
The society suggested in the Republic purports to solve the failures of democracy, but is not a realizable society or even a probable society. Plato’s theory relies on the existence of a Philosopher king, which is a troubling idea. The difficulty lies in determining which person is capable for this task, and the sheer complexity of the human being means we are not entirely rational beings. This certainly was not a discussed idea in the academic paradigm of ancient Greek philosophy.
Plato intends to use the human nature to describe the failures of the democratic system. Nevertheless, The natural lottery that is a key concept to back up Plato`s ideas, is a reductionist perspective of human nature and behaviour. The existence of a human being such as the Philosopher king is not only improbable but also dangerous.
First of all, because of the complexity of human behaviour it is impossible to determine the way in which a human being will continue to follow the virtues that Plato desired. At the same time, it is a mistake to rely on a single perspective of any kind of reality. Historically this has not only led to different types of tyrannical regime who use the excuse of the ‘noble’ lie in order to sustain their own opinions, but it is also part of an epistemological misconception by Plato`s considerations, in suggesting that objective knowledge is even possible.
Nevertheless, this improbability of Plato's political purposes are addressed not only by his critics but by the author itself. So, seeing as we cannot attain Plato's utopia, what is the use of such political critiques? As demonstrated before, the critique fits perfectly with the current use of liberal democracy. It aims for the basic principles of liberal democracy that are constantly taken for granted and are still present on the contemporary, continuing to be a serious threat to the correct development of politics.
Therefore, Plato`s consideration are not only right but are also relevant to the contemporary age of western civilisation that is too blindfolded to understand its situation.
Julian Santamaria
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
