Philosophy in our society
Just something that has bothered me for quite some time, the undervalued and unappreciated philosophers, critical thinkers and logic officers that study reason and logic but who do not have a place in society. Instead of coordinating and collaborating with scientists the people we train to think fight for jobs like web designers and such. Those who have the skills and mental training to solve complex problems are never even consulted in times of crisis. In allowing this, as members of the society with intelligence quotients in the top percentiles of the population, we are allowing those without the critical thinking training, those with closed minds and prejudiced attitudes to make decisions that any society other than ours would designate to those of great knowledge. Our society tells our critical thinkers that philosophy won't make much money career wise and people vote for a guy like trump in the states because they think he will make good decisions for a country. That is how the stupidity of our society is reflected poorly on the philosophy community. If I could have the answer to any question it would be how to offer jobs in philosophy that philosophers can achieve and earn while contributing to society since we are not even consulted at the moment.
Jobs in philosophy. That'd be nice
Jobs in philosophy. That'd be nice
Comments (105)
So what specific contribution do you think a philosopher has to offer?
I'd love to make a career out of philosophy, it is the only thing I am really passionate about that way. I want to get funding for a bigass think tank to employ philosophers. I'm lazy so I'll probably just plan it and then not but it's not a bad idea
It is logical that the logicstitians are using their logic in tandem with society and the sciences.
political power and philosophy . . . there can be no cessation of evils . . . for
cities nor, I think, for the human race." (Rep. V. 473c11-d6)
https://philosophy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/_philers_rule_copy.pdf
There are more jobs in applied ethics than there used to be - in medicine, business e.g.
It wouldn't make any difference. The population are almost entirely suckers. The rulers have always been exploiting that mostly-sucker population, and always will.
Evolution made that arrangement, and it will always remain.
Michael Ossipoff
You do have a good point, though I shudder at the gross over generalization of the populace, especially since I can't disagree.
However, if that is the case, then why do the critical thinkers have more influence and prestige if the rest of society is full of "suckers"
If philosophers, critical thinkers and "logic officers" are so smart, how come they haven't figured out how to become more influential in society?
Quoting Myttenar
So, here we are with North Korea having launched another ballistic missile, this one capable of reaching the central US, and maybe Washington, D. C. What's your advice?
Quoting Myttenar
If you want to be involved in making big decisions, you have to have knowledge in the relevant area. How's your knowledge about Public health? Strategic arms deployment? Supply chain management? Monetary policy? Molecular engineering? Marketing? Production Management?
And if good men (try to) do something,then evil men still rule the world.
Good people are irrelevant to the overall state of the world (though of course they can still help someone in specific instances. And of course it's still encouraging that they're there at all.).
Then we agree that it's a gross generalization, but not an over-generalization.
I don't think that anyone has influence, except for the ruling 1/10 of a percent. (...but, for the most part, only a fraction of those.)
The mechanism of that rule doesn't matter. It's taken various forms throughout history, to suit the fashions of particular historical periods. Rule by divine right, rule by people who are better, or, more recently, a hilarious pretense of democracy.
That's why I'm completely non-political, and have no interest in government or voting.
I like to quote P.T. Barnum, who said that there's a sucker born every minute.
...and W.C. Fields, who said "Never give a sucker an even break."
...and point out that those two great social scientists have thereby explained why society is as it is, and always will be.
Michael Ossipoff
The arrogance of this post and most of the responses is a bit mind-boggling. The contempt shown for the benighted hoi polloi is staggering. The whole thing is laughable. You ask why philosophers don't have more influence - here's Exhibit A. Everyone else is either a ruler or a sucker. Hey, maybe I'll start a think tank to pay philosophers more. Hey, maybe I'll grow wings, lose 200 pounds, and start flying.
The primary skills of governance are political and managerial, not intellectual. Stalin and Hitler thought they were running the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany on logical principles. Lot's of really intelligent people are boneheads. Many can be found here on this forum. Here in this thread.
Of course, one has to wonder about the hoi polloi at times. But then, one has to wonder about the corps d'elite too, quite often. The latter are capable of doing so much more damage.
1. Opening with an attack is a nice touch but an appeal to emotion..
2. My point is that given the critical thinking skills of the philosophers and trained critical thinkers is a grossly untapped resource and I apologize for misrepresenting if that was the way it was taken.
As a logistician we try to make our deductions with the information available and understand that we are don't actually know anything but can use logical process in areas that truths are provided by those in those fields.
This skill alone shows management skill..
And everyone is a victim of their own perspective, our society thinks it is right just as much as Hitler thought he was. I don't really wanna compare to see who had more evidence to support their belief.
Psychologically speaking, The attacks made indicate a repressed internal problem being expressed subconsciously.
Philosophically speaking any attack is an appeal to emotion and become little more than a distraction an adds no value to the conversation.
Your statements are invalid.
A logistician used their critical thinking skills to make deductions based on information provided. They don't need to be the one working in that field but are provided the information by those who are.
You forgot rule by idea
And the mechanism for rule does matter if society is to prosper not implode.
Agreed. Also, and for what it's worth
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Calling it like it is isn't contemptuous; it's just frank.
The real contempt for the "hoi polloi" is from their owners/herders./milkers/shearers. ...and, well, from themselves too.
But I don't encourage worry about that. What would be the point? It's not as if it could change.
Yes, if it weren't so tragic.
Not many are rulers, but there's no shortage of suckers.
Michael Ossipoff
Well that was there all along, the idea that the pharohs and kings were divine. The idea that the rulers were purer and better. And now the idea of democracy (but without the democracy). So there was always some sort of an idea to support it.
But it doesn't now, and didn't then, matter what people believed, because it's the business of a ruler to make sure that he can hold onto rule no matter whats his subjects want.
Michael Ossipoff.
It certainly isn't that the rulers lack the benefit of expert advice.
They employ the best experts on psychology, persuasion, advertising, technology, and strategy of all kinds.
Michael Ossipoff
There was no appeal to emotion. It was appeal to what ought to be common values. The fact you don't recognize that is telling.
Quoting Myttenar
I'll say it again - intellectual skills are useful but not necessary for good governance. If the posts in this thread constitute the work of "trained critical thinkers," we need to keep them as far from places where important political decisions are made as possible.
Quoting Myttenar
Showing condescension and contempt for those you think you are qualified to govern is arrogant to the point of delusion.
Quoting Myttenar
So, Hitler's plan was just wrong. It wasn't evil. Whatever, it was the product of what was supposed to be an effective, rational means to an end. I wonder if he had trained critical thinkers in his staff.
Quoting Myttenar
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha..............
Quoting Myttenar
Attacks on ideas are not necessarily appeals to emotion. Appeals to emotion are not necessarily invalid or inappropriate methods of argument. The fact that you don't know that shows you don't understand what it takes to govern.
Quoting Myttenar
Mr. Putin, your statements are invalid. Kim Jong-un, your statements are invalid. President Trump, your ideas are invalid. That'll show em.
Plato proposed a society governed by philosophers, but of course the problem would be, how does one get from here to there?
Michael Ossipoff
"Global society constitutes a system of inexpressible complexity. It is like a huge central nervous system in which ‘social neurons’ (i.e. people) interact with each other via an infinity of interconnecting and overlapping subsystems. The fundamental dynamic of the system is power, that is the ability of a social group or individual to influence others in accordance with its/his/her interests. Interest is thus the principal, and most effective, means through which power is transmitted.
Here, already, is the starkest possible contrast with our conventional psychology: what animates us is not rational appraisal and considered choice of action, but the push and pull of social power as it manipulates our interest. It is not argument and demonstration of truth which move us to action but the impress of influences of which we may be entirely unaware.
Reason, then, is a tool of power, not a power in itself. Just like moral right, rational right is not of itself compelling and, when it is in nobody's interest to regard it, will be disregarded. Those who - like Thomas Paine for example - seem successful advocates of Reason in its purest form, may fail even themselves to see that it is in fact not reason alone that makes their words persuasive, but the causes (interests) to which reason becomes attached. No doubt Mein Kampf was as persuasive to those already sold on its premises as The Rights of Man was to 18th century revolutionaries in America and France. This does not mean, to those who value reason, that Paine's writing is not worth infinitely more than Hitler's; it means simply, and sadly, that Reason alone is impotent. What really matters is power itself." -- David Smail, Power, Responsibility and Freedom
Just out of curiosity, do you see yourself as one of those who could appropriately be chosen to govern?
There is no refutation in your statements so I won't point out the fallacies. :)
No, if you read the statements I've made you would see that I simply want to create jobs in logic
Oh and vive la revolution!
I like your view on this subject. But, I honestly think Darwin had it backwards. In this world, the idiots survive, the idiots prosper, and the idiots make decisions for the intelligent.
Now, whether or not the intelligent are the "fittest" or the "weakest" is up for debate :)
Is it a valid philosophical method to refuse to respond? Mr. Putin, there is no refutation in our statements so I won't point out the fallacies.
I'll summarize your post and my refutation:
Myttenar: Philosophers ought to rule.
T. Clark: Your post provides evidence that philosophers should not be allowed to rule. Here's how:
I like discussing things with you. On several of the issues we have discussed, you have interesting positions at angles, if not opposition, to my own ideas. I'm surprised to see you on this broken-wheeled bandwagon.
Do elaborate :)
Since the point that I still never asked to rule so this is a misrepresentation of my position and has no actual bearing on this conversation and continues to fail to add value to conversation with overtones of judgement, contempt and thinly veiled attacks.
Sorry you feel that way.
I'm surprised to see an attack like this from you, honestly.
You say you aren't proposing that philosophers rule the world. Here is my refutation. You have made the following statements in previous posts on this thread:
Quoting Myttenar
Quoting Myttenar
Quoting Myttenar
Quoting Myttenar
That doesn't even include comments by the rest of the posters.
Try a refutation of the original statement instead of the out of context responses to the verbal bullying. It helps to try and understand the position of the idea instead of assuming it's position and ignoring evidence of the opposite.
Perhaps you have been trolling and I erred in judging your intentions.
Your response to Myttenar:
Quoting Aurora
This response shows the same contempt for the governed as most of the posts on this thread.
I wish I were wrong about this :)
Do you mean the governing ? Or the governed ?
Perhaps my comment would have been more temperate if I had stopped at "Lot's of really intelligent people are boneheads." Probably better "Lot's of really intelligent people are not competent to make important, urgent, practical decisions that will have serious consequences." But I stand behind the sentiment.
An important fact of rhetoric - your temperate response to my comments has made me reexamine them more than other, more heated responses.
Then, as I wrote, you have jumped on the bandwagon. As I hope I've made clear, and as my Italian friend Allesandro says, this argument offends my essence.
I meant the governed.
Short answer: I wouldn't run for the office of a Philosopher-King, or any other public office. For one thing, at my age, I wouldn't want the duty and responsibility.
No doubt there are many who'd be just as good in such an office.
But I trust that if I were running for Philosopher-King, against Obama, Hillary and Donald, I can count on your vote?
Michael Ossipoff.
Well, I'm glad.
It's all good. A little heat and friction is to be expected in a forum of this kind. I've been on a few.
Back to the subject under scrutiny, I agree with you - many intelligent people are ill-equipped to be leaders and make decisions for the masses, because the skill set / knowledge required for that is quite different. Their personality type, almost by definition alone, renders them a bad fit for political/managerial positions. I know because I'm intelligent as hell and I'd suck as any sort of sheep herder :D
So, I honestly don't know what the solution to this "problem" would be. I just know that the world is in a mess because it is ruled by idiocy.
Ok, let's get to the point.
Were you offended by my claim that the majority (who survive and prosper) are idiots ? If so, I assume you disagree. Help me understand.
I have attacked your ideas. Ideas you put out for critical discussion. I haven't attacked you. My responses don't constitute bullying or trolling.
I wasn't offended. My essence was offended. I love that phrase and my friends and I would always laugh when Allesandro used it. It was just a way of saying I feel strongly about my position.
Your post was in line with many of the posts on this thread. I've tried to make it clear why I disagree with them so strongly. What more do I have to explain?
Oh ok, I apologize, then. I just got to this thread, and I haven't gone through all the previous posts. I usually only read the very first one and a few random ones that catch my attention.
Let me read your responses to others.
Ok, I did read a few, and I will be honest. ... I have no clue about any of the political stuff you and others wrote or the quote about the pursuit of happiness or much of anything else I read here. I was only responding to the original post. And my response is that I agree that the world is ruled by idiots. Now, I wouldn't know how to do it any better, but that doesn't change the fact that idiocy rules this world.
Nailed it :)
Yes, but I doubt that you or anyone else here will find my answers satisfactory :) I'll give it a try.
The problem is that most of humanity is run by collective conditioning (i.e. insanity). This has reduced most people to puppets or robots who have a script in front of them that they follow line by line.
Those who are truly intelligent are, first and foremost, people who think for themselves and question the status quo, without blindly following the crowd. These are usually the unhappiest people on Earth, for the simple reason that they see the insanity that is so prevalent, and not least importantly because they just don't fit in (they're the underwhelming minority).
Ernest Hemingway said, “Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.” These people are pushed outside the social perimeter, where they are barely able to function, much less make significant contributions to society, and much much lesser make leadership decisions.
So, sadly, it is almost by necessity that this world is ruled by fucking idiots. Those who see the truth will want nothing to do with the charade that politics or any kind of "decision making" is.
How to improve the problem ? I dunno :)
This is an abysmally lazy statement, and crude too -- no sign of refined thinking on your part. You and Myttenar too,
Well, sir/madam, you are entitled to your opinion as are all of us. Have a wonderful day/afternoon/evening/night :)
I actually agree with You, but in my perspective of a person is going to be receptive and responsive to an idea has little to do with how sophisticated or pretty it sounds.
From my experience there are few that choose to logically build ideas.
Many seem to reject the idea when presented and express themselves emotionally, attacking others because of a difference of opinion. Logically refuting an idea is productive at least
I have some random thoughts on this old and interesting topic. I'll admit I like the idea of appropriating the insights and skills of philosophers and other thoughtful people in the service of the larger community - it sounds reasonable and desirable on the surface, but I think it needs to be worked out in much more detail than you've given it here.
I side with T Clark on many of the issues he brought up - especially the condescending stance taken against the masses which appears to underlie the position - but I'm open to a change of opinion if you can elaborate on your position beyond the notion that those skilled at solving problems using reason, logic, critical thinking, etc should be valued for their potential at solving the particular problems we face. That seems understanding seems a bit empty since most people, including a majority of those not at all disposed towards philosophy or other intellectual pursuits, use reason successfully in their personal lives on a daily basis in mundane ways.
Be that as it may the first thing I'd look to is historical precedent. For example, James Madison is widely regarded as the most impressive intellectual figure among the 'founding fathers' in the United States - a theoretical genius who was well-versed in ancient and modern philosophy - and he had a chance to put theory into practice when he became our nation's 4th president. How'd he do? By most accounts his performance was not very good - in fact he was far inferior to presidents like George Washington and Andrew Jackson who were "men of action" rather than men of intellect. So theoretical prowess and practical skill don't always (or even often) seem to overlap when it comes to politics.
We also have cases like Plato in Syracuse, Heidegger in Nazi Germany, the philosophes in revolutionary France, etc. that seem to reinforce the notion that there's a significant disconnect between the things which make for a good philosopher, and those that make for a good manager, technician, politician or bureaucrat. One could go further and argue that it was philosophically-inclined neocons (Bremer, Wolfowitz, et al.) who, after gaining some influence during the G.W. Bush administration, led us into a foolish war in Iraq which have only made the problems of the Middle East - and the world more generally - much worse than they were before they tried to 'solve' them.
To be fair I'd imagine a solid counter-example to this sad spectacle would be the reign of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius - but whatever his merits as a political leader, he apparently couldn't even manage his own household very well and turned out a son who wasn't a good emperor by any standard of judgment (perhaps @Ciceronianus the White could chime in on this assessment). Abraham Lincoln could be a more modern example of the benefits resulting when philosophy and political power are aligned, but the wisdom and statesmanship he embodied seemed to be more ethically and intuitively-oriented than overtly philosophical or calculative/logical/rational, although he combined those elements too.
But this leads to the issue of what exactly it is that philosophers do that makes them more capable of leading a nation than others? or even contributing in any way to the overall well-being of the people? Critical thinking? Reason? Problem solving? These are things that can be applied in many ways to many different things, and many a non-philosopher makes ready use of them in mundane ways on a daily basis. Is it the ends for which they're put to use that distinguishes philosophers from non-philosophers? The latter is locked in his or her own narrow self-interest whereas the philosopher grasps the whole or the universal? I think that's a useful distinction.
I think that's a useful distinction, and before utilizing the important skills in the way you're suggesting one needs to see the bigger picture - how each aspect of society (economy, culture, etc.) fits into a larger holistic framework. This seems to be where genuine philosophy is found. Before solving a problem we obviously have to identify it. So I think we should address, like Plato, what the proper subject matter(s) of philosophy is before proposing that those who practice it acquire a place of prominence in the community. It isn't nearly as self-evident as it sounds, and it's definitely more complex than simply the ability to solve problems.
Bean counters and the like may be good with numbers and at using logic, reason, etc. to solve certain problems to their business's advantage, but in my experience they also tend to be bad leaders precisely because they tend to get stuck in the small details while failing to grasp the entire situation, including 'intangible' things like employee morale that are extremely important to the long-term success of the company. Those sorts of things end up adversely affecting the numbers in ways those fixated on data-driven solutions are oblivious too.
Furthermore, the truly wise - the 'philosophers' as opposed to the sophists and other impostors - aren't nearly as interested in money and power and the other idols of the marketplace as most people are. This Socratic (Platonic) idea is clearly anachronistic but it still rings true to me. Beyond basic necessities of life the philosophically-inclined don't share many of the same needs or concerns as their fellow citizens, and that makes them laughable - as well as occasionally dangerous - to their community. This of course is an old view of philosophy but it's one that resonates with me, and it's the only one which someone like Plato had in mind when he made his statement regarding philosophy and political power.
We should recall that Socrates was put to death by his peers after all for corrupting the youth and not believing in the city's gods; for challenging those prejudices and assumptions which characterize every community, even the most ostensibly progressive, open and tolerant ones.
Anyhow I think it's best (pace Plato) these days if philosophers and artists work quietly at the margins of society. They should attempt to shape the culture and values of their community in ways that are mindful of and tactfully responsive to the common prejudices of the masses. I definitely don't feel like these things can or should be legislated in a top-down political manner in most cases (although there are exceptions e.g. Lincoln's outlawing slavery in the U.S against the desires of white Southerners).
That gradual shift in the way the general population understands itself and its world may ultimately lead to more practically-oriented men and women channeling these energies in the political sphere, but only once they've freely gathered enough momentum at the grassroots level. That outlook remains respectful of the dominant democratic ethos while also acknowledging the aristocratic spirit of authentic philosophy, which aims to lead in surreptitious ways beyond the chatter and noise so prevalent in the political realm. That's unlikely to happen but still the best case scenario for the role of philosophy.
I'm not trying to sound grandiose but there's something unique about philosophy that will probably never appeal to more than a small percentage of human beings. That doesn't necessarily make those uninterested in the topic lesser people in any way; in fact they're probably far superior to the philosopher in many of the things of great importance to a community or nation. That old (apocryphal) story of Thales falling into a ditch while looking up at the stars in front of a crowd of amused onlookers captures the perennial lack of respect for philosophy among the hoi polloi IMO, which is to be expected.
The last thing I'd add is a recommendation to pick up a copy of Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, if you haven't already read it, in order to get an interesting perspective on the significant problems which can result when supposedly enlightened and theoretical minds take over political power, and then try to implement changes without taking heed to the ingrained habits and mores of 'the people' which have been developed over long periods of time. This belief in the efficacy of social engineering can lead to barbarism of the worst sort, as when the purported champions of the people are willing to sacrifice many of those same people for the sake of their imagined utopia - a place in which all problems and conflicts are eliminated. So the arrogance and presumptuousness that intellectuals are prone to exhibit can be very dangerous, as can be their conspicuous lack of practical wisdom, and at the very least this is something to be on guard for in ourselves.
I often avoid long posts, but I read all of yours and liked it very much. I don't really disagree with anything you say and you added a lot of depth to the discussion.
As I was reading I was thinking about the difference between our rhetorical styles, at least in this thread. Mine was angry and harsh. Yours was well reasoned and conciliatory. I think I'm really good at angry/harsh. In my time on this forum, I've tried to move more toward the reasoned/conciliatory side. I've made some progress and I think I'm pretty good at that approach too. Then again, I think sometimes anger and ridicule are called for. For me, this is one of those situations. My posts weren't intended to convince, at least not convince Myttenar. Yours were and will certainly be more effective in that way.
There are a lot of really smart posters on this forum who bring an understanding of the history and structure of philosophical thought to our conversations. I am always grateful for what they have to offer. I come from a place which is very skeptical of much of western philosophy. In my time on the forum, I have become more open to seeing its value.
Let me add to my answer to this question:
Quoting T Clark
I don't have management or leadership skills.
And, as I said in a previous message:
" I'm completely non-political, and have no interest in government or voting."
Those things don't recommend me for governing.
But of course each of us prefers some governing policies to others. Suppose that your policy-preferences are right or best. If so, then, if you somehow had the power to institute those policies, that would be an improvement, right?
Realistically, of course, there's no way for that power or policy-making opportunity to ever happen.
What you, I, or any of the 99.99% want or prefer is, and will remain, entirely irrelevant.
Michael Ossipoff
I suppose it depends on how few the few are, and what is considered "ideas".
True, most people... 80%? 90%? do not work with all-caps "ideas", big ideas, the all-time-great ideas, and it's a good thing they don't, because the world is not perpetuated by great ideas; it's perpetuated by working in the dirt to raise food and fiber, digging in the ground for metal; cooking, cleaning, mending, minding, and managing life. Without the tedious and exhausting labor of the many, there would be no survival of the few.
Martin Luther praised the labor of the many as sacred as the labor of priests, monks, and nuns. The labor of the many is God's work as much as the labor of the saints.
As for the 10% or 20% who are not weeding the crops and spinning cloth, most are not concerned with "philosophy" per se. There is nothing less elevated in their work if it doesn't concern philosophy. The fields of the Liberal Arts all entail as elevated an understanding of the abstract as philosophy. OK, I'll readily grant that Business Administration, Medicine, Technology, Agriculture, Chemistry, Physics, etc. are all concerned with the tangible world. But the tangible world should not be dirt under the philosopher's feet.
Further, the labor of the many which is as sacred as the labor of priests, as elevated as the supposedly elevated work of philosophers, isn't so simple. Compelling the tangible world to become useful was not, is not, ever easy. Take a small cattle herder as an example. Cattle may not be as clever as crows, but they aren't mindless and they don't have to cooperate. Sometimes they don't. A successful small herdsman understands the animals he works with, and knows how to appeal to the animal's preferences. Cattle have preferences, and they have precedence. A farmer that doesn't recognize which cow is First, Second, and Third won't get them organized in the barn. Even an above average philosopher will not be able to tell one cow in a herd from another. For most of us, all cows of the same kind (jersey, holstein...) look exactly alike.
The great mass of technology which holds the human world together, and has held the human world's functioning together for a long time, was built up by ordinary workers. Sowing grain by hand, for instance, is a technology. So is preparing the soil, so is harvesting, so is grinding, so is baking bread. A Platonically minded philosopher can talk about the ideal loaf of bread (which can not be eaten) but a humble woman making bread understand the physical thing of bread, how it must be handled if it is to be good bread. Project forward a few millennium to a French pastry chef: more understanding, more technology, a philosophical French croissant--but still the physical world which must be understood.
The rarified philosopher may be very deficient and impoverished in his understanding of the physical world. I feel this impoverishment in myself (though I am not much of a philosopher) when I confront ordinary physical problems like, fixing a leaking faucet, or trying to understand why my garden will not support certain plants. Of course, I CAN figure these things out -- at least I used to know how to fix a faucet, and the fact is, parts of the garden just have crappy soil--all sorts of different dirt, sand, gravel--even a sidewalk--have been buried there. But, bad experiences have led me to think I am better off paying a plumber to fix things, rather than having disasters later.
Getting a head of lettuce from California's fields to a Boston table, and have it be fresh, crisp, and flavorful, requires a lot of technology, thinking, logic, planning. Supply chain management is invisible to the philosopher, but without it, he'd starve--as would most of us.
The ultimate reason why philosophers are not superior beings is this: Trained in logic, thinking, and abstract ideas he may be, but his mind is no less subject to failure than anyone else, and his emotions are as likely to lead the philosopher into--or out of--the weeds as anybody else.
We are part of the natural physical world, whether we are troglodytes or live in the ivory tower, and are always physical beings Think we can, but it's all the physical world that makes it possible.
He may not have been quite the monster he's made out to be. I think we have to take into account the fact that those contemporary sources we have may be prejudiced against him or otherwise deficient. He was disliked by the Senate, although and possibly because he popular with the people (the Roman "mob") and the legions, and the primary historian of his reign was Cassius Dio, son of a senator and a senator himself. He was apparently considered frivolous and decadent by the Senate and too fond of gladiatorial games.
He also earned the Senate's dislike by abandoning the conquests made in his father's reign (and those of Trajan and Hadrian) in Germany and modern Bohemia and the empire's eastern border with Parthia. The Senate for the most part liked conquest; it generally increased the wealth of its members and presented opportunities for advancement. But, some have maintained this was appropriate at least in the case of the eastern European conquests, and that the empire was overextended. And his reign saw the end of about twenty years of constant warfare by the empire.
His father apparently tried quite hard to provide for his education and prepare him for administrative and military duties, appointing tutors and making him co-Augustus with him. Perhaps Marcus felt that he would do well as a result; perhaps he did do well, for some time, at least. He was born of the union of Marcus and his first cousin Faustina; maybe that accounts for his growing megalomania and other problems.
Logic is a highly specialized science.
If you want leaders, voters, managers, etc. making better-informed decisions about the big picture, lobby for the employment of more people from cultural anthropology.
If you want to understand as much as you can about, say, overpopulation, how would a specialist in logic be more useful than a cultural anthropologist?
I can't find it right now, but I read a column a few months ago that said the opposite: it is the highly-educated elites who keep everything running. Without the highly-educated elites, I recall the author saying, the farmers, postal carriers, and the rest of us non-elites would be helpless.
What no side of this discussion tells me is why anybody wants to put their own role in the system on a pedestal. The common worker often sounds as elitist as the paper shuffling CEO ("Without the work that I do, the whole system would implode").
Let's be honest. People mostly care about power, influence, prestige, status, wealth, etc. Pragmatic considerations, such as keeping the population fed, are secondary at best.
If pragmatic considerations are our concern then we need the knowledge and skills of everybody. No matter if is the organizational skills of a CEO, the problem solving skills of a logician, or the skilled hands of a carpenter, we need all of it to be marshaled to the benefit of everybody.
Apparently people can't be happy with being good at something and being fairly compensated for it. Apparently people can't be happy unless what they are good at enjoys high social status, is allowed to have greater influence in public policy, and is widely recognized for its greatness.
It sounds like childish narcissism, to be honest.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
It would be, except that I don't think most people are so obsessed. Most people seem like they are just trying to get through the day, their life, without too much misery.
Some, a small minority, really are obsessed with power, influence, prestige, status, wealth, etc. and they are a troublesome lot.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I think they are so obsessed. Sure, they're not obsessed with power on a large scale, absolutely not. They can care less about it. But they are obsessed with power over their husbands, over their children, over their local community, etc. And they are often more draconian, perfidious and demanding when it comes to this sort of power than those who strive for power on a grand scale. Those who strive for power on a grand scale do get, sooner or later, a sense of their own smallness and vulnerability which persists, regardless of how powerful they become. Take people like Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and the like. Sure, there are also Neros out there, but they are an exception I would say.
Quoting Bitter Crank
The small minority obsessed with power, influence, prestige, money etc. can be troublesome, depending on their characters. But more often than not, they happen to be less troublesome and less draconian than the relatively uninfluential who strive after influence even on a small level.
About money....
"There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money" - Samuel Johnson
And that is often true, because to make money, at least honestly, you have to do something that is valuable to others.
I agree with BC - this is nonsense. Just because you're not smart enough to figure out a way to rule and replace whoever you claim the idiots are, it doesn't mean that the world is by necessity ruled by idiots. It just means you're failing. There comes a time when one gets sick and tired of hearing people complain about politicians, etc. - why don't you go replace them eh? They're idiots afterall - it shouldn't be hard for you, given that you see the truth - to take power should it? If even the blind - those who do not see the truth - take power, why can't the enlightened ones? If they are so virtuous and strong, this should be child play for them, a warm-up. A real man or woman does not complain, he or she goes out there to change the world - precisely because they are smart and enlightened and have an advantage over everyone else who is blind and foolish.
And even if the world was ruled by idiots - it's your fault for allowing them. You are intelligent, why do they hold power?! What's that intelligence of yours doing fusting in you unused?
Quoting Bitter Crank
(Y)
Quoting Bitter Crank
I agree. But theory and ideas are required to shape and change the world. Very many people discount books & study as a valid way of affecting the world, but I actually think that the learned are more powerful than the unlearned in shaping the world. Depending on the learning of course. It needs to be done with pragmatic aims in mind.
You are more likely right than I am. I don't have all the answers. I have very few.
I only said what I felt was the truth. I may be utterly wrong ... I know.
But, I am strangely, and extremely, comfortable with being wrong :)
Thank you for the nice remarks. That post was too long but I appreciate you taking the time to read it. I'll be honest and admit that it gives me some satisfaction - a little boost to the ego - that you found it to be worth the trouble.
Oh and I found your harsh style here to be very effective. Warranted too I should add.
Great insight as usual. Thank you.
Sorry. I didn't think this was aimed at me. I do have a response.
I recognize a whole range of problems in our political, economic, and international situations. I attribute many of them to the short-sightedness, self-interest, ideology, poor planning, lack of compassion, racial and ethnic prejudice, and other factors. Maybe even evil in some cases. I don't think idiocy in either those who govern or those who are governed has a role in most cases. I think putting philosophers or technocrats as such in governing roles is a terrible idea.
I don't think there is a logical process that will solve any of our problems, although reason, science, history, and other intellectual approaches have a role to play. This is a political problem with political solutions, if any. Primary solution - govern from the middle. How to do that. Too big a subject. I'm not sure how much I have to offer in figuring it out.
" I don't think there is a logical process that will solve any of our problems."
So it follows that these problems then are illogical problems?
The people who prosper most are the unethical, no-conscience, crude, selfish and aggressive people. ...people who don't care how many people have to suffer or die to make possible their lavish lifestyle.
The scum rises to the top.
Idiots? Yes, in a way,
On the material level, the rulers know what they're doing. As I said elsewhere, they employ top experts in psychology, marketing, technology, and strategy of all kinds. In the sense of knowing how to win, how to maintain their power, under every forseeable contingency, they know what they're doing.
But does that really mean that they know what they're doing in a meaningful sense?
Though they aren't signing a parchment document that explicitly sells their soul for material gain, I claim that they're doing something that's effectively no different from that. The difference is only in the details.
That's something that's been well-understood for a long time. The Book of Ezekiel says:
"What profit it a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
(No, I'm not a biblical-literalist. Though I'm a Theist, the facts I mention here are obvious whether you're a Theist, Atheist or Agnostic.)
Within the scope of their little game as they perceive it, they're winning. It's what's known as a Pyrrhic victory.
What they don't understand is that they're really harming themselves the most. They're their own worst victims.
So: Are such people idiots? Sure. That's what I'd call anyone who thinks that it's possible to really ultimately get away with even the most heinous acts.
Let them have their Pyrrhic victory in their little game. That's why another famous person said:
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".
Michael Ossipoff
(Y)
That is pretty much exactly what I meant by "idiots". I meant idiots in a far deeper sense than just IQ, which no one (except you) stopped to consider - "idiots" meaning puppets of their conditioning ... if you cut open their brains, you won't find one original thought. People who are, in essence, living their whole lives on the public stage ... entirely calculated and calculating ... with not the slightest smidgen of originality/creativity/authenticity/sincerity ... no soul ... just empty hollow shells of human beings ... actors following the same old script. In essence, such people are whores ... their entire lives are dictated to them by money/fame/power/whatever ... ironically, they're servants/slaves, while it seems, on the outside, to be the opposite.
In a sense, they're not even alive. Their reality exists entirely on the thin superficiality of material/political success/fame. In terms of human evolution, most might consider these people advanced humans, because they seem to be able to harness the power of the human brain to achieve "great things", but I'd argue exactly the opposite. If brains is what defines us, then I'd say that these people are quite backward in evolutionary terms, because they are unable to stop for one second to question what they're doing ... much like a computer will do what you tell it to do, without questioning it. "Computer, launch an ICBM to take out half the Middle East." Computer: "Yes, Sir !" (Computers aren't smart, they're just fast, (fairly) predictable, and able to reproduce (fairly) consistent results ... I program them for a living, so I know) They're slaves to their minds (conditioning), not the other way around. An intelligent human, to me, is one who is able to use his/her mind and come up with an original thought, regardless of whether the whole world would disagree with that thought ... i.e. not one whose mind uses him/her, not one who blindly plays out a script that everybody else in the world is following.
Albert Einstein famously said, "There are two things that are infinite - the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." and "Imagination is more valuable than knowledge." We all know about his contributions to science, but he was also a deeply spiritual/philosophical man and that is what I find most inspirational about him.
Just because the whole world thinks one is successful, that doesn't mean much to me. I've come to learn the hard way that the majority is often wrong :) I am often extremely cautious when rendering a judgment on something when the whole world thinks positively/negatively about it ... myths, misinformation, and polarized opinions are much too easily parroted :)
Thank you for taking my "abysmal" and "lazy" (according to one person) statement and explaining, quite eloquently, what I meant :D
(Y)
I'd say the solutions to the problems are not logical or illogical. Logic applies to propositions - statements of fact. It doesn't address applying human values, identifying problems and goals, deciding the appropriate method to achieve goals, and determining when those goals have been met. Applying, identifying, deciding, and determining are human acts. In the context of a society or government, they are political acts.
I would disagree to this statement on the grounds that one can logically identify a problem for example. We can logically deduce if goals are met. We use our personal/perspective logic to set goals.
Logic develops ideas far beyond statements of fact given what we deduce from the premise. More than mere propositions or statements.
Maybe I've missed something here?
It would be helpful if you can give me an example of logic being used to apply human values, identify problems and goals, decide the appropriate method to achieve goals, and determine when those goals have been met.
Take for example a man attempting to fix an electric pump.
Logic is the reason he is fixing it, first of all from the proposition of "does it work" with an observation being made and conclusion derived that it is not, logic is used to make the decision to fix it, the man has realised in a logical process of deduction that the pump doesnt work (identifying a problem) and since it doesn't work logically moves to the solution of fixing it (setting a goal) and logically determines how to fix it (determining method) and identify when the problem is fixed(determine when a goal has been met).
Logical reasoning at every step.
I'd like to hear some examples of highly educated elites who keep things running. I can't think of any. How about the highly educated elites who almost collapsed our economic system in the 2000s. How about the highly educated elites who started a disastrous war in the middle east which has destabilized the area, sent a million refugees into Europe, killed tens of thousands of people, and made the US less secure.
I think there is a case to be made that highly educated people have driven technological innovation. That's not a small thing. But it doesn't make the trains run on time or feed the babies.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
An elitist who makes $30,000/year with two children.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
No. People mostly care about paying the rent or mortgage; buying food for their families; buying a new car, boat, tv, or smart phone; whether the Patriots win he Superbowl; etc.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
CEOs, good at what they do or not, are paid hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars per year. Many competent people are paid less than they need to support their families and have a safe, secure, and satisfying life. Make sure everyone has enough to live on, a decent place to live, decent schools for their children, quality medical care, and I don't care who runs the country. Except no Republicans.
All you've done is described the process of pump repair and then put the word "logic", "logical", or "logically" in front of everything. Please describe what you mean, in logical terms, what realizing in a logical process of deduction that the pump doesn't work" means. Logic doesn't tell him to fix the pump - the fact that he doesn't have any water to drink, flush the toilet, or wash with is not a logical There was no logic. He turned on his water and nothing came out. Describe how one logically determines how to fix the pump.
Kind of ethnocentric of me.
The overwhelming majority of people who are living under the global capitalist system--and the number who have managed to escape that system is probably miniscule--are living on the periphery and are indeed just doing what they have to to survive.
But I think that is safe to say that among the small privileged minority living in the core people do not seek work that they are good at. People seek careers in professions with very high salaries, high status/prestige, and/or above average power--never mind how good they would be at the work. Competition for positions in those careers is intense. People do things like cheat on college entrance exams, lie on resumes, etc. to have an edge over the competition. Networking and connections are more important than knowledge and skills that can be used performing work. Marketing one's self effectively is far more important than proficiency/ability in performing work.
If you think about it, actual knowledge and skills don't play much of a role in the market for highly-sought jobs. Somebody with more knowledge and better skills but no bachelor's degree is going to be overlooked as employers only consider candidates with a BA or BS, no matter how mediocre those candidates are.
If people actually tried to be really good at something, and if hiring and promotions were actually based on knowledge and skill, the economy would look much different in post-industrial society.
We've determined that we need a working pump. Please lay out some specific deductions that will be made to identify a solution to the problem.
This information + logic is why the man knows to fix the pump. Repeat process for next step. Information + logic. It's that simple
What's ethnocentric about it?
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
We may not live in a strict meritocracy, but most employers/managers have a reasonably good idea of what excellent performance looks like. People who like what they are doing are more likely to perform at high levels. After all, most of have a limited repertoire of what we can do well.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
They do, but I do not think there is any reason to suppose that millions of people breeze into their high-prestige, high power, highly paid jobs without being expected to deliver the goods--doing what they were hired to do, and doing it quite well, at least, and on time.
The workforce is not entirely rational when it comes to gets hired to do what -- everyone has witnessed examples of people getting jobs without being qualified (because they gave good head maybe). I have gotten a couple of jobs that I wasn't really qualify for, but I didn't give anyone head to get them. What happened? I washed out of the jobs. There is such a thing as knowing how to do something, on the one hand, and not knowing shit from shinola on the other hand. Other people actually can tell if you know what you are doing.
Along the lines of irrationality... there are jobs in industry, government, and NGOs that are so nebulous nobody can tell what the employee is supposed to be doing -- including the employee. It doesn't matter who gets these jobs, because they are pretty much empty from the start. But most jobs are NOT like that. Most jobs involve concrete activities that are purposeful, measurable, and observable. If you fuck up on the job, it will show.
I suppose everyone has had negative experiences in workplaces where there were people who didn't know how to do their jobs, despite their training. Like I said, I was in a job like that three times. The first one was a temp job in a call center. Couldn't figure out how the database system worked. booted in one month. The second one was as a departmental principle secretary at a University. Way, way too many details for me to learn and manage in the very distracting office setting. Gone in 14 months, voluntarily. The third instance was in a job I was initially qualified and able to do, and did do. But after 2 years, we had to seek contracts with very different requirements. I was supposed to be doing something called "risk reduction case management". Even though I had written the grant, the guidelines were extremely nebulous, and wasn't trained to do the kind of case management that the agent thought I should be doing (but which didn't have much to do with the objectives of the grant). Conclusion: Fired 7 months into the contract.
Now, in the other jobs that I held (some 38 years worth) I was generally able to function quite successfully, do the job I was hired to do, and did it well. But... there were these three that were totally out in left field for me. Other people have been in the same situation: Just not able to do the job for which they were hired.
The failures are the exceptions. Most people who are hired are identified as capable of doing the job, and do perform adequately.
Success and failures occur at all levels of employment, from menials on up to top executives; the successes far outnumber the failures. You (or I) may absolutely loathe the society we live in, but the fact is, as loathsome as it is, it functions successfully to keep being loathsome. It doesn't fall apart.
But philosophical materialism and its favorite offspring, determinism, are increasingly telling us--and increasingly being accepted for saying--that how we use our minds, along with the accompanying content of those minds, is entirely effects of causes that we have no control over.
The behavior you deem to be idiotic was, we are increasingly being told, selected through natural selection because it is advantageous.
Of course, tomorrow it might not be advantageous any longer. Who knows what will be selected then. Maybe low IQ will be advantageous. Or low empathy/affect.
And let's not forget that physical traits like a symmetrical face may correlate with, or even cause, ascent to positions of power and influence. Having the savvy--and the money--to buy cosmetic surgery may play as big a role there as biology.
And guess who gave us all of these ideas? A lot of the people you would call idiots. It wasn't serfs or hourly workers who came up with things like determinism and evolutionary psychology.
But, then again, we are increasingly believing that the serfs and hourly workers have no control over things like their role in producing ideas.
It's looking more and more like future generations will believe that we are all puppets.
Wouldn't that make all of us idiots?
I don't know what rigorous scientific research says, but my subjective experience says that good work has little to do with hiring, assignments, promotions, etc.
I have seen too many people who cut corners, break rules, lie, cheat, etc. be recognized and praised as the top performers. I have seen too many people who do not care about the quality of their work be recognized and praised as top performers. I could probably think of a lot of other assymetry between quality of work and rewards for work.
I have been fired when I was being honest and following proper procedure while people who were cheating were retained and praised as invaluable assets. It has happened numerous times.
I'm not saying that people fail. Customers, workers, managers and shareholders all get what they want, and the whole enterprise is considered a success. The whole economy is considered a success.
I am saying that doing what one is exceptionally good at is obviously not what the economic system we have encourages.
Economists may call it efficient. I call it wasteful.
I have no clue what "philosophical materialism" or "determinism" is, and for the purpose of this exchange (between you and I), it doesn't matter what those are or have to say. What I'm talking about is much more fundamental, doesn't require reading any fancy textbooks with cryptic words, and is something each of us, scientist or not, philosopher or not, CEO or janitor, is capable of understanding, provided we are conscious. Conscious, not in a medical sense, but in a more general sense ... simply aware of ourselves as being more than just a body and mind.
In other words, this goes way deeper than science, but yet, it is far simpler and more fundamental.
When you become aware that you are not just a body and mind, that you have a consciousness that is your essence (it is what makes you "alive"), then, you are no longer stuck in your mind. You can step out of the mind. You can use your mind instead of the mind using you. Then, you are no longer a slave to the mind/body. And, from that place, can come original/creative thought.
While I agree that the mind does dominate human existence (and that IS the entirety of the problem), it doesn't mean that we have no control over our minds. And, I didn't need to research philosophy to know that. It just requires being conscious ... stepping back and seeing that you're not your mind. And, most people aren't conscious. (that's what makes them idiots ... "unconscious" is another word)
So, we are all inherently intelligent, but in most people, that intelligence is unrealized, undiscovered, because it is obscured by that zombie-like blind adherence to what society teaches them (i.e. conditioning) and an inability to think for themselves (which is only possible if one is conscious) ... all it takes is that stepping back, to realize ... "Wait a minute, just because XYZ says this is so don't make it so. Just because this is what I've been doing for 60 years doesn't mean it's the right thing to do."
That's all it takes for an idiot to realize that he/she is actually quite intelligent :)
And, this is not me sitting on a high horse pointing the finger at everybody else. I was one of those idiots too ... asleep like a zombie, a high-functioning corpse with a heartbeat ... sprinting on that treadmill with the script in front of me ... till I woke up. And, so can everyone, but very few actually wake up, because they associate being human with being slaves to their minds, forgetting that they are, first and foremost, conscious beings (that are not yet aware of their consciousness).
Sometimes, it takes being afflicted with cancer and being told one has 6 months to live, for a person to "wake up".
Well, I don't have reams of data at my finger tips, either. But... Logic tells us, does it not, that if customers, workers, managers, and shareholders are all getting what they want, then the system has to be working. Customers want affordable and decent-quality goods; workers want reasonable labor loads and adequate pay managers want production to go smoothly and profitably; and shareholders want dividends and their assets to hold value.
If everyone in the economy is fucking up, fucking each other over, fucking off, and constantly lying, cheating, and stealing then no one is going to be satisfied: not the consumer, not the worker, not the manager, not the stockholder.
Most people are getting what they want. The economic system is big enough and complicated enough to allow for a certain low level of continuous failure. 35,000 people die in traffic accidents, true. But out of 320 million americans covering hundreds of billions miles a year on the roads, that is a low failure rate. Sure, there is waste, fraud, and abuse in every organization--whether it be the Cancer Society, Apple Computer, Exxon, or the Arkansas legislature. But, if the level of waste, fraud, and abuse is low and tolerable, we can live with it.
It takes an extremely efficient and vicious police state to eliminate all waste and fraud. I'd rather have some waste, fraud. and abuse and NO police state. As the recently disgraced Garrison Keillor said at the National Press Club a while back:
Not via democracy, according to Plato. Governments have to use restriction, social manipulation and force with results that history has shown to be abysmal.
My own view is that the wisest and the best should rule (I agree with Plato there). However, we have no reliable way of agreeing who is wisest and best (I disagree with Plato there). And every person is unwise and imperfect to some extent at different times. So we rely on the opinion of the crowd to balance out biasses and come to the least-bad solution. I think this is what Churchill meant when he said that democracy is the worst kind of government apart from all the other kinds that have every been tried.
Clearly you do not know what I mean by wasteful.
A system that does not encourage people to realize their true, full potential is sad.
A system that incentivizes underachievement is sad.
A system that does not stress honesty, integrity, doing things the right way, etc. is pathetic.
And be careful about what you want, you may get it. Look at the University of Louisville. Rick Pitino was getting what he wanted. U of L basketball fans (the customers) were getting what they wanted. Pitino's boss, Tom Jurich, was getting what he wanted. U of L, the donors, the sponsors, the taxpayers, etc. (the shareholders) were getting what they wanted. But now the U of L basketball program is the face of an investigation into corruption involving many NCAA schools, shoe companies, etc.; Pitino and Jurich have been fired and are probably never going to be hired anywhere else; the 2013 NCAA championship may be vacated; the future of the basketball program is uncertain; with yet another scandal on its hands, the future of the entire athletic department is uncertain; major damage to the entire product--college basketball--has been inflicted, not just damage to one brand; and all stakeholders are now suffering.
Almost everybody was getting what they wanted in Waco, Texas and at Baylor University: relevance in big-time college football. I heard that in a meeting with the university's governing board one donor said, "I don't want to hear one more thing about the university's mission. I was promised championships!". Now the whole community, the whole university, and all of college football have been severly damaged by a sexual assault scandal of unprecedented magnitude.
Soft drink makers, their employees, their customers, and their shareholders have apparently been getting what they want for a long time. Now we have an obesity epidemic. Now the industry might meet the same fate as the tobacco industry.
Again, if things like the actual quality of the product; the actual knowledge and skills that a person possesses; etc. were valued, the economy would look a lot different in post-industrial society.
The materialists and determinists will probably tell you that that "stepping back and seeing that you're not your mind" is an illusion.
And they will probably say that empirical science shows that it is an illusion.
Here's T Clark's formulation - In any enterprise; soccer team, engineering office; factory floor; hospital; McDonalds; 25 % of the people are competent, 25% are incompetent, and the middle 50% are more or less ok. I have seen a good manager or coach take the bottom 25% and make them ok; make the middle 50% better, provide support to get the best work out of the top 25%, and get them to all work together better to create an effective workforce. There aren't many managers or coaches who can do that. I guess that's because 25% of the managers and coaches are incompetent and 50% are just ok.
You and I are speaking from different planes altogether. I don't foresee us making much headway, to be honest.
If you ask me, this is not something that science has the authority to lend an opinion to, because it goes way deeper than science, i.e. science is irrelevant here. (And I say this as someone who studied computer science and loves science of almost all kinds ... in other words, I'm a science lover, not a science hater) But then, you will respond quoting some scientific research that someone out there that has done. Apples ... oranges. Apples ... oranges. Bla bla bla ... blu blu blu. We're getting nowhere :) It's ok, this happens on such forums a lot. But, it needs to be pointed out, to avoid unnecessary frustration.
With all due respect to those "proofs", a "proof" only "proves" something if the person you're showing it to agrees with it :)
In other words, "fact" is only what a handful of "experts" agree on, and usually only because there is no one out there with the motivation or ability to disprove what they have to say .. the same "experts" that, until not long ago, considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder ... the same "experts" that called Pluto a "planet" and then changed their minds ... the same "experts" that agree and then disagree, on a daily basis, about the negative impact of the cholesterol content of egg yolks :)
In another good quote, Churchill said "Americans will do the right thing after they have tried everything else". [1]
[1] According to Quote Investigator, the gist of the quote (in more elegant form) was spoken by Abba Eban in 1967. Some of the versions say "Nations will do the right thing..." Churchill wasn't credited with the quote until 1980. Churchill scholars say they can't find such a quote in his writings. So, he probably didn't say it, but it doesn't matter. Churchill gives a quote more cachet than Eban uttering it, even if Eban is more elegant.
Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola are quality products. Yes, they have sugar in them, but where in the advertising or on the cans does it say that one should drink as much of the stuff as one can get one's hands on. Beer, wine, and rye whiskey are fine products too. The brewing and distilling industry has never said that one should get drunk in one's youth and then stay that way for the next 70 years, Bacon is a fine product. That doesn't mean that one should wrap a piece of rich fudge in raw bacon and then deep fat fry it. Such concoctions are heart attacks on a stick.
A chef remonstrated with Julia Child about the amount of butter, sugar, and other fine ingredients she was putting into a dessert. She said, "Well, you're not supposed to eat the whole thing -- each person is supposed to get just one small slice."
You can only help people so far.
I believe that I have said it in other threads on this website. I have said it on other websites: Every economic actor should be equal.
I do not have the time to outline it / spell it out again. But, in a nutshell, every economic actor should consider him/herself to be a business, and every economic actor should be taxed, regulated, recognized, etc. as a business. Basically, every economic actor, including individuals, should be thought of like what economic theory now calls a firm. Nobody would be a "worker". Everybody would be a business selling a product and/or service. Everybody would be an independent contractor. Everybody would bid on as many different contracts as they want/need to--individuals working all day, all week in the same job for the same company would no longer be the norm.
Maybe the biggest reason why people do not realize their full potential in acquiring knowledge and developing skills is because we have an economic system that requires people to have narrow specializations working all day and all week in narrowly-defined roles. If you are an exceptional writer, you will have a difficult time ever utilizing that skill if you are sitting in a cubicle with a headset on and taking phone calls 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. If you are a good teacher, you will have a difficult time ever utilizing that skill if things like designing and implementing training are concentrated in one department or the job of one person and you are in another department and/or role doing nothing but sales all day. Etc. Etc.
I have seen nothing presented in this thread that is to the contrary of what I have been saying. We do not have an economic system that encourages people to realize their true, full potential. We have a system that encourages and/or incentivizes people to make decisions about formal education, training, and work based on things that have little to do with what they would excel at and make the greatest contribution at. Many years ago when I was in an introductory political science class I was caught off guard by the number of classmates who said that they wanted to go to law school. I sensed that they believed that law school was their ticket to above-average social status, prestige, wealth, influence and power. The exponential number of other paths to a fulfilling, meaningful future that they could consider apparently were far from their radar screens. From elementary school through college, and beyond, the message that we are given is that if you want to be successful and live a good life you have to follow certain narrowly-defined paths. How good you might be on those paths, how well-suited your personality and aptitudes are for those paths, and how much more productive you might be avoiding those paths are not things that people consider, I think it is safe to say.
It is that tunnel vision that results in the overwhelming majority of people never realizing their true, full potential, in my estimation. The OP in this thread does not change anything, in my estimation. The OP in this thread simply calls for a new variation of that tunnel vision.
True change would start with asking how we can marshal the full potential of all people for the benefit of everybody. Saying, like the OP here, that we need a certain kind of people with a certain kind of training making the decisions for a change is really just more of the same.
(This is your second response to me on this site. Both were worthless, which convinces me that you have nothing to say that is of interest to me. So, this will be my last communication to you on this site.)
Maybe you could try replacing them ? I think you'd do great.
Take care. Like I said, don't expect any more responses from me. You're not worth my time.
Quoting Aurora
So what's wrong with you, why do you need to respond again after days? :s Does it itch or something if you don't say a few insulting words? One would expect better from someone searching for "enlightenment".
I may not be worth your time, but thank God that you're not worth mine either - that makes the two of us a match made in Heaven.
Wow, that's the first and only valid point I've seen you make ! I'm impressed.
I was drunk when I wrote that initial response, so I was happier than I should have been, and I didn't fully read your shitty response :D What I said back then is entirely true (I don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong and I'm ok with it), but it doesn't apply in response to anything you have to say, sorry.
Now, re-reading it in a sober state, I realize that your response was total shit and that I shouldn't have said that I was likely wrong.
Sorry for misleading you into thinking you had brains. It was the alcohol, you know ?
"total crap" becomes "total shit"
"response" becomes "shitty response"
And so forth.
I guess that's what happens with enlightened people, they don't really know what to say, so they have to fidget around and change it on the go. And those changes are usually towards the vulgar.
I don't know what they teach in business schools, but I gather from my observations that nobody responsible for leading other people has the duty or desire to help every individual realize his/her true, full potential. Their responsibility is to manage and develop everybody under their leadership/supervision to produce the right results. If that means that somebody underachieves, too bad. I would say that it happens all of the time in team sports. A tight end in football might have the potential to be a game-changing receiver, but if the coaches need him to be a blocker more than anything else then they are not going to sacrifice team needs for his individual needs.
The problem is that in order to survive individuals have to respond to demand in markets.
The OP in this thread expects markets to respond to individuals who possess certain traits and have completed certain training. But the world as it is does not work that way. In order for the OP's wish to be granted, governments would have to intervene in markets and use coercion.
The problem is compounded by the fact that most people are happy to acquiesce and live a life of underachievement.
People would probably be happier and enjoy better, more productive lives if their lives were oriented around their true, full potential. But abstract, unclear rewards like self-expression are no match for tangible rewards like money or rewards with clearly-defined benefits, such as the social status that comes with owning one's home.
Ha ha! thanks for the insight. Churchill said Churchillian things in the way that Homer was the one who wrote anything Homeric.
I wouldn't worry about philosophy not having enough impact. Philosophy is about ideas, and ideas influence men every bit as much as capital does. Philosophers rarely get credit for any impact they do have though, since if a philosophical idea gains popularity in a society, lay people will just claim it 'common sense' and say they don't need philosophers to teach it to them!
For me, I found that my interest in philosophy was far greater than any interest I had in business, commerce or utilities. I wound up just admitting, to my self and anyone who asks why I do philosophy, that I just don't care about all of those 'practical' things. The most practical I get is morality and politics, and most people find those things still abstract and useless. I just care about ideas, and discussing them with others.
Later, I hope.
A good coach, manager, knows that the best team comes from bringing everyone along. Improving everyone. Maybe that's not true for professional or high power collegiate sports where you get to choose who plays, but for most, and for just about all in business, it is true. You're given who you have to work with and you make the best of it. That means getting the best out of everyone.
This shows a complete misunderstanding of people and their capabilities. There are people, maybe you are one, who can take charge of their own lives and build a place for themselves no matter what the conditions are. That's not true for most people. Most people just want to fit into a place where they can earn a good living and have a secure and satisfying job. That's not an unreasonable desire. As a manager, those people can be intelligent and competent coworkers. Not everyone is a dynamic entrepreneur. Most people aren't. If you are a manager, you wouldn't want them to be. Entrepreneurs don't make good employees.
I don't think so.
I have not had any formal education in business management, so I don't know what is taught at accredited institutions. But I've been there many times when the store, plant, center, etc. gets "visitors", and the fact that an individual on payroll is not being utilized on par with his full potential has never been near anybody's radar screen. I have never heard, "Oh, no! The district manager will be here Tuesday and will find out that Ruth would excel in sales but we are only using her as a secretary!".
Furthermore, I doubt that anybody in a management role has ever been denied a bonus, promotion, etc. because an individual in the organization is an underachiever. As far as I can tell, it's all about the collective metrics--do sales this year exceed last year?; have costs been reduced?; does customer satisfaction meet the goal?; etc. The true, full potential of all individuals compared to their actual development is never a concern.
I have seen it at my job. I have seen it on my children's sports teams. A good manager, a good coach, takes a work group, team, and makes it more than it is. It's really inspiring. It's not about who gets paid how much, or who wins, it's about teamwork and how a group of people can grow. Competence. It's not about being "denied a bonus." It's about pride and understanding. It happens all the time. It's about how things are supposed to work but rarely do.
Seneca doesn't get mentioned enough; but, he was a great statesman. Then there's the unfortunate perversion of Nietzsche and the Nazis.
Basically, thinking that philosophers ought not to rule a nation is just a prejudice. Sure, they might not be the best candidates for the position of power; but, then how does one determine or qualify those statements? Often positions of leadership require more than just intellect. So, maybe it's a categorical error to say that philosophers are best qualified to rule? I'm not sure.
Regardless, if one looks at the history of having the clergy in power, the results are not very appealing. So, would philosophers follow a similar path? Debatable; but, worth considering.
Again, without any scientific evidence I can only go by my own observations.
Again, I have no reason to believe that the global capitalist system cares about individuals realizing their true, full potential. Every economic actor is supposed to do what he/she/it believes is in his/her/its best interest. The invisible hand, we are told, magically turns all of that individual subjective self-interest into objective maximum collective welfare. Choices are to be made marginally--"Would it be in my best interest to buy this candy bar or skip it?".
As a result, people make choices based on things like price, risk, incentives, opportunity cost, etc. If you can do [X] amount of work and get paid Y or [X-10] amount of work and still get paid Y, you should do [X-10] (not work as hard and as much on the job), the system tells us. If you can lie. If you can cheat. If you can cut corners. If you can get away with destroying other people. The list could go on for many pages.
The system rewards homo economicus, not the examined life.
The system incentivizes and rewards efficiency. If it would be more efficient, as reflected on spreadsheets, to train 100 people to do a repetitive job following a script than to spend the same amount of resources developing one person who has the potential to, oh, discover the cure for AIDS, the former must be done.
If leaders in business think that we need more STEM graduates and that offering BAs in English does not create jobs, too bad if the next Shakespeare ends up washing dishes and never produces one literary work.
I will say it again: we need the unique knowledge, skills, talent, etc. of everybody to be put to optimal use for the benefit of all people. The fact that a lot of people want nothing more than the economic security of a routine job does not change that.
And resources spent employing somebody who is happy to underachieve, cheat, lie, etc. are resources not available to be spent on somebody who wants to make the greatest contribution he/she possibly can. There are probably more of the latter than we think quietly sighing as their true, full potential is never realized. That is sad.