Are living philosophers, students, and enthusiasts generally more left-wing or right-wing?
My expectation would be more left than right, but I've seen several things suggesting the contrary, and I'm curious what other people's perceptions are.
Comments (40)
Hey Forrest, I couldn't participate because I'm a moderate independent. (We need more moderates in our political and religious institutions.)
on this forum they are typically more left wing. I don't know how they are on other philosophy forums. I consider myself by and large a fiscally conservative Libertarian but my political party is Shark Fighter Nation. #Shark_Fighter_Nation
I know that it's a currently discussed issue in Academia, and that statistically it is true that there are fewer conservative (especially socially) folks in academia generally, and strikingly in Philosophy. Scruton was actually known for being a relative outlier in his conservative political views.
But I think there's also some shifts and divides happening, because there are some parts of the humanities in general that adhere to identity politics and apparently don't mind cancel culture, whereas philosophers tend generally to balk at the core concepts behind those two phenomena. So, from a post-colonial theorist's view, philosophers might seem pretty conservative on the whole, but in comparison to the general population, they are not. If you aren't aware, you can read up on what happened with the Hypatia journal and the article defending Dolezal to see the tip of the iceberg of totally bonkers in-fighting.
Daily Nous and Leiter's Blog have both featured and commented on some of the drama about whether conservative students/faculty are treated unfairly... which I think might sometimes be true, but also sometimes is a result of feeling left out when you're the sole defender of traditional marriage or some such on an otherwise liberal campus.
Also, concerns have been raised that philosophical journals don't publish as many conservative articles.... which, y'know, is it bias? Or are the potential conservative papers just generally of poorer quality? Hard to tell from the outside.
I understand and appreciate that most of the people in all categories are left-wingish. But they are AMERICAN left-wingish, and the left wing views in America would still be in the extreme right in 94 percent of the industrial countries.
Add to this that all totalitarian regimes, and hence, mistakenly, all socialist countries are considered right-wing according to the standard nomenclature of America, of which this is a website. So despite the most populous country, China, is extreme left-wing, in America the Chinese society is right wing.
Thisi s a distorted image, and the picture can't get out of the distortion, whether you view the topic with a lens made in America, Sweden, Japan, or Bangla Desh.
Do you have some problem with idle curiosity?
Quoting 3017amen
You can still share your opinions on the other questions, even if you don't want to answer the last one.
Quoting christian2017
So far the results suggest otherwise. (EDIT: At the time I posted this, the results were predominantly left-wing for all questions but the last, which was predominantly right-wing).
Quoting god must be atheist
This seems completely backwards. China and all countries called "socialist" or "communist" in America are typically considered left-wing by mainstream Americans, but are officially state-capitalist by their own admission (capitalism generally being right-wing), with communism only a nominal future goal. Historically authoritarianism is also a right-wing position; there's a reason "liberal" and "left" have long been synonyms (though no longer everywhere).
i guess.
Much like how a "no-party state", made out to be such a high noble thing above partisanship, is actually just a state where nobody is allowed to disagree with the single de facto party.
Well, the undue influence on the culture and laws of society by corporations is considered evil by religious people, while both left and right are not only happy with the corporate stronghold on society, they even encourage it.
In fact, the left is completely beholden to having corporations around because they see society as the struggle between evil employers and exploited employees. Someone who is, for example, self-employed is not a worthy, exploited victim, and therefore does not even belong in their take on society.
All in all, the corporations need the left even more than the right in order to maintain their undue power, influence, and even for their continued survival. Since the system allows corporate interests to fabricate new laws to that effect, it is them who are the true beneficiaries of the fake antagonism between left and right. That fake conflict is just one big, manipulative lie.
True religion is a bulwark against corporate takeover of society, because it forbids a key pillar in their strategy: the usury-infested fiat bankstering system. Without usury, corporate interests would not be able to enslave their manipulated serfs.
Consumer debt, credit card debt, student loans, inflated mortgages ... are the tools that the oligarchy uses to enslave the manipulated masses. On the long run, religion will win, simply because paper money, that false god, is programmed to become worthless, making it impossible to collect usury payments with it. Good riddance!
Personally, being left or right wing doesn't have philosophical underpinnings but I may be wrong. If you must know then isn't it quite obvious that everyone is a philosopher for all that's required to be one is an armchair and an average brain which is everyone, right?
Also, it's not so clear-cut that corporations are considered evil by religious people. Consider for example prosperity theology.
Quoting TheMadFool
Everyone has the tools to be a philosopher, but not everybody uses those tools for that purpose.
Anyway, I guess it's insufficiently clear from context that by "philosopher" in the question, juxtaposed with "philosophy student" and "philosophy enthusiast", I mean someone who does philosophy professionally, publishing work that is read and commented on by other people widely reckoned as philosophers.
I haven't read a lot of philosophy to be able to comment but if allow me a guess I think philosophers would lean to the left but I heard Nietzsche, and he is a great philosopher I believe, had a "different opinion".
Speaking from personal experience, I am often considered an extreme-right villain when in conversation with progressives, and a raving revolutionary when in conversation with conservatives. In terms of the left-right paradigm, I don't fit into a good box, ideologically. I'm anti-taxation, anti-regulation, anti-Welfare-State (making me the 'arch capitalist'), but I am also anti-war and anti-paternalism, such that I believe in the de-criminalisation of prostitution, recreational drug use and euthanasia (making me the 'arch hippie'). In older language, I am simply a liberal. But, with this term having been hijacked by social democrats, I have to call myself libertarian.
Maybe my inability to be pigeon-holed is a failure of philosophical consistency on my part. But I don't believe so. Indeed, I would argue that, if one is opposed the initiation of force and the invasion of private property, as the libertarian is, then one is committed to all of the positions just mentioned. So much the worse for the left-right paradigm!
Nor does the political compass help very much. The kinds of questions you find on these kinds of tests are often prejudicial and simplistic. Far better just to do political philosophy properly, which involves developing a philosophical system by reasoning your way up from first principles.
And yet when pressed on the matter of...
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
... in an earlier thread, you just walk away.
The issue here with many of these ideologies is that suspicion falls when supposedly ideologically motivated policies all 'coincidentally' result in outcomes which match some far more common motivation.
Libertarianism, of the kind you endorse here, is of this nature. All its proscriptions just 'happen' to support the lifestyle of the currently wealthy and as soon as any fundamental principle (such as property rights) seem to undermine that position, the principles are hastily adjusted accordingly (or the issue is ignored entirely).
It makes it very difficult to believe the ideology is not just post hoc justification for the pre-determined conclusions.
I am not sure what this is referring to.
I have defended libertarianism at length and in depth elsewhere. I have also challenged and rebutted the suggestion that libertarianism is somehow the philosophy of the wealthy (in fact, Statism is). If you wish to take issue with the case I have made in my own threads, you are free to.
I did, as did fdrake far more substantially, here. I was interested to hear your response to both. As I said above, it's telling that the ideology is robustly defended until it leads to issue contrary to the interests of the (broadly Western) wealthy, when interest in its defence wanes.
It's not so much what your actual response would have been that interests me here (I've no doubt some post hoc restructuring of the theory would account for it), it's the fact that these things (positions on moot points, abandoning lines of argument, appeals to authorities etc) all seem to err on the side of some Randian fantasia on the American dream, and yet are defended as if motivated by nothing but theory.
fdrake and I have exchanged many thousands of words, and we both think that it is has been quite productive so far. The suggestion that I have 'walked away' from anything is ridiculous. Not that it is any concern of yours, but I happen to be unusually busy at the moment, and so I intend to return to my thread in due course. fdrake is aware of this, so you need not claim any kind of victory on his behalf. I will contribute just exactly as much as I want to contribute, at my leisure.
Besides my other commitments, which are considerable, I did not see anything in your contribution which particularly needed responding to.
Quoting Isaac
A strange suggestion, as I am neither an objectivist nor an American. There is no small amount of poisoning the well, here. If you have made up your mind in advance of the argument that any defence of libertarianism is a post hoc contrivance, then it is little wonder that you are not interested in hearing a response. At least you are honest about that. I certainly should not like to admit to closed-mindedness, if I were so.
Religion, more specifically, Islam is strongly opposed to usury:
I strongly dislike corporations, especially the banksters, because they are usury-infested organizations and because they lobby the legislature to modify the laws to their benefit, and also because their mass-market messages are more often than not manipulative lies. They were supposed to merely trade and be engaged in commerce, instead of corrupting society's laws and culture.
Furthermore, with the school system manipulating their graduates into looking for jobs at these corporations, these corporations unduly make large numbers of people dependent on them for their livelihood.
Still, I cannot identify with left-wing politics, because it is mostly about redistributing income outside the religiously authorized channels of extended family and mandatory/voluntary charity. These left-wing people, in fact, also seek to change the laws in order to force and shoehorn everybody else into their state-run socialist utopia.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Christianity is much more flexible in that regard than Islam.
Quoting Wikipedia on prosperity theology
Christianity is primarily a clerical religion. Morality is traditionally decided by the (centralized) living magisterium. Even though the Protestants were going to implement a sola-scriptura policy, they actually just kept the practices of the Catholic Church alive:
Quoting Wikipedia on magisterium principle
Islamic theology does not depend on the authority of particular, centralized clergy but first and foremost on deductive reasoning from first principles. There is no Pope and there are no bishops in Islam. Islamic law is very close to a formal system with mechanical verifiability of its moral rulings:
Quoting Wikipedia on ijtihad
It is the very concept of the "Church" as a centralized organization and "magisterium" (personal clerical authority) that make aberrations such as the prosperity theology possible. Martin Luther's sola scriptura view has actually never been implemented in Christianity.
My comment has nothing to do with claiming victory on anyone's part, so I'm not sure what the relevance is. Nor am I proposing any requirement to proceed at any particular pace. What I'm disputing is the coincidence of the timing within the argument, and I'm disputing it theoretically (using your case as an example).
The point at which your other commitments prevented you from being able to continue, for example, coincided with the point at which your ideology lead to conclusions unfavourable to typical Western free-market interests. The extraneous comments you felt didn't require a response just so happened to be on the same point. The one time (in an otherwise first-hand argument) you merely appealed to authority also just happened to be on the same point.
Basically, the moment the fundamental flaw in your ideology is brought up you're either too busy to respond, appeal to authority or don't think the comment worthy of response, and you expect me to conclude that this is all just coincidence. It's a pattern I've seen in many situations and yours is just a case in point.
Detecting bias, post hoc arguments, altererior motives... all require analysis of context, and yet are essential parts of discussion. Either you allow meta-discourse factors to figure in, or you dismiss any such analysis and play to the flawed dogma that cold rational facts an constitue an argument alone.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
So, an example here. If me having 'made up my mind in advance' with regards to the post hoc nature of your position is an accusation you can fairly level at me (and I agree it is), then how would I be able to defend myself against it if the evidence I've used to reach that conclusion (argumentative style, timing, etc) is off-limits?
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
Note I said "interests me here", not "interests me in general". Your actual response on that thread is not relevant to the topic of this thread, here. I'm still interested to hear what it is in the other thread, but I reserve my right to read into it that meta-data that I feel is appropriate to understanding it in context, if those terms are unacceptable to you then I suppose I'll have to just observe rather than take part.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that I am incapable of responding to the latest objections which my thread's dialogue partners have posed, such that I am compelled to find an excuse not to continue? You could not be so arrogant as to suggest this, surely, given that I responded to objections left, right and centre, thousands of words at a time. Of course, any point at which I happen to take a break could also be identified as the crucial 'weak point' which causes my entire position to come crashing down. This is not convincing.
Quoting Isaac
What are you talking about? I am not looking at your 'style', let alone your 'timing'. Try writing an essay for college in which you critique the 'timing' of an argument, rather than its philosophical substance. I grade undergraduate philosophy essays, and I can tell you that this does certainly does not cut it. I have simply taken my cue from your words: you have anticipated any libertarian defence against your objections to be post hoc contrivances, which means that you are not receptive to being persuaded by them, regardless of their soundness. This isn't a 'meta analysis'. I'm just pointing out that this is an implication of what you have said.
No. I'm saying that you are displaying an example of a pattern in which one ideology is presented as the source of proscription when in fact another is the true source. In this case, a principle of non-aggression and natural property rights is presented as an ideological source proscribing a generally laissez-faire economic policy. Such ideology could also lead to redistribution of property on the grounds that it was obtained by aggression, or at least compensation due resultant from such aggression. It could also lead to supporting environmental legislation on the grounds of community claims to resist the aggressive misuse of joint resources.
Some of these possible consequences must be abandoned (we cannot simultaneously believe all possible proscriptions), but when all the possible proscriptions resulting from an ideology that are not rejected just happen to coincide with proscriptions of another (usually less favoured) ideology, I suspect post hoc rationalisation. Its not a random suspicion, nor is it unreasonable to search for evidence for such in the approach to discussion.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
That's rather the point. If you respond to every objection with thousands of word - except one - which you respond to with an appeal to authority, or a delay, or no response at all, it certainly raises a reasonable suspicion that there's something unique about that particular objection.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
Hopefully you're grading essays on the basis of how well your students have demonstrated an understanding of the issue, not on the basis of how much you think they 'really' believe them. I'm not talking here about the substance of your argument at all. The topic here is the political persuasion of academics. You proposed that you have no easily categorisable political persuasion and that one's political philosophy should instead be built from foundational principles. I'm disputing that that is the case, either with or others.
Notwithstanding that..
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
I have not anticipated any libertarian defence as being post hoc, that's the point. I have determined some to be post hoc, but it is impossible to present evidence to justify that conclusion on the basis of the arguments alone. Post hoc is a description of the origin of the arguments, it can only be determined by reference to evidence of things like argumentative style.
No, you're just a Libertarian. Few people fit perfectly into any of these categories, so don't take it personally when it seems you have views "outside the mainstream."
Why are you making your objections here? If you want to debate the principles of libertarianism, do it in a libertarianism thread. I am happy to respond to objections, as I have been doing, at my leisure.
Quoting Isaac
Only if you're intent on disbelieving me when I say that I am not at my leisure to respond at the present time. You are at liberty to craft whatever meta-narrative you like, and I will continue to do philosophy.
Quoting Isaac
Sure. That is what I am paid for.
Quoting Isaac
Not exactly. I do have an easily categorisable political position. I am just not easily plotted on the left-right spectrum, which is what this thread is about.
Quoting Isaac
That's right: an accusation of post hocery, whether justified or not, has no bearing on the philosophical substance of an argument, and is concerned only with its origin. What this means is that, if it is used as an objection, it is a kind of fallacy (a genetic fallacy, specifically). I would certainly mark down a student for a fallacious argument.
I'm in the same boat Virgo.
Because I don't believe in killing; war's, capital punishment, and abortion. Rather, I believe in a non-cushy prison life as a deterrent; the adoption option (or the abortion/exception in the case of endangering the mother's health, etc.), and war's as a clear defensive strategy (as apposed to an offensive one). In America, as leaders of the free world, you can wish for peace or free-democracy all you want, but if the indigenous peoples are against it, it makes little sense to waste resources on an interminable resistance, particularly where other countries do not separate church from state-third world; Syria, Iraq, etc..
Even the sensitive 2nd amendment gun rights legislation, I view it as public safety. Using the automobile analogy and treating like case likely; different cases differently, we have speed limits for a reason. We don't allow dragsters on the highway and limit them to the racetrack. Similarly, assault weapons should be as paramount to public safety.
I could go on about the virtues of being a Moderate, as I view it as common sense reasonableness, as I draw from both sides. I take a page from Aristotelian logic there :wink:
No. You explained your curiosity by pointing to other online commmunities and something about rigor. What's the connection?
These are not the principles of libertarianism. That's the point here on this thread as this thread is about the political affiliations of philosophers. I'm saying that many people claiming to follow some ideology (libertarianism for example) do not, in fact, follow such an ideology, but rather select an ideology to fit the preferences they already have, usually toward selfishness. Your posts gave me a perfect example as your ideology was defended robustly as such until it lead to conclusions which clashed with your preconceived ideas. It's not just a failure to respond (that could be anything and wouldn't be enough to raise suspicion on its own) it's the coincidence with appeal to authority and hesitation. As you said yourself, every other objection was responded to with vigour, for one particular objection to not be treated the same way in three separate instances raises suspicion about the treatment of that particular case.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
Absolutely. Which is why its relevant here, in a discussion about political affiliation (which biases arguments) and not on the other thread, which is about the actual argument itself.
Alright, well have fun doing whatever this is you're doing.
Moderation for the sake of moderation seems nonsensical. What's the middle ground between slavery and abolitionism? And also, as others have pointed out, a typical American liberal seems moderate in other countries. So your choice of being moderate by American standards versus German or Russian or Chinese or just international seems relatively arbitrarily determined by the place you happen to live. That's certainly not what Aristotle had in mind....
The specific thing I had in mind there was something I've seen repeated in trans communities (I'm nonbinary myself), where someone philosophically-minded objects to the social constructivism underlying the usual framing of trans identities on general philosophical principles, not in an attempt to attack trans people, and gets framed as being "conservative" (i.e. right-wing) because of that.
Another thing that I've seen a lot of recently is complaints that philosophy is all about old white men and not inclusive enough and so leans toward the right on account of that.
The actual thing that prompted me to start this thread was noticing a lot of people who seem very economically right-leaning on this forum, not to mention the frequent religious posters who I would at first guess think to be right-leaning too because of the association of the right and religion. (Although I have also been surprised in recent years to see people on the left associating atheism with the right wing, which seems really weird to me).
All of that together prompted me to wonder how people generally see philosophers/students/enthusiasts, and how they see themselves.
Quoting Artemis
Even Aristotle himself made sure to point out that by advocating for the Golden Mean, he didn't mean the arithmetic mean, the exact halfway point between extremes; he just meant whatever point in between the extreme of excess and the extreme of deficiency is neither too much nor too little of whatever's in question.
I also consider myself a moderate centrist in the way I would frame the political spectrum, but I recognize that that is far to the left of most mainstream positions and so in a colloquial sense (I didn't mean this to be a thread about the nuances of political spectra, just in reference to the mainstream political conflict) I'm "radical left". To me, that just means mainstream politics has almost always been to the right of true centrism.
Hi Artemis!
I would caution you not to get too hung-up on the exceptions. No pun intended, but are you saying that most things in life are black and white? Which is more prevalent, extremes or the compromise between the two?
Practical examples of excess or extreme's in random order (the list is endless):
1. 9/11 (religious extremism)
2. obesity
3. alcoholism
4. Ancient Gladiator games
5. workaholic
6. greed
7. flogging
8. drawing and quartering
Practical examples of moderation/compromise (the list is endless):
1. speed limits
2. majority of public safety laws
3. hybrid cars
4. balanced diet
5. moderate exercise
6. work and play
7. all season tires
8. compromise/negotiations
In keeping with the Political theme relative to the OP, here in America we value compromise in our democratic process through the two party system.
I think what you are referring to is something along the lines of a false equivalence or a so-called fallacious argument thus: if one person saying that the sky is blue, while another claims that the sky is yellow they might conclude that the truth is that the sky is green. While green is the color created by combining blue and yellow, therefore being a compromise between the two positions—the sky is obviously not green, demonstrating that taking the middle ground of two positions does not always lead to the truth.
Thoughts?
Just an observation. If one party in a negotiation can always be assumed to compromise without fail and imposes no relevant sanctions when the other party fails to compromise, the other party can get more and more of what they want by being an obstinate, uncompromising git.
A: "We want to pay 2 dollars less tax"
B: "We want it to stay the same, how about 1 dollar less?"
A: "We want 2"
B: "We want 1 dollar less, how about 1.5 dollars less?"
A: "We want 2"
B: "We want 1.5 dollars less, how about 1.75 dollars less?"
A: "We want 2"
B: "We want 1.75 dollars less, how about 1.875 dollars less?"
...
A: "We want 2"
B: "We agree, good compromise."
Time passes.
B: "You know, last time, it was really unfair, you were an asshole, now we demand 1 dollar more tax. This is fair given your previous demand, which was unworkable."
A: "You know, now we want 2 extra dollars less tax, it should be as low as possible for our nation's prosperity. Be consistent and follow decorum, our noble nation demands no less!"
B: "Fuck, fine, we still want 1 dollar more tax, but how about 0.5 dollars more tax?"
A: "We want 3 dollars extra less tax."
B: "In the spirit of compromise, we accept."
Time passes, some levers have been pulled.
"We want to pay a further 2 dollars less tax"
"We still need tax, but our economy needs to reward consumer satisfying investment a lot at the minute, how about 1.5 further dollars less tax?"
Well, at least whoever's not sitting at the negotiating table has nothing but consistent interests...
I see.
Good point...I guess it would depend on what is meant by 'sanctions' and the like . In a democratic-capitalist society , the free market generally acts as its own sanctioning body or mechanism against most inequities. (Not that there aren't any exceptions, inequities, abuses, etc..)
What is it with you people and the fucking free market? Does it also heal leprosy and find my lost keys?
Although it's worked out that way in practice in America, there's no law or clause in the constitution which demands a two party system.
There are a lot of reasons why the current set-up is actually bad for American politics and winds up not fully representing the American people. For example, there are many so-called Republican voters who are actual single-issue voters (usually pro-life voters) but who would be open to otherwise democratic ideas.
In fact, abortion is a good example of when there is no middle ground. For the religious person, life and the sanctity thereof begins at birth. I don't agree with the second part of that personally, but I understand why they can't compromise with my position.
Quoting 3017amen
You have not been paying attention.
It's like aspirin it's a miracle drug!!
LOL
America is actually weird in that we constitutionally have no concept of parties at all. The emergence of a "two-party system" is an inevitable consequence of our FPTP electoral system, but the actual letter of the law has no acknowledgement of political parties at all.
That's partly why our checks and balances have broken down. The Constitution pits the individuals in Congress against the President (and the Supreme Court pitted themselves against both), but nobody expected that a single group would coordinate the capture of multiple branches and make them act in concert, so there's no concept of pitting such groups against each other for checks and balances of political parties.