# Historically, how did philosophers benefit the general public? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 29, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682 "2009-07-29T16:43:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/41 "2009-07-31T18:45:33Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Well then that supports my thesis that Augustus as a philosopher was able to influence the Roman state and thus impact the common people. Then is any lawmaker who can influence his state and impact the common people a philosopher? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/42 "2009-07-31T18:46:55Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > Then is any lawmaker who can influence his state and impact the common people a philosopher? Any lawmaker who applies a moral philosophy of his own devising to his lawmaking, yes. The Roman Empire that Augustus crafted as you said was not the state he was born into. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/43 "2009-07-31T18:50:20Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Any lawmaker who applies a moral philosophy of his own devising to his lawmaking, yes. The Roman Empire that Augustus crafted as you said was not the state he was born into. His own devising? Augustus revived traditional social norms in somewhat creative and entirely totalitarian ways. He was self-consciously not a philosopher-king in the platonic mold. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/44 "2009-07-31T18:58:19Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > His own devising? Augustus revived traditional social norms in somewhat creative and entirely totalitarian ways. He was self-consciously not a philosopher-king in the platonic mold. Well in the Platonic mold is not the only method of being a philosopher King. As for reviving traditional social norms in somewhat creative ways, how is that different from every other philosopher? Did Rosseau or Hobbes draw their viewpoints from out of thin air or did they relate them to the situations of the day? What makes their views of the state and its operation ‘philosophy’ and not Augustus’s? ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/45 "2009-07-31T19:01:00Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Well in the Platonic mold is not the only method of being a philosopher King. As for reviving traditional social norms in somewhat creative ways, how is that different from every other philosopher? Did Rosseau or Hobbes draw their viewpoints from out of thin air or did they relate them to the situations of the day? What makes their views of the state and its operation ‘philosophy’ and not Augustus’s? Having opinions about political organization does not make one a philospher. What _does_ is systematization and derivation from first principles. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/46 "2009-07-31T19:03:11Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > Having opinions about political organization does not make one a philospher. What _does_ is systematization and derivation from first principles. Ok, and so building a new social order while drawing from the traditional values of that society is not what you describe how? ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/47 "2009-07-31T19:06:16Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > His own devising? Augustus revived traditional social norms in somewhat creative and entirely totalitarian ways. He was self-consciously not a philosopher-king in the platonic mold. I agree. People tend to assume that if a certain philosophical bent is applied, that person must be by default a philosopher, and his own philosophy unique. This was no more the case with Augustus than it is with any politician. They merely borrowed from schools of Philosophy that they felt were applicable to the state. Unless of course you also happen to be an uber rich medieval banker, then you hire [your own](http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy1.htm) and call it good. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/48 "2009-07-31T19:40:26Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Ok, and so building a new social order while drawing from the traditional values of that society is not what you describe how? I give you more credit than having to spell it out pedantically. I would just make one suggestion. Read some of the text of Augustus’ laws and, say, the first twenty pages of the _Leviathan_. Both are available online. When you experience derivation and systematization firsthand, I think you will know what I mean. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/49 "2009-07-31T19:47:06Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I, of course, differ. Existentialism is the only truly _grown-up_ philosophical school, the one that expects its adherents to act like adults and take real ownership of themselves and their actions. What’s more enlightened than that? Well, I’d start by responding that Existentialism claims to do those things, but in actual practical fact completely removes any and all consequences or reasons for acting from the equation, thus rendering itself wholly irrelevant. Existentialism is only one (and not even the latest and best) in a long line of nelf-negating philosophies. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/50 "2009-07-31T19:52:51Z")
How so? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/51 "2009-08-01T01:55:15Z")
> [@Syntropy](#): > > I suspect Liberal’s main objection to Existentialism lies in the fact that so many Existentialists tend toward atheism. My problem with existentialism is that it simply makes no sense. How can existence preceed essence? Consider, for example, a computer program. The programmer intends to write some scheduling software. Once the software is completed, it exists as an app that you can install on your computer. But never does the programmer just begin typing random code and then compile it (if it will compile) and then claim he has written an app, and it is essentially scheduling software. Likewise for the Pepsi can or pack of cigs or pen or whatever is on your desk. Before each came into existence, there was an idea of what it was to be. And that’s what essence means: “the what it was to be”. (Aristotle) The universe is no exception either. A star cannot form without first gathering into itself enough gases to ignite a nuclear reaction in its core. It is not a star until it emerges into what a star was to be. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/52 "2009-08-01T02:31:43Z")
I would say that neither precedes the other so in that much at least, I agree. Matter is matter; the only thing that changes is the way in which it is arranged. Nothing is born from nothingness. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/53 "2009-08-01T03:06:36Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > My problem with existentialism is that it simply makes no sense. > > How can existence preceed essence? [I think you misunderstand the phrase.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism#Existence_precedes_essence) > [@](#): > > A central proposition of existentialism is that existence precedes essence, which means that the actual life of the individual is what constitutes what could be called their “essence” instead of there being a predetermined essence that defines what it is to be a human. Although it was Sartre who explicitly coined the phrase, similar notions can be found in the thought of many existentialist philosophers, from Kierkegaard to Heidegger. > > It is often claimed in this context that a person defines himself, which is often perceived as stating that we can “wish” to be something — anything, a bird, for instance — and then be it. According to most existentialist philosophers, however, this would be an inauthentic existence. What is meant by the statement is that a person is (1) defined only insofar as they act and (2) that they are responsible for their actions. For example, someone who acts cruelly towards other people is, by that act, defined as a cruel person. Furthermore, by this action of cruelty they themselves are responsible for their new identity (a cruel person). This is as opposed to their genes, or ‘human nature’, bearing the blame. > > As Sartre puts it in his Existentialism is a Humanism: “man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards.” Of course, the more positive, therapeutic aspect of this is also implied: You can choose to act in a different way, and to be a good person instead of a cruel person. Here it is also clear that since man can choose to be either cruel or good, he is, in fact, neither of these things essentially. [56] ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/54 "2009-08-01T03:54:43Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Well in the Platonic mold is not the only method of being a philosopher King. Marcus Aurelius was a philosopher-king – that is, he was a Stoic philosopher who also happened to be an emperor. But his philosophy did not make him a fundamentally different sort of emperor, it simply made him a very dutiful one. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/55 "2009-08-01T10:23:43Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Well, I’d start by responding that Existentialism claims to do those things, but in actual practical fact completely removes any and all consequences or reasons for acting from the equation, thus rendering itself wholly irrelevant. I would second the call for an explanation. How does existentialism not live up to its claims? I tend to follow the philosophy (I find it very compatible with my atheism and the condensed Buddhism I use as a moral compass), and haven’t found it irrelevant at all - quite the contrary, it makes a very coherent and practical basis for living a good life. [QUOTE=Liberal] How can existence preceed essence? [/QUOTE] Because, like BrainGlutton showed very well, Sartre\* didn’t mean the same thing that Aristotle did\* by the term “essense”. He wasn’t talking about an abstract thing like “human nature” or the like, but more about the nature of the individual - what it means to be Neil (that’s me!) or whoever. What it is that makes the essential Neil different from the essential **Lib**. And there, I think you’d have a very hard time arguing that what makes me a unique individual _right now_ isn’t the sum of my precedeing experience, all of which I was _already in existence_ for. But the essential me did not precede my existence. It could not. Sartre’s philosophy isn’t concerned with Aristotlean or Platonic type essence or ideal, as far as I know it. It only concerns itself with the problems of being human. Or, better said, with being a person, and interactions between persons. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/56 "2009-08-01T14:58:12Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What is meant by the statement is that a person is (1) defined only insofar as they act and (2) that they are responsible for their actions. For example, someone who acts cruelly towards other people is, by that act, defined as a cruel person. Furthermore, by this action of cruelty they themselves are responsible for their new identity (a cruel person). This is as opposed to their genes, or ‘human nature’, bearing the blame. And yet, we know this is isn’t true. Evidence is emerging rapidly that people _tend_ toward cruelty or even criminal behavior because of neurological damage or pathology. Dennis P. Swiercinsky, a clinical nuropsychologist writes: Research is converging from many fronts significantly linking serious crime with brain abnormalities. Cultural understanding and treatment of criminal behavior must keep pace with neuroscientific advances. Mitigating circumstances to criminal behavior does not excuse the behavior; understanding those factors provides the foundation for humane understanding and treatment that goes well beyond locking someone up and throwing away the key, or worse. He lists traumatice brain injuries, birth injuries, chemical ingestion, genetic abnormalities, and tumors (among other factors that affect the brain) as matters to consider when investigating criminal behavior. A person is not necessarily a criminal just because he “chooses” to be one. _The Psychopathology of Crime: Criminal Behavior as a Clinical Disorder_, written by Adrian Raine, Professor in the Departments of Criminology, Psychiatry, and Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, is nearly universally acclaimed as groundbreaking and of fundamental importance to the understanding of neurological causes for criminal behavior. As one reviewer puts it: It is clear that there must exist neurochemical, hormonal, psychophysiological, and other biological structures and functions acting as intermediaries between DNA and criminal behavior. H.J. Eysenck, University of London, _Contemporary Psychology_ And another: This [book] is especially timely as [there] is increasing debate regarding the extent to which aggression, violence and “wrong-doing” may be construed as the legitimate concerns of psychiatry. _Cognitive Neuropsychiatry_, Vol. 6, Issue 4, November 2001 A early as 1998, Nicole Rafter, a fellow at Northeastern University’s College of Criminal Justice, had written _Creating Born Criminals_. She explains in her introduction that she uses the term “born criminal” to mean “those to whom over time biological theorists have attributed the condition of innate criminality”. She uses a definitional approach to debunk theories of eugenics in favor of modern neurospsychological theories. And Elkhonon Goldberg, presently the director of The Institute of Neuropsychology and Cognitive Performance, where scientific studies of “evaluation and enhancement of brain mechanism and mental processes” is currently underway, writes in his book, _The Executive Brain: Frontal Lobes and the Civilized Mind_, Oxford University Press, USA; 1st edition (January 15, 2001): In this book I explore the part of the brain that makes you who you are and defines your identity, that encapsulates your drives, your ambitions, your personality, your essence: the frontal lobes of the brain. If other parts of the brain are damaged, neurological illness can result in the loss of language, memory, perception, or movement. All that changes when illness strikes at the frontal lobes. What is lost then is no longer an attribute of your mind. It _is_ your mind, your core, your self. (emphasis in the original) And so, even without regard to theological concerns (as Syntropy alluded to), the field of cognative science is itself beginning to debunk the tenets of existentialism as defined by you (and/or your Wiki source — whoever wrote it). One is not always responsible for one’s behavior, particularly in regards to “acts of cruelty”. Sartre, an atheist, of course, was concerned with only the physical aspects of man (since, naturally, he presumed there were no other kinds of aspects). And as such, what he was rejecting were theories of eugenics, which deserved rejection on their face — even by theists. He did not know, and could not have known, that a physical man is essentially his brain, and that there could be imbalances and damage in his brain that _cause_, or at the very least give strong tendencies toward, any particular kind of behavior (though what I’ve documented here is criminal behavior, of the kind that one would likely classify as “cruel”, since that was the thrust of your argument.) If you have sources of equal or greater scholarship that contradict these, please provide them. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/57 "2009-08-01T15:01:33Z")
> [@Syntropy](#): > > I would say that neither precedes the other so in that much at least, I agree. Matter is matter; the only thing that changes is the way in which it is arranged. Nothing is born from nothingness. Your last sentence is ambiguous, at least to me. Would you mind rewording it? What I cannot discern is whether you mean that there is no thing of any sort that is born from nothingness, or whether you mean that there is a thing called “nothing” that arises from nothingness? Upon that clarification, I’d like to comment on your other remarks. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/58 "2009-08-01T15:22:18Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > He [Sartre] wasn’t talking about an abstract thing like “human nature” or the like, but more about the nature of the individual - what it means to be Neil (that’s me!) or whoever. What it is that makes the essential Neil different from the essential **Lib**. But (physically speaking) that is our brains, and has very little to with philosohpy and everything to do with neuroscience. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/59 "2009-08-01T16:10:46Z")
> [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](#): > > Good idea - kill 'em all and let 'em sort out god! 😛 ha ha ha. Good one 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682/60 "2009-08-01T16:26:31Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > And that’s what essence means: “the what it was to be”. (Aristotle) > > The universe is no exception either. A star cannot form without first gathering into itself enough gases to ignite a nuclear reaction in its core. It is not a star until it emerges into what a star was to be. Wait a minute though. You started talking about the universe, but then continued on about a star. Are you saying the entire universe itself was preceded by a what it was to be? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historically-how-did-philosophers-benefit-the-general-public/504682.md?page=4)