Can a politically minded person ever be good thinking philosopher?
People make the big mistake of separating spirituality from philosophy when in actuality they are two sisdes of the same coin.
No on can be spirutual without having a philosophical mind and the philosopher is actually being in a way, spiritual.
Two things that I find to be in conflict is politics and spiritualty,because the very nature of politics is to separate and be ready for revenge and to defends one’s own.Of course the world needs both,but a person cannot be both,they have to be spiritual or material- minded.
In the past, seeing this contradiction kings would, after ruling a kingdom for many years, retire to he forest and seek that spiritual
nature within themselvs that had been neglected by the trapings of politics,and so necessary for peace of mind.
If you agree with this give me your original thoughts on the matter and if you disagree also place them here for all to view.
I think that philosophy can be a very useful complement to those qualities that generally make someone a good politician. It depends, though, on the nature of one’s philosophical beliefs. If you’re a po-mo “everything is relative” type, then you’d probably be a poor leader, as you would constantly be paralyzed by indecision - after all, who can say what is right, and what is true? On the other hand, if you’re a philosopher in the vein of Kant, you would have a good grasp of the importance of empirical truth, and of the importance of reason and fact in the making of choices. I think Kant would take issue with your contention that “defending one’s own” is contrary to the notion of philosophy.
Further, can you support your claim that a person can not be both spiritually- and materially-minded? Can one not appreciate such spiritual notions as love, and compassion, and nature, while still embracing the accumulation of material wealth?
Jeff
Yes I think its possible to to marry both,as an example there has been those, who after decades of thogth and material sacrifices have returned to their former proffessions with a lot more to give,and agreater perspective on life.
I think its an essential thing to depart temporarily from your engagements weekly,yearly and sometimes for longer times and this stepping back always has within itself the seed of clearer vision,however most politicians cannot afford such luxury.
Um, the moral agent in question? Leaders are expected to make decisions. Recognizing that there may be other ways, or that my decisions are not grounded in moral absolutes, has little to nothing to do with whether I can make decisions at all.
Screw Kant, he’d sell out his mother to avoid lying to the killer at his door.
Yes, and we have been given, in fact, several examples of these throughout history. You just might not like their politics.
But being a good leader means sometimes making quick decisions, and quick decisions are facilitated by moral absolutes. Imagine if, on 9/11, there had been more than 4 airplanes headed for civilian targets. The first three hit, and the president needs to make a snap decision - do I order the destruction of any suspicious planes that fail to respond to communications?
Non po-mo president: (reluctantly) “Yes, blow them out of the sky.”
Po-mo president: “Well, we first need to see this from the point of view of the potential terrorist… Who am I to stop them from fulfilling their goal? I will need to think about…” CRASH, there goes the White House.
Granted, that’s an extreme case, but I hope it illustrates my point. I have met self-described philosophers who would approach the situation in the latter manner, and needless to say, I would be terrified to have them leading my country.
Jeff
Sure, you say “Screw Kant” now, but where would we be if everyone acted that way? We’d be lining up to commit necrophilia! Not a pretty thought, is it?
(And if you thought that was a pathetic attempt at philosophical humor, you should hear my jokes about Buridan’s ass…)
I think that the role of philosophy in politics is as a very general normative guide. Philosophy should tell leaders what it is that they should be striving towards–that is to say, the general good and not their private good. Politics should attempt to figure out how best, under the circumstances, to achieve those goals.
Well, it is clear you are not a moral relativist. I have no problem making snap decisions, nor do I have a problem with accepting responsibility for them. But when I try to work out my morality, one thing that is always in the back of my mind is that I do not have a privileged view of reality. May I ask where this hypothetical president got his? And what assures its universal application?
Yes, when I am doing philosophy I often think very deeply. That is because I have the time to think deeply. Remove that time and you will see a different response.
I remain terrified that our leaders might not be able to extend their moral perspective beyond solipsism, myself. After all, it isn’t just their world, it is mine, too.
uranatis
Can a politically minded person ever be good thinking philosopher?
People make the big mistake of separating spirituality from philosophy when in actuality they are two sisdes of the same coin.
No on can be spirutual without having a philosophical mind and the philosopher is actually being in a way, spiritual.
Ghandi and Martin Luther King come to mind…even if their actions were considered formost philosophical over political, both men were obviously politically savy… Its kind of apples and oranges, dependent on a person’s individual definition…Hitler’s personel philosophy while heinous was dependent a great deal on Nietzche’s. Money seems to be the overall villian in Amercian politics (if not most of Western Europe). I can’t see how a person can remain true to the spirit of his philosophy,( especially if that philosophy is humansitic), if the primary objective is to garner the money needed to paint a pretty political picture - unless of course the money itself is the spirit of his philosophy. Grass roots canidates just don’t seem to fair very well, unless the canidate plays on the fears of his paticular constituate…and its unlikely a guy like that is going to be very spiritual, and fortunately unlikley to gain national acceptance.
