Question by Mischa P: Should philosophers rule the world?
It is often said that philosophers whilst great thinkers, would make lousy politicians. I wish to argue that in fact precisely the opposite is true – that clarity of thought and philosophical wisdom, although severely lacking among today’s leaders, should be absolutely central to politics.
In my view a character trait which nearly all modern politicians share is dogmatism. In order to be a successful politician you must first have an unwavering certainty in your convictions. What is not necessary, however, is that these convictions bear any evidence to support them (so long as they do not insult the electorate.) Let us take as an example the belief held by many that capital punishment is an effective deterrent for murder. That there is little evidence to support this claim is not important, for it appeals to ones common sense. Surely a punishment as severe as death will deter people from committing murder – yet on closer inspection we see that the issue is more complex than it would first appear. The state of Texas, which executes more inmates than any other American state, also has the highest murder rate in the land. I do not wish to argue here that capital punishment can not be a deterrent for murder but rather that a strong conviction that this is the case should rest on hard evidence. In the case of politicians, it rarely if ever does.
When decisions affect the lives of millions of people it must surely be important for politicians to base their beliefs on more than mere common sense. Yet so often we find that they don’t. The British prime minister Margaret Thatcher based much of her politics on a certainty in the proposition that the poor have a burden of responsibility for their poverty, that everyone living in a free democracy has the opportunity to overcome poverty. It is likely that in her case her belief was not merely founded on common sense but on personal experience having come from a poor background and subsequently risen to the top. Yet personal experience is just as problematic as common sense and by no means sufficient to answer definitely the complex social questions which arise out of the idea that every man has the opportunity to overcome poverty. To what degree is this the case? How if at all can we improve equality of opportunities for those born into poverty? I think it is fair to question the degree to which Thatcher took these questions seriously preferring instead to naively buy into a principle upon which she based her political career. It is this kind of unreflective dogmatism which is rife in modern politics and dangerous.
Let us compare the unreflective attitude of modern politicians to that of philosophers. Philosophers are trained to be skeptical about all sources of belief, in particular common sense which is always seen as potentially misleading. The great thinker Bertrand Russell once wrote “The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason.” Russell’s description of the unphilosophical man depicts almost perfectly the average politician. Yet although there exist few examples of political leaders who have been influenced by philosophy there is no shortage of philosophically minded political commentators. The professor of Linguistics and political activist Noam Chomsky is a good example and the way his philosophical background influences his political thinking becomes obvious when comparing his style of argument to that of a leader such as George Bush.
During his time as president, Bush’s foreign policy incurred mass criticism from many political commentators. Yet the man himself appeared undeterred, apparently absolutely convinced in the good of his actions. His main defence was that he was fighting a war on terror, eradicating the world of terrorism and Muslim extremism. Yet serious critical reflection of the situation raises questions that are unlikely to have ever occurred to the former president and do not appear to feature in the media as part of mainstream political debate. Both Bush and Chomsky would admit to believing firmly in the principle that loss of innocent civilian life is a tragedy and to be avoided. Yet whilst Chomsky takes seriously the idea that there is no moral difference between deaths at the hands of Islamic terrorists and lives taken as a result of American foreign policy, Bush, like the western media regards such an idea as barbaric and unworthy of debate. This difference in attitude highlights an inability or unwillingness to think critically which is as prevalent in modern politics as it is in the mainstream media. On the other hand Chomsky, like all good philosophers comes to his conclusions not by merely appealing to his common sense but rather, in the words of Russell, with the co-operation or consent
Absolutely retarded answers. Every last one.
Best answer:
Answer by ercinc74
I myself am a heavy thinker, and say NO- they should not run the world, but they should be consultants.
Philosophers do what youve done above. throw alot of words around, but aside from your fingers on the keyboard- there was no ACTION to your words. we need men who DO actions the thinkers think up.
What do you think? Answer below!
: Philosophers on women’s rights?
