The basic form of my question is: What might Plato and Socrates think about the widespread disagreements among philosophers even in modern times?
I think that Plato and Socrates might well be disappointed at the lack of agreement among philosophers of today. They would most likely believe that this disagreement is due to a lack of focus on Reason, and too much focus on personal agendas and emotions - too much focus on Spirit and Appetite, that is.
However, they might be somewhat more understanding than they would if society was effectively the same as it was in their time. Given the vastly increased population of the world and the multitude of extremely variable societies, there are suddenly a whole lot more opinions to consider than there were in ancient Greece.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Q&A 2, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: Considering the disagreement rampant amongst philosophers even in Plato's day, did Plato really think that his proposed philosopher-kings could reach a single, best conclusion about how to rule?
I think that he may indeed have thought this. The idea is not actually that implausible; on many subjects, it seems that philosophers frequently do reach agreement after sufficient consideration - if one dissents, it is often because that philosopher has missed an important point in the opposition's argument, and after considering that point they will change their views to match that of their prior opponents. This sort of unanimous agreement does not always occur, but it seems to happen often enough that Plato's idea is not altogether ridiculous.
However, the idea is less likely to work in today's society. The increase in international population size since Plato's day, the centralization of power around corporations and a few wealthy individuals, and the complexity of governments makes it highly unlikely that any philosophers could actually gain enough recognition and power to be anything like the philosopher-kings Plato envisions. This, more than the difficulty in agreeing on ideals, seems to render Plato's idea impossible in the world as it is now.
I think that he may indeed have thought this. The idea is not actually that implausible; on many subjects, it seems that philosophers frequently do reach agreement after sufficient consideration - if one dissents, it is often because that philosopher has missed an important point in the opposition's argument, and after considering that point they will change their views to match that of their prior opponents. This sort of unanimous agreement does not always occur, but it seems to happen often enough that Plato's idea is not altogether ridiculous.
However, the idea is less likely to work in today's society. The increase in international population size since Plato's day, the centralization of power around corporations and a few wealthy individuals, and the complexity of governments makes it highly unlikely that any philosophers could actually gain enough recognition and power to be anything like the philosopher-kings Plato envisions. This, more than the difficulty in agreeing on ideals, seems to render Plato's idea impossible in the world as it is now.
Education and Democracy
Plato's apprehensions about democracy as a system of government were well-founded, but the possibility of making democracy work, with the help of compulsory education, seems fairly reasonable to me. Unfortunately, I do not think that the American educational system is currently sufficing to negate the disadvantages of democracy which Plato feared.
While education is compulsory in the United States, I do not think that it is the right kind of education. Yes, teaching mathematics and science to people is useful, and may help them later in life in many ways, but it does not contribute all that much to their ability to distinguish good politicians from bad ones. As it is now, the educational system is teaching people what to think, not how to think; and that, I believe, is a mistake. If education focused on teaching people how to think, they could then learn for themselves what to think, and could choose what to learn about (what is the point of someone taking advanced mathematics if they intend to have a career as a painter?), thus not wasting effort on useless pursuits.
I think that the educational system has lost sight of its original purpose (namely, to educate people in order for them to contribute well to society and the government). It seems mainly to focus on grades for grades' sake, or in order to get into college (to get yet MORE grades) and then get a well-paying job - so, a person who scored moderately highly in all their subjects in high school might get into Berkeley School of Music, whereas someone who has incredible interest and talent with playing musical instruments but failed their History requirements would not be able to attend. This sort of system seems to result in people working for their entire lives in careers they do not enjoy, and then not knowing how to think well enough to elect leaders who will act in their best interests. Education as a way to make democracy possible is a nice theory, but at the moment I don't think it is really working in the United States of America.
While education is compulsory in the United States, I do not think that it is the right kind of education. Yes, teaching mathematics and science to people is useful, and may help them later in life in many ways, but it does not contribute all that much to their ability to distinguish good politicians from bad ones. As it is now, the educational system is teaching people what to think, not how to think; and that, I believe, is a mistake. If education focused on teaching people how to think, they could then learn for themselves what to think, and could choose what to learn about (what is the point of someone taking advanced mathematics if they intend to have a career as a painter?), thus not wasting effort on useless pursuits.
I think that the educational system has lost sight of its original purpose (namely, to educate people in order for them to contribute well to society and the government). It seems mainly to focus on grades for grades' sake, or in order to get into college (to get yet MORE grades) and then get a well-paying job - so, a person who scored moderately highly in all their subjects in high school might get into Berkeley School of Music, whereas someone who has incredible interest and talent with playing musical instruments but failed their History requirements would not be able to attend. This sort of system seems to result in people working for their entire lives in careers they do not enjoy, and then not knowing how to think well enough to elect leaders who will act in their best interests. Education as a way to make democracy possible is a nice theory, but at the moment I don't think it is really working in the United States of America.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Response: Singular Truths
In response to Justine Cozza's post "2/2/12":
In response to the very last question of your post, I think that Plato would say that there is only one real truth. There is no question as to who has the 'right' truth, because there is only one, and it is right; any contradicting views are not the truth.
As to the earlier question, whether we can condemn those who did bad things because they believed them to be truthful and right, that is a bit more complex. Again, I doubt that Plato would think their views were actually the truth, but there is no reason that they might not believe those views to be true. That does not, however, mean that we should necessarily condemn them - although I'm not sure exactly what 'condemn' means in this context. Going by a general meaning, though, I can create an example:
A woman finds out that her former boyfriend, who she has not seen in many years, is bisexual and has married another man. This woman has lived in Kansas for her whole life and is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, as were both of her parents. She travels to her ex-boyfriend's house and, while he is out, burns it to the ground. The ex-boyfriend returns to the house while she is still there, sees what she is doing, and reports her to the police. She is sent to prison, but still believes that what she did was right and justified.
In this example, the woman was motivated both by personal bitterness and by the morality she learned as a child. I would say that we can quite safely condemn her for her actions, no matter how right she believed them to be. This is not to say that sending her to prison should be considered an act of punishment; the legal system is supposed to act along preventative measures rather than retributive ones. However, regardless of what actions we take to prevent her from doing further harm to others due to her misguided views, we can still say quite firmly that her version of the truth was definitively untrue.
In response to the very last question of your post, I think that Plato would say that there is only one real truth. There is no question as to who has the 'right' truth, because there is only one, and it is right; any contradicting views are not the truth.
As to the earlier question, whether we can condemn those who did bad things because they believed them to be truthful and right, that is a bit more complex. Again, I doubt that Plato would think their views were actually the truth, but there is no reason that they might not believe those views to be true. That does not, however, mean that we should necessarily condemn them - although I'm not sure exactly what 'condemn' means in this context. Going by a general meaning, though, I can create an example:
A woman finds out that her former boyfriend, who she has not seen in many years, is bisexual and has married another man. This woman has lived in Kansas for her whole life and is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, as were both of her parents. She travels to her ex-boyfriend's house and, while he is out, burns it to the ground. The ex-boyfriend returns to the house while she is still there, sees what she is doing, and reports her to the police. She is sent to prison, but still believes that what she did was right and justified.
In this example, the woman was motivated both by personal bitterness and by the morality she learned as a child. I would say that we can quite safely condemn her for her actions, no matter how right she believed them to be. This is not to say that sending her to prison should be considered an act of punishment; the legal system is supposed to act along preventative measures rather than retributive ones. However, regardless of what actions we take to prevent her from doing further harm to others due to her misguided views, we can still say quite firmly that her version of the truth was definitively untrue.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Response: Practical Benevolence
In response to Katie Emerson's post "Broke" (January 28, 2012):
I have a few refutations to present in response to some of the comments in this post. Firstly, what does 'broke' mean in this context? Does it mean 'without enough money to survive', 'without enough money to do whatever you want', 'without enough money to be respectable', or something else?
Secondly, most of these arguments against benevolence assume that few or no others in the world are being benevolent. While I agree that in contemporary American society teaching for free with no other source of income (even welfare) would result in one becoming broke (in the first sense of the word), contemporary America society is not the society Confucius is promoting. In an ideal Confucian society, no one would have to worry about being broke because if anyone appeared to lack something they required or very much wanted, another person would freely give them that thing out of benevolence. The usage of money would not be necessary, because no one requires money, or would really want money if they can obtain things without it, through merely asking another benevolent person.
Lastly, the assertion 'without competition there is no motivation' does not seem valid to me. There would be no motivation to be wealthier than anyone else, true, but why would such a goal be worthwhile? The motivation to perform certain actions which are currently considered careers would still be there, either because people simply enjoyed doing them (some people, for example, genuinely enjoy teaching others) or because they recognized that doing so would help themselves and others; a recognition which would lead to their performing those actions, due to both self-interest and benevolence.
I have a few refutations to present in response to some of the comments in this post. Firstly, what does 'broke' mean in this context? Does it mean 'without enough money to survive', 'without enough money to do whatever you want', 'without enough money to be respectable', or something else?
Secondly, most of these arguments against benevolence assume that few or no others in the world are being benevolent. While I agree that in contemporary American society teaching for free with no other source of income (even welfare) would result in one becoming broke (in the first sense of the word), contemporary America society is not the society Confucius is promoting. In an ideal Confucian society, no one would have to worry about being broke because if anyone appeared to lack something they required or very much wanted, another person would freely give them that thing out of benevolence. The usage of money would not be necessary, because no one requires money, or would really want money if they can obtain things without it, through merely asking another benevolent person.
Lastly, the assertion 'without competition there is no motivation' does not seem valid to me. There would be no motivation to be wealthier than anyone else, true, but why would such a goal be worthwhile? The motivation to perform certain actions which are currently considered careers would still be there, either because people simply enjoyed doing them (some people, for example, genuinely enjoy teaching others) or because they recognized that doing so would help themselves and others; a recognition which would lead to their performing those actions, due to both self-interest and benevolence.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)