Well for sure I agree. However, the issue is how to initiate. Academia is not the place. I would approach it with an online platform dedicated to researching new philosophical ideas and reporting on them for discussion and additional ideas for research. There are lots of great ideas that are not getting any visibility. TED has become just another appendage for industry and the norms. I would be happy to assist in developing a new platform.

There are lots of great ideas that are not getting any visibility. — Rich

I would include the work of Ken Wilber in that.

I'd be interested in hearing what you have in mind.

I feel that society has a lot of problems that could be altered by philosophy. I feel we need to challenge norms and preconceptions still. I think we need a radical confrontational philosophy not one that delineates and attempts to justify the norms, nor just a dry fairly helpless theorising. — Andrew4Handel

Two possible scenarios:

1.) People are starved for new ideas and the intellectuals and leaders who will marshal those new ideas are preparing themselves for that role.

2.) The most influential intellectuals and leaders of today--the ones who are mentoring tomorrow's intellectuals and leaders--want to give up on finding new ideas and instead jump on the trans-humanism trend and replace human thought with powerful artificial intelligence.


I sense that 2.) is the most likely. I hope that I am wrong.

I feel that society has a lot of problems that could be altered by philosophy. I feel we need to challenge norms and preconceptions still. I think we need a radical confrontational philosophy not one that delineates and attempts to justify the norms, nor just a dry fairly helpless theorising.

This sounds a lot like Leftist Post-structuralist philosophy like you find in:

Gilles Deleuze
Jacques Derrida
Michel Foucault
Julia Kristeva
Judith Butler
Edward Said
Jean-Francois Lyotard
Louis Althusser.

Their ideas would help in the matter.

The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.

Karl Marx

Is it philosophy that is lacking, or is it knowledge about the world (and its political/social/economic problems) and the will to struggle for change that is lacking?

Very large numbers of people appear to want change, but they do not know how to marshal their strength and use it. This is one of our political problems. A few people are immensely wealthy and have control over essential institutions, and their interests operate against all others. This is one of our political problems. Many people are engaging in self-destructive, counter-productive activities which add to other social problems.

Is it philosophy that is lacking here?

Is it philosophy that is lacking here?

In America, yes. We are divided into three groups, and two of them--the Conservatives and the Centrists--support foreign colonialist wars, laissez-faire freedom for the corrupt damaging Banks, the ignoring of racist police brutality and pipelines over Native American land; and they are opposed to social advances such as Medicare-for-All, free college, and a living minimum wage.

So, the rest of us Progressive Humanists need to work harder to support the fight against the first group, the fight for the second, and the spread of the Progressive philosophy and its benefits to those centrists who are still likely or even possibly to embrace it.

Neo-liberalism and it's pet project, globalization, are the dominant forces in politics.

We can either spin our wheels trying to stomp out weeds such as police brutality while other weeds grow or we can attack the whole system at its neo-liberal roots.

Decentralizing power and giving power back to local communities is the key to positive change, in my estimation.

Decentralizing power and giving power back to local communities is the key to positive change, in my estimation. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

In other words, using police brutality as an illustration, the solution to the police brutality in places like Ferguson, Missouri won't come from putting progressive elites in power in Washington, D.C., it will come from giving power and control to ordinary people at the local level.

The people of places like Ferguson, MO need the power to deal with their problems themselves. They don't need top-down solutions from the neo-liberal puppets of multinational corporations in Washington, D.C. Being a puppet who is progressive rather than conservative does not make you any less dangerous to the common people who are suffering from the system that gives you your power and privilege.

We can either spin our wheels trying to stomp out weeds such as police brutality while other weeds grow or we can attack the whole system at its neo-liberal roots.

It's not an either/or. Working to address and diminish racist police brutality is a priority in itself, just like stopping Jim Crow laws and segregation was an issue in itself. If MLK and the Civil Rights movement had waited until they attacked the whole system, Blacks would still be drinking from separate water fountains and kept away from lunch counters.

In other words, using police brutality as an illustration, the solution to the police brutality in places like Ferguson, Missouri won't come from putting progressive elites in power in Washington, D.C., it will come from giving power and control to ordinary people at the local level.

I have no idea what you mean by progressive elites. Elites are politicians like Obama, Clinton, and Trump who work for elite corporations, banks, and rich people. Progressives working to help the people and not working to primarily serve those entities are not elites. And we do need them in office since they are the ones who pass the laws. Just a few weeks ago, an elite Centrist Democrat shelved the vote on Medicaid-For-All in California. If he had been a progressive, he would have let the vote go through. Representation matters.

And local people don't have any power over the elites. It's progressives in office like Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General who made a huge difference in the Civil Rights Movement and was a vital ally to it and its leaders like King. He was able to send down the national guard to make sure colleges were de-segregated. Local citizens can't come close to the needed power/authority in accomplishing such things.

It's not an either/or. Working to address and diminish racist police brutality is a priority in itself, just like stopping Jim Crow laws and segregation was an issue in itself. If MLK and the Civil Rights movement had waited until they attacked the whole system, Blacks would still be drinking from separate water fountains and kept away from lunch counters. — Thanatos Sand

Or the oppression of African-Americans in the Jim Crow South was simply transferred to other people such as those employed in Third World sweatshops.

If you think that you can convince me that it is not a zero-sum game I will listen.

But I am convinced that the change the OP seeks will only be realized by ending the game.

Or the oppression of African-Americans in the Jim Crow South was simply transferred to other people such as those employed in Third World sweatshops.

No, it wasn't since there already was third world racial oppression before American segregation and there is still anti-Black racism in our American police system.

If you think that you can convince me that it is not a zero-sum game I will listen.

I don't waste time trying to convince people away from their delusions. But if you really believed it was a zero-sum game, you wouldn't advocate doing things as you've been doing.

But I am convinced that the change the OP seeks will only be realized by ending the game.

That's fine, and it has nothing to do with anything I said.

I have no idea what you mean by progressive elites. Elites are politicians like Obama, Clinton, and Trump who work for elite corporations, banks, and rich people. Progressives working to help the people and not working to primarily serve those entities are not elites. And we do need them in office since they are the ones who pass the laws. Just a few weeks ago, an elite Centrist Democrat shelved the vote on Medicaid-For-All in California. If he had been a progressive, he would have let the vote go through. Representation matters.

And local people don't have any power over the elites. It's progressives in office like Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General who made a huge difference in the Civil Rights Movement and was a vital ally to it and its leaders like King. He was able to send down the national guard to make sure colleges were de-segregated. Local citizens can't come close to the needed power/authority in accomplishing such things. — Thanatos Sand

Power needs to be decentralized and given back to local communities.

Do you agree or disagree?

I am talking about a system that is global in scope. Neo-liberalism affects everybody. I simply used Ferguson, MO as one small illustration.

If you are not looking at it from the perspective of neo-liberalism and globalization you are not talking about the same thing as me.

I have no reason to believe that a "progressive" in office who does not recognize and consciously oppose neo-liberalism is going to make any difference.

Power needs to be decentralized and given back to local communities.

Do you agree or disagree?

You didn't address anything I said in my post I quoted. When you do so, I will answer your question.

I am talking about a system that is global in scope. Neo-liberalism affects everybody. I simply used Ferguson, MO as one small illustration.

And I showed you it why it needs to be addressed specifically and at the national level. You have yet to respond to what I said.

If you are not looking at it from the perspective of neo-liberalism and globalization you are not talking about the same thing as me.

I am talking about the same thing as you, I just showed you why keeping things restricted to just hitting neo-liberalism and globalization won't suffice. Again, you failed to counter what I said.

I have no reason to believe that a "progressive" in office who does not recognize and consciously oppose neo-liberalism is going to make any difference.

I don't care what you believe. I've shown you why your belief is wrong and you've failed to counter that, too.

I think we need a radical confrontational philosophy not one that delineates and attempts to justify the norms, nor just a dry fairly helpless theorising. — Andrew4Handel

Absolutely. Some of the ideas lodged in various minds that need to be attacked:

• Only minorities are oppressed.
• Poor people are inherently lazy, shiftless,

Minorities are selectively oppressed as part of the general suppression of the working class--which is populated by people who retired from wage work, work for a living now, or would work if they could get a job. If you depend on a wage for your sustenance, then you are working class.

There are people --poor and otherwise -- who are just plain lazy and shiftless. People whose multigenerational experience has been about nothing but poverty tend not to be go-getters. This shouldn't surprise anybody. Poverty is a grueling, dehumanizing, discouraging condition. Their experience tells them that hard work is not rewarded. Some poor people do get ahead -- poor immigrants, for example, usually in the first and second generation, because they have experience which tells them that their hard work will pay off. (It may pay off to some degree for a while.)

• Capitalism is the best arrangement for satisfying human needs.
• Economic freedom is the most important freedom. People should be able to make and spend money however they want -- it's their money, after all.
• Everybody has the right (and a chance) to become as rich as possible.

Capitalism and its markets have proved to be a very effective way to marshall capital, put capital to work, and generate profit for a small percentage of the population. The logic of capitalism does not countenance the widespread distribution of wealth. ("What would be the point of doing that?" the capitalists say.)

Freedom IS a very good thing; let's have more of it! But economic freedom in a capitalist economy requires enough wealth to play the game of economic freedom. Now, having $10,000 in the bank for emergencies gives one a cushion against small disasters. But economic freedom under capitalism requires having a few million in the bank, and the backing of investors.

No rich person has expended much, if any, effort in producing wealth. Ultimately, labor produces all wealth (except for crooked speculation using non-existing assets). Real property (factories, railroads, airlines, shopping malls, warehouses, etc.) is theft--taken from the working class.

"Getting rich" is a dream which many people entertain. Most people have a better chance of getting rich by their own labor than a snowball has in hell. The changes of winning the multi-state power ball lottery for $100,000,000 is about 80,000,000 to 1. Dream on.

• America is vastly different than all other countries.

There are some bits and pieces of "American Exceptionalism" to be sure. Some of it is good (The ethos of the City-on-the-Hill Puritans, and some of it is bad (genocide and slavery, for instance). The good and bad tend to be mixed in together.

But in most ways, the United States is pretty much like every other nation. That's because people are pretty much alike. We are one species with a particular evolutionary history, and we all tend to act alike, given similar circumstances. Pick a nation, any nation on any continent, and it is likely that bad things happened there. Not just bad things to one or two people, but bad things happening to hundreds of thousands of people. Humans have a long history of wiping out people who are in their way. The American genocidal experience seems like such a deviation because it is recent and present. But bear in mind, the people who started genocide and slavery were Europeans. As a specifically "American" society developed, it incorporated good and bad parts of European culture, including capitalism.

Americans don't need to feel unusually guilty about their history. What is important is that we undo the damage of past generations, and improve society now and in the future.

It seems to me that Philosophy is in the best position to challenge ideas and examine the logic of existing ideas.

It isn't case of taking sides but challenging foundational assumptions. Where are these radical academic philosophers?

When I studied philosophy as part of my degree I saw plenty of avenue for radical opinions but the course material didn't encourage this avenue. The course material raised some profound issues but then tried to fit them into the existing value system. For me philosophy is nothing to do with defending our societies and our actions now.

I'm in the UK I think we are still dominated by class hierarchies and stereotypical right-left divides/dichotomies. It is such a tired political scene leaving a sense of apathy. Trump has given some British people a false sense of superiority and colonial smugness

I gave you a list of radical academic philosophers. Some of them are still alive.

I've shown you why your belief is wrong and you've failed to counter that, too. — Thanatos Sand

You have been talking about apples.

I have been talking about oranges.

Let's just leave it at that.

No, I have been the only one really talking, and you have failed to address anything I said.

Let's just leave it at that.

For me philosophy is nothing to do with defending our societies and our actions now. — Andrew4Handel

All right, but the very act of challenging foundational assumptions takes place in the present by someone in particular, and they need to understand what they are about. For instance, one can uproot any foundational assumption -- like "individuals have the right to fulfillment" or "taking care of the poor is a good thing". One can stir up a great deal of uproar. (There are some who do that here -- like by insisting on the rights of unborn people to not be born, as if they could make a decision as non-existing beings.)

Even though I live in a mature capitalist society which many people seem to like a lot, I still think it is dead wrong to organize production for profit. I have to find a way of putting that in terms that people who think capitalism is good for them can understand.

So, we have to take into account the society we are in now, and the persons we are now, so that it is clear where we are coming from.

It seems to me that Philosophy is in the best position to challenge ideas and examine the logic of existing ideas.

It isn't case of taking sides but challenging foundational assumptions. Where are these radical academic philosophers?

When I studied philosophy as part of my degree I saw plenty of avenue for radical opinions but the course material didn't encourage this avenue. The course material raised some profound issues but then tried to fit them into the existing value system. For me philosophy is nothing to do with defending our societies and our actions now.

I'm in the UK I think we are still dominated by class hierarchies and stereotypical right-left divides/dichotomies. It is such a tired political scene leaving a sense of apathy. Trump has given some British people a false sense of superiority and colonial smugness — Andrew4Handel

Higher education, the place where philosophy has taken up permanent residence, has been corporatized.

In other words, it's not that the current intellectual state of philosophy can't effectively contribute to better understanding social problems. It's that philosophy is dependent on institutions that are mostly interested in academic work that has immediate, highly-profitable commercial applications​.

In other words, philosophy needs a new home, not a personal makeover.

Minorities are selectively oppressed as part of the general suppression of the working class--which is populated by people who retired from wage work, work for a living now, or would work if they could get a job. If you depend on a wage for your sustenance, then you are working class.

You wrote some good stuff, including in the paragraph above. But minorities/POC aren't just oppressed as part of the general suppression of the working class; they are also oppressed for the color of their skin and their ethnicity.

Blacks are still inordinately made victims of police brutality and murder, even when they are unarmed and/or running from the police.

Blacks are still profiled when driving, and that includes upper-middle and upper class Blacks who are often just pulled over for being Black and driving a nice car.

Sentences, including death penalty ones, are still racistly unfair, with white rapists often given month long sentences, if anything at all, while Blacks and Latinos are often given sentences in years for non-violent drug offenses.

Let's just leave it at that. — Thanatos Sand

Let's just leave it at that. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

"Whose "that" are we going to leave it at?" said the rat in the hat.

and you have failed to address anything I said. — Thanatos Sand

That is because it had very little relevance to what I had said.

No, it's not, but nice try.

Everything you said here is true. Lots of people have been saying the same thing for a long time.

All problems usually have aspects which can be addressed by differing approaches. Enforcing (or changing) laws about fair housing, fair employment, equal educational opportunities, and so on are one approach. Limiting stop-and-frisk actions may or may not help (I don't know). School integration has been employed. Social programs have been dumped (like AFDC = Aid For Dependent Children) and replaced by 'welfare to work' programs. Welfare benefits are skimpy and get trimmed every now and then. All of these (and other) approaches have failed to make much of a dent in racism. Frontal attacks on racism on college campuses (minority safe zones, hate speech rules, etc.) don't seem to have helped a lot either

The fundamental fact for a majority of colored people in white societies is that they are poor, have very low status, and continue to be the object of discrimination, abuse, scorn, and so on -- and they don't have many resources to draw upon to improve their situations.

Poor white people (white trash) are in the same boat. They are scorned and discriminated against, have low status, are abused, and so on -- and they don't have a lot of resources to draw upon to improve their situations, either.

What poor people need are jobs that give them independence, capacity to improve their lives, afford better education, better housing, better diet, better medical care, and so on -- and the one way to get that is through work. The pride of self advancement can't be dumped on people.

If the poor can't improve their lot as working people, then they are just totally screwed. That's why economic distribution of wealth is a working class issue that very much touches upon racism and white trashery. Access to at least some wealth through work provides the best and (for the most part) only means to empower one's self. (I'm not a big believer in symbolic empowerment.)

As much as work is over rated and can be a very disagreeable experience, it's still the best place for people to forge bonds with others, and to build a community base. Healthy poor black and poor white communities used to exist that had mostly working people, had community organizations that helped tie life together, provided a place to feel pride and authenticity, and all that good stuff. A lot of those communities were deliberately destroyed by urban "renewal", suburbanization, industrial flight to cheap labor, and so on.

The fundamental fact for a majority of colored people in white societies is that they are poor, have very low status, and continue to be the object of discrimination, abuse, scorn, and so on -- and they don't have many resources to draw upon to improve their situations.

Poor white people (white trash) are in the same boat. They are scorned and discriminated against, have low status, are abused, and so on -- and they don't have a lot of resources to draw upon to improve their situations, either.

No, poor white people are not in the same boat. There are not nearly as many incidents of police gunning down unarmed white men and boys as there are of police gunning down unarmed black men and boys. A microcosm of this inequity is 12 year old Black Tamir Rice was gunned down in an empty gazebo with a toy gun; White Dylan Roof--who gunned down 9 blacks in a church--was taken alive and taken to Burger King.

That being said, I agree with what you said about what the poor need.

Some good books have been published just recently and over the last few decades, documenting how the federal government, banks, and real estate interests acted in concert to destroy black communities. It wasn't KKK terrorists. It was explicit federal policy in conjunction with banks and real estate interests (all who shared the same goals) to segregate and suppress black people. "They" were extremely effective, and over the course of 80 years, effectively kept black people marginalized and poor.

THE COLOR OF LAW: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America
Richard Rothstein
2017
W. W. Norton & Co.

On Hand (see Erik)

AMERICAN APARTHEID: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass
Douglas S. Massey and Nancy A. Denton
1994
230+ pages
Harvard University Press

MAKING THE SECOND GHETTO: 1940 - 1960
Arnold R. Hirsch
1983
Cambridge University Press

FAMILY PROPERTIES: How the Struggle over Race and Real Estate Transformed Chicago and Urban America
Beryl Satter
2009
Henry Holt & Co.

THE NEGRO GHETTO
Robert C. Weaver
1948
Russell & Russell

Thank you.

When it comes to police violence, you are right -- blacks and whites are not in the same boat. Here's a link to a Vanity Fair article that quotes a number of studies validating your statement about police violence against blacks.

Some of the police violence against blacks is just plain incompetence. 12 year old Black Tamir Rice would probably not have been killed IF the responding officer had followed tried and proven de-escallation procedures: Stop the police car a good distance from the suspect (even a 12 year old). Use a loud speaker (or voice) to instruct the suspect what to do (like drop the gun or object and walk away from it). THEN approach the suspect, slowly.

Instead, the officer roared up to the 12 year old, rolled the window down, and shot him -- all with in 2 seconds stop time. Very, very bad procedure, never mind it being a crime in itself.

One sees the opposite approach in all sorts of situations: A police call is made (might be a shoplifting complaint) and 4 or 5 police cars roar into the intersection or driveway...whatever, and jump out and start running around. It's a wonder they don't shoot each other. They are OVER REACTING which is very bad practice, but you see it all the time.

But blacks and whites in poverty are in the same boat, because once you reach poverty, the chances of economic recovery are poor -- for anyone. It's just very hard to rebuild a life after you have been ratcheted down. For instance, well educated people who commit crimes and go to prison, usually have a very difficult time gaining employment (any job, not just the kind of job they used to have) once they leave prison. Felony convictions and prison are the kiss of economic death.