Just because you're not smart enough to figure out a way to rule and replace whoever you claim the idiots are, it doesn't mean that the world is by necessity ruled by idiots. It just means you're failing. There comes a time when one gets sick and tired of hearing people complain about politicians, etc. - why don't you go replace them eh? — Agustino

(This is your second response to me on this site. Both were worthless, which convinces me that you have nothing to say that is of interest to me. So, this will be my last communication to you on this site.)

Maybe you could try replacing them ? I think you'd do great.

Take care. Like I said, don't expect any more responses from me. You're not worth my time.

So first you create an insulting post, and then you completely change it to tell me a useless thing. And not only that, you already responded to the same post like two days ago already...

You are more likely right than I am. I don't have all the answers. I have very few.

I only said what I felt was the truth. I may be utterly wrong ... I know.

But, I am strangely, and extremely, comfortable with being wrong :) — Aurora

So what's wrong with you, why do you need to respond again after days? :s Does it itch or something if you don't say a few insulting words? One would expect better from someone searching for "enlightenment".

I may not be worth your time, but thank God that you're not worth mine either - that makes the two of us a match made in Heaven.

And not only that, you already responded to the same post like two days ago already... — Agustino

Wow, that's the first and only valid point I've seen you make ! I'm impressed.

I was drunk when I wrote that initial response, so I was happier than I should have been, and I didn't fully read your shitty response :D What I said back then is entirely true (I don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong and I'm ok with it), but it doesn't apply in response to anything you have to say, sorry.

Now, re-reading it in a sober state, I realize that your response was total shit and that I shouldn't have said that I was likely wrong.

Sorry for misleading you into thinking you had brains. It was the alcohol, you know ?

It's funny how your posts change over time.

"total crap" becomes "total shit"

"response" becomes "shitty response"

And so forth.

I guess that's what happens with enlightened people, they don't really know what to say, so they have to fidget around and change it on the go. And those changes are usually towards the vulgar.

Here's T Clark's formulation - In any enterprise; soccer team, engineering office; factory floor; hospital; McDonalds; 25 % of the people are competent, 25% are incompetent, and the middle 50% are more or less ok. I have seen a good manager or coach take the bottom 25% and make them ok; make the middle 50% better, provide support to get the best work out of the top 25%, and get them to all work together better to create an effective workforce. There aren't many managers or coaches who can do that. I guess that's because 25% of the managers and coaches are incompetent and 50% are just ok. — T Clark

I don't know what they teach in business schools, but I gather from my observations that nobody responsible for leading other people has the duty or desire to help every individual realize his/her true, full potential. Their responsibility is to manage and develop everybody under their leadership/supervision to produce the right results. If that means that somebody underachieves, too bad. I would say that it happens all of the time in team sports. A tight end in football might have the potential to be a game-changing receiver, but if the coaches need him to be a blocker more than anything else then they are not going to sacrifice team needs for his individual needs.

The problem is that in order to survive individuals have to respond to demand in markets.

The OP in this thread expects markets to respond to individuals who possess certain traits and have completed certain training. But the world as it is does not work that way. In order for the OP's wish to be granted, governments would have to intervene in markets and use coercion.

The problem is compounded by the fact that most people are happy to acquiesce and live a life of underachievement.

People would probably be happier and enjoy better, more productive lives if their lives were oriented around their true, full potential. But abstract, unclear rewards like self-expression are no match for tangible rewards like money or rewards with clearly-defined benefits, such as the social status that comes with owning one's home.

Ha ha! thanks for the insight. Churchill said Churchillian things in the way that Homer was the one who wrote anything Homeric.

Many of the issues discussed by philosophers aren't about things which drive capitalist society. Philosophers aren't much concerned with human resources, marketing, advertising, sales, money, or banks, nor with day to day jobs like plumbing, engineering, electrics or construction. That's why you don't see scores of jobs in philosophy, outside of teaching and researching the subject. Many employers like a philosophy graduate, since they are generally methodical, patient problem solvers, but the jobs involved won't be about philosophy; you will have to forget about philosophy and just apply the skills you picked up to make a business some money.

I wouldn't worry about philosophy not having enough impact. Philosophy is about ideas, and ideas influence men every bit as much as capital does. Philosophers rarely get credit for any impact they do have though, since if a philosophical idea gains popularity in a society, lay people will just claim it 'common sense' and say they don't need philosophers to teach it to them!

For me, I found that my interest in philosophy was far greater than any interest I had in business, commerce or utilities. I wound up just admitting, to my self and anyone who asks why I do philosophy, that I just don't care about all of those 'practical' things. The most practical I get is morality and politics, and most people find those things still abstract and useless. I just care about ideas, and discussing them with others.

well said. I am not in a good mind frame to brain at the moment or i would attempt to formulate a more provocative response.
Later, I hope.

I gather from my observations that nobody responsible for leading other people has the duty or desire to help every individual realize his/her true, full potential. Their responsibility is to manage and develop everybody under their leadership/supervision to produce the right results. If that means that somebody underachieves, too bad. I would say that it happens all of the time in team sports. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

A good coach, manager, knows that the best team comes from bringing everyone along. Improving everyone. Maybe that's not true for professional or high power collegiate sports where you get to choose who plays, but for most, and for just about all in business, it is true. You're given who you have to work with and you make the best of it. That means getting the best out of everyone.

I don't know what they teach in business schools, but I gather from my observations that nobody responsible for leading other people has the duty or desire to help every individual realize his/her true, full potential. Their responsibility is to manage and develop everybody under their leadership/supervision to produce the right results. If that means that somebody underachieves, too bad. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

This shows a complete misunderstanding of people and their capabilities. There are people, maybe you are one, who can take charge of their own lives and build a place for themselves no matter what the conditions are. That's not true for most people. Most people just want to fit into a place where they can earn a good living and have a secure and satisfying job. That's not an unreasonable desire. As a manager, those people can be intelligent and competent coworkers. Not everyone is a dynamic entrepreneur. Most people aren't. If you are a manager, you wouldn't want them to be. Entrepreneurs don't make good employees.

A good coach, manager, knows that the best team comes from bringing everyone along. Improving everyone. Maybe that's not true for professional or high power collegiate sports where you get to choose who plays, but for most, and for just about all in business, it is true. You're given who you have to work with and you make the best of it. That means getting the best out of everyone. — T Clark

I don't think so.

I have not had any formal education in business management, so I don't know what is taught at accredited institutions. But I've been there many times when the store, plant, center, etc. gets "visitors", and the fact that an individual on payroll is not being utilized on par with his full potential has never been near anybody's radar screen. I have never heard, "Oh, no! The district manager will be here Tuesday and will find out that Ruth would excel in sales but we are only using her as a secretary!".

Furthermore, I doubt that anybody in a management role has ever been denied a bonus, promotion, etc. because an individual in the organization is an underachiever. As far as I can tell, it's all about the collective metrics--do sales this year exceed last year?; have costs been reduced?; does customer satisfaction meet the goal?; etc. The true, full potential of all individuals compared to their actual development is never a concern.

I don't think so. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I have seen it at my job. I have seen it on my children's sports teams. A good manager, a good coach, takes a work group, team, and makes it more than it is. It's really inspiring. It's not about who gets paid how much, or who wins, it's about teamwork and how a group of people can grow. Competence. It's not about being "denied a bonus." It's about pride and understanding. It happens all the time. It's about how things are supposed to work but rarely do.

From what I understand, philosophy does not have a direct impact or immediate impact on the workings of a nation or state. However, philosophers have shaped the construction of societies, nations, and individual minds to a large degree. Just think about Marx and the people affected by his works, or John Locke and the Bill of Rights or the Constitution of the United States.

Seneca doesn't get mentioned enough; but, he was a great statesman. Then there's the unfortunate perversion of Nietzsche and the Nazis.

Basically, thinking that philosophers ought not to rule a nation is just a prejudice. Sure, they might not be the best candidates for the position of power; but, then how does one determine or qualify those statements? Often positions of leadership require more than just intellect. So, maybe it's a categorical error to say that philosophers are best qualified to rule? I'm not sure.

I also wanted to mention the similarity between religious leaders and philosophers. I often view clergy as one step ahead of the common philosopher in that they have abandoned doubt or skepticism. Many philosophers become more hardened in their view of life or society as they progress in their career. Obviously, not ALL philosophers do this, as it might just be the effect of age on one's view of things.

Regardless, if one looks at the history of having the clergy in power, the results are not very appealing. So, would philosophers follow a similar path? Debatable; but, worth considering.

This shows a complete misunderstanding of people and their capabilities. There are people, maybe you are one, who can take charge of their own lives and build a place for themselves no matter what the conditions are. That's not true for most people. Most people just want to fit into a place where they can earn a good living and have a secure and satisfying job. That's not an unreasonable desire. As a manager, those people can be intelligent and competent coworkers. Not everyone is a dynamic entrepreneur. Most people aren't. If you are a manager, you wouldn't want them to be. Entrepreneurs don't make good employees. — T Clark

Again, without any scientific evidence I can only go by my own observations.

Again, I have no reason to believe that the global capitalist system cares about individuals realizing their true, full potential. Every economic actor is supposed to do what he/she/it believes is in his/her/its best interest. The invisible hand, we are told, magically turns all of that individual subjective self-interest into objective maximum collective welfare. Choices are to be made marginally--"Would it be in my best interest to buy this candy bar or skip it?".

As a result, people make choices based on things like price, risk, incentives, opportunity cost, etc. If you can do [X] amount of work and get paid Y or [X-10] amount of work and still get paid Y, you should do [X-10] (not work as hard and as much on the job), the system tells us. If you can lie. If you can cheat. If you can cut corners. If you can get away with destroying other people. The list could go on for many pages.

The system rewards homo economicus, not the examined life.

The system incentivizes and rewards efficiency. If it would be more efficient, as reflected on spreadsheets, to train 100 people to do a repetitive job following a script than to spend the same amount of resources developing one person who has the potential to, oh, discover the cure for AIDS, the former must be done.

If leaders in business think that we need more STEM graduates and that offering BAs in English does not create jobs, too bad if the next Shakespeare ends up washing dishes and never produces one literary work.

I will say it again: we need the unique knowledge, skills, talent, etc. of everybody to be put to optimal use for the benefit of all people. The fact that a lot of people want nothing more than the economic security of a routine job does not change that.

And resources spent employing somebody who is happy to underachieve, cheat, lie, etc. are resources not available to be spent on somebody who wants to make the greatest contribution he/she possibly can. There are probably more of the latter than we think quietly sighing as their true, full potential is never realized. That is sad.