Who would benefit from hiring a philosopher? The whole point seems to be thinking of things with no practical application. If there is something practical about it, it isn't philosophy, it becomes science. Those guys tend to be ignored as well if they're not talking about immediate benefits.
So what specific contribution do you think a philosopher has to offer?

I have to disagree since philosophy gave us our sciences and the whole point is that the philosophers ask the questions that direct the sciences, not to mention the practical application of the skills philosophy teaches.
I'd love to make a career out of philosophy, it is the only thing I am really passionate about that way. I want to get funding for a bigass think tank to employ philosophers. I'm lazy so I'll probably just plan it and then not but it's not a bad idea

Philosophers are misplaced in society because they should have been the ones to engineer the society with logic but were instead being jailed and executed over people's 'beliefs'. Those that seek to learn being murdered by people who think there's an invisible man in the sky. Irony that is not lost on me and I guess we don't have it that bad.

It is logical that the logicstitians are using their logic in tandem with society and the sciences.

A point made by Plato. "Unless . . . philosophers become kings in the cities or those whom we now call kings and rulers philosophise truly and adequately and there is a conjunction of
political power and philosophy . . . there can be no cessation of evils . . . for
cities nor, I think, for the human race." (Rep. V. 473c11-d6)

https://philosophy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/_philers_rule_copy.pdf

There are more jobs in applied ethics than there used to be - in medicine, business e.g.

It wouldn't make any difference. The population are almost entirely suckers. The rulers have always been exploiting that mostly-sucker population, and always will.

Evolution made that arrangement, and it will always remain.

Michael Ossipoff

That reminds me of that adage about for evil men rule the world if good men do nothing.
You do have a good point, though I shudder at the gross over generalization of the populace, especially since I can't disagree.
However, if that is the case, then why do the critical thinkers have more influence and prestige if the rest of society is full of "suckers"

the undervalued and unappreciated philosophers, critical thinkers and logic officers that study reason and logic but who do not have a place in society. — Myttenar

If philosophers, critical thinkers and "logic officers" are so smart, how come they haven't figured out how to become more influential in society?

Those who have the skills and mental training to solve complex problems are never even consulted in times of crisis. — Myttenar

So, here we are with North Korea having launched another ballistic missile, this one capable of reaching the central US, and maybe Washington, D. C. What's your advice?

In allowing this, as members of the society with intelligence quotients in the top percentiles of the population, we are allowing those without the critical thinking training, those with closed minds and prejudiced attitudes to make decisions that any society other than ours would designate to those of great knowledge. — Myttenar

If you want to be involved in making big decisions, you have to have knowledge in the relevant area. How's your knowledge about Public health? Strategic arms deployment? Supply chain management? Monetary policy? Molecular engineering? Marketing? Production Management?

That reminds me of that adage about for evil men rule the world if good men do nothing. — Myttenar

And if good men (try to) do something,then evil men still rule the world.

Good people are irrelevant to the overall state of the world (though of course they can still help someone in specific instances. And of course it's still encouraging that they're there at all.).

You do have a good point, though I shudder at the gross over generalization of the populace, especially since I can't disagree.

Then we agree that it's a gross generalization, but not an over-generalization.

However, if that is the case, then why do the critical thinkers have more influence and prestige if the rest of society is full of "suckers"

I don't think that anyone has influence, except for the ruling 1/10 of a percent. (...but, for the most part, only a fraction of those.)

The mechanism of that rule doesn't matter. It's taken various forms throughout history, to suit the fashions of particular historical periods. Rule by divine right, rule by people who are better, or, more recently, a hilarious pretense of democracy.

That's why I'm completely non-political, and have no interest in government or voting.

I like to quote P.T. Barnum, who said that there's a sucker born every minute.

...and W.C. Fields, who said "Never give a sucker an even break."

...and point out that those two great social scientists have thereby explained why society is as it is, and always will be.

Michael Ossipoff

The arrogance of this post and most of the responses is a bit mind-boggling. The contempt shown for the benighted hoi polloi is staggering. The whole thing is laughable. You ask why philosophers don't have more influence - here's Exhibit A. Everyone else is either a ruler or a sucker. Hey, maybe I'll start a think tank to pay philosophers more. Hey, maybe I'll grow wings, lose 200 pounds, and start flying.

The primary skills of governance are political and managerial, not intellectual. Stalin and Hitler thought they were running the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany on logical principles. Lot's of really intelligent people are boneheads. Many can be found here on this forum. Here in this thread.

The contempt shown for the benighted hoi polloi is staggering. — T Clark

Of course, one has to wonder about the hoi polloi at times. But then, one has to wonder about the corps d'elite too, quite often. The latter are capable of doing so much more damage.

1. Opening with an attack is a nice touch but an appeal to emotion..
2. My point is that given the critical thinking skills of the philosophers and trained critical thinkers is a grossly untapped resource and I apologize for misrepresenting if that was the way it was taken.
As a logistician we try to make our deductions with the information available and understand that we are don't actually know anything but can use logical process in areas that truths are provided by those in those fields.
This skill alone shows management skill..
And everyone is a victim of their own perspective, our society thinks it is right just as much as Hitler thought he was. I don't really wanna compare to see who had more evidence to support their belief.
Psychologically speaking, The attacks made indicate a repressed internal problem being expressed subconsciously.
Philosophically speaking any attack is an appeal to emotion and become little more than a distraction an adds no value to the conversation.
Your statements are invalid.

A logistician used their critical thinking skills to make deductions based on information provided. They don't need to be the one working in that field but are provided the information by those who are.

You forgot rule by idea
And the mechanism for rule does matter if society is to prosper not implode.

Of course, one has to wonder about the hoi polloi at times. But then, one has to wonder about the corps d'elite too, quite often. The latter are capable of doing so much more damage. — Bitter Crank

Agreed. Also, and for what it's worth

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The arrogance of this post and most of the responses is a bit mind-boggling
[The contempt shown for the benighted hoi polloi is staggering. — T Clark

Calling it like it is isn't contemptuous; it's just frank.

The real contempt for the "hoi polloi" is from their owners/herders./milkers/shearers. ...and, well, from themselves too.

But I don't encourage worry about that. What would be the point? It's not as if it could change.

The whole thing is laughable.

Yes, if it weren't so tragic.

Exhibit A. Everyone else is either a ruler or a sucker.

Not many are rulers, but there's no shortage of suckers.

Michael Ossipoff

You forgot rule by idea — Myttenar

Well that was there all along, the idea that the pharohs and kings were divine. The idea that the rulers were purer and better. And now the idea of democracy (but without the democracy). So there was always some sort of an idea to support it.

But it doesn't now, and didn't then, matter what people believed, because it's the business of a ruler to make sure that he can hold onto rule no matter whats his subjects want.

Michael Ossipoff.

It certainly isn't that the rulers lack the benefit of expert advice.

They employ the best experts on psychology, persuasion, advertising, technology, and strategy of all kinds.

Michael Ossipoff

1. Opening with an attack is a nice touch but an appeal to emotion... — Myttenar

There was no appeal to emotion. It was appeal to what ought to be common values. The fact you don't recognize that is telling.

2. My point is that given the critical thinking skills of the philosophers and trained critical thinkers is a grossly untapped resource and I apologize for misrepresenting if that was the way it was taken.

As a logistician we try to make our deductions with the information available and understand that we are don't actually know anything but can use logical process in areas that truths are provided by those in those fields.. — Myttenar

I'll say it again - intellectual skills are useful but not necessary for good governance. If the posts in this thread constitute the work of "trained critical thinkers," we need to keep them as far from places where important political decisions are made as possible.

This skill alone shows management skill... — Myttenar

Showing condescension and contempt for those you think you are qualified to govern is arrogant to the point of delusion.

And everyone is a victim of their own perspective, our society thinks it is right just as much as Hitler thought he was. I don't really wanna compare to see who had more evidence to support their belief.. — Myttenar

So, Hitler's plan was just wrong. It wasn't evil. Whatever, it was the product of what was supposed to be an effective, rational means to an end. I wonder if he had trained critical thinkers in his staff.

Psychologically speaking, The attacks made indicate a repressed internal problem being expressed subconsciously.. — Myttenar

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha..............

Philosophically speaking any attack is an appeal to emotion and become little more than a distraction an adds no value to the conversation.. — Myttenar

Attacks on ideas are not necessarily appeals to emotion. Appeals to emotion are not necessarily invalid or inappropriate methods of argument. The fact that you don't know that shows you don't understand what it takes to govern.

Your statements are invalid. — Myttenar

Mr. Putin, your statements are invalid. Kim Jong-un, your statements are invalid. President Trump, your ideas are invalid. That'll show em.

And my point is that philosophers should be attending those experts to adopt the logical process. Let those trained in logic use it.

Plato proposed a society governed by philosophers, but of course the problem would be, how does one get from here to there?

Michael Ossipoff

— Myttenar

"Global society constitutes a system of inexpressible complexity. It is like a huge central nervous system in which ‘social neurons’ (i.e. people) interact with each other via an infinity of interconnecting and overlapping subsystems. The fundamental dynamic of the system is power, that is the ability of a social group or individual to influence others in accordance with its/his/her interests. Interest is thus the principal, and most effective, means through which power is transmitted.

Here, already, is the starkest possible contrast with our conventional psychology: what animates us is not rational appraisal and considered choice of action, but the push and pull of social power as it manipulates our interest. It is not argument and demonstration of truth which move us to action but the impress of influences of which we may be entirely unaware.

Reason, then, is a tool of power, not a power in itself. Just like moral right, rational right is not of itself compelling and, when it is in nobody's interest to regard it, will be disregarded. Those who - like Thomas Paine for example - seem successful advocates of Reason in its purest form, may fail even themselves to see that it is in fact not reason alone that makes their words persuasive, but the causes (interests) to which reason becomes attached. No doubt Mein Kampf was as persuasive to those already sold on its premises as The Rights of Man was to 18th century revolutionaries in America and France. This does not mean, to those who value reason, that Paine's writing is not worth infinitely more than Hitler's; it means simply, and sadly, that Reason alone is impotent. What really matters is power itself." -- David Smail, Power, Responsibility and Freedom

Plato proposed a society governed by philosophers, but of course the problem would be, how does one get from here to there? — Michael Ossipoff

Just out of curiosity, do you see yourself as one of those who could appropriately be chosen to govern?

There is no refutation in your statements so I won't point out the fallacies. :)

No, if you read the statements I've made you would see that I simply want to create jobs in logic
Oh and vive la revolution!

I like your view on this subject. But, I honestly think Darwin had it backwards. In this world, the idiots survive, the idiots prosper, and the idiots make decisions for the intelligent.

Now, whether or not the intelligent are the "fittest" or the "weakest" is up for debate :)

There is no refutation in your statements so I won't point out the fallacies. — Myttenar

Is it a valid philosophical method to refuse to respond? Mr. Putin, there is no refutation in our statements so I won't point out the fallacies.

I'll summarize your post and my refutation:

Myttenar: Philosophers ought to rule.

T. Clark: Your post provides evidence that philosophers should not be allowed to rule. Here's how:

• The post shows arrogant contempt for those who are to be governed.
• The post shows a lack of understanding of what it takes to govern.
• The post uses intemperate argument and illogical statements to try to make it's case (e.g. making a ham-handed psychological diagnosis based as a method to refute my statements).
• The post shows a lack of the judgment and temperament needed to negotiate important issues with people who have values and goals not consistent with your own.
• While purporting to be logical, the post shows a lack of understanding of what makes up a rational argument.

I like your view on this subject. But, I honestly think Darwin had it backwards. In this world, the idiots survive, the idiots prosper, and the idiots make decisions for the intelligent.

Now, whether or not the intelligent are the "fittest" or the "weakest" is up for debate — Aurora

I like discussing things with you. On several of the issues we have discussed, you have interesting positions at angles, if not opposition, to my own ideas. I'm surprised to see you on this broken-wheeled bandwagon.

I'm surprised to see you on this broken-wheeled bandwagon. — T Clark

Do elaborate :)

Since the point that I still never asked to rule so this is a misrepresentation of my position and has no actual bearing on this conversation and continues to fail to add value to conversation with overtones of judgement, contempt and thinly veiled attacks.
Sorry you feel that way.

Lot's of really intelligent people are boneheads. Many can be found here on this forum. Here in this thread — T Clark

I'm surprised to see an attack like this from you, honestly.