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! — Myttenar

You say you aren't proposing that philosophers rule the world. Here is my refutation. You have made the following statements in previous posts on this thread:

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

Philosophers are misplaced in society because they should have been the ones to engineer the society with logic — Myttenar

evil men rule the world if good men do nothing. — Myttenar

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

That doesn't even include comments by the rest of the posters.

Feeling threatened by thread content no doubt. I do apologize.

you're right, my language became stronger after the repeated attacks, I apologize for responding to the question with emotion clouded judgent.
Try a refutation of the original statement instead of the out of context responses to the verbal bullying. It helps to try and understand the position of the idea instead of assuming it's position and ignoring evidence of the opposite.
Perhaps you have been trolling and I erred in judging your intentions.

Do elaborate — Aurora

Your response to Myttenar:

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

This response shows the same contempt for the governed as most of the posts on this thread.

I wish I were wrong about this :)

Do you mean the governing ? Or the governed ?

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

Perhaps my comment would have been more temperate if I had stopped at "Lot's of really intelligent people are boneheads." Probably better "Lot's of really intelligent people are not competent to make important, urgent, practical decisions that will have serious consequences." But I stand behind the sentiment.

An important fact of rhetoric - your temperate response to my comments has made me reexamine them more than other, more heated responses.

I wish I were wrong about this :)

Do you mean the governing ? Or the governed ? — Aurora

Then, as I wrote, you have jumped on the bandwagon. As I hope I've made clear, and as my Italian friend Allesandro says, this argument offends my essence.

I meant the governed.

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

Short answer: I wouldn't run for the office of a Philosopher-King, or any other public office. For one thing, at my age, I wouldn't want the duty and responsibility.

No doubt there are many who'd be just as good in such an office.

But I trust that if I were running for Philosopher-King, against Obama, Hillary and Donald, I can count on your vote?

Michael Ossipoff.

An important fact of rhetoric - your temperate response to my comments has made me reexamine them more than other, more heated responses. — T Clark

Well, I'm glad.

It's all good. A little heat and friction is to be expected in a forum of this kind. I've been on a few.

Back to the subject under scrutiny, I agree with you - many intelligent people are ill-equipped to be leaders and make decisions for the masses, because the skill set / knowledge required for that is quite different. Their personality type, almost by definition alone, renders them a bad fit for political/managerial positions. I know because I'm intelligent as hell and I'd suck as any sort of sheep herder :D

So, I honestly don't know what the solution to this "problem" would be. I just know that the world is in a mess because it is ruled by idiocy.

this argument offends my essence — T Clark

Ok, let's get to the point.

Were you offended by my claim that the majority (who survive and prosper) are idiots ? If so, I assume you disagree. Help me understand.

Try a refutation of the original statement instead of the out of context responses to the verbal bullying. — Myttenar

I have attacked your ideas. Ideas you put out for critical discussion. I haven't attacked you. My responses don't constitute bullying or trolling.

Ok, let's get to the point.

Were you offended by my claim that the majority (who survive and prosper) are idiots ? If so, I assume you disagree. Help me understand. — Aurora

I wasn't offended. My essence was offended. I love that phrase and my friends and I would always laugh when Allesandro used it. It was just a way of saying I feel strongly about my position.

Your post was in line with many of the posts on this thread. I've tried to make it clear why I disagree with them so strongly. What more do I have to explain?

I've tried to make it clear why I disagree with them so strongly. What more do I have to explain? — T Clark

Oh ok, I apologize, then. I just got to this thread, and I haven't gone through all the previous posts. I usually only read the very first one and a few random ones that catch my attention.

Let me read your responses to others.

Ok, I did read a few, and I will be honest. ... I have no clue about any of the political stuff you and others wrote or the quote about the pursuit of happiness or much of anything else I read here. I was only responding to the original post. And my response is that I agree that the world is ruled by idiots. Now, I wouldn't know how to do it any better, but that doesn't change the fact that idiocy rules this world.

Nailed it :)

Your position on this is quite obvious so allow me to ask, do you recognize the problem that the statement calls our attention to and if so, is there a logical process that can be considered to improve the problem that you perceive?

do you recognize the problem that the statement calls our attention to and if so, is there a logical process that can be considered to improve the problem that you perceive? — Myttenar

Yes, but I doubt that you or anyone else here will find my answers satisfactory :) I'll give it a try.

The problem is that most of humanity is run by collective conditioning (i.e. insanity). This has reduced most people to puppets or robots who have a script in front of them that they follow line by line.

Those who are truly intelligent are, first and foremost, people who think for themselves and question the status quo, without blindly following the crowd. These are usually the unhappiest people on Earth, for the simple reason that they see the insanity that is so prevalent, and not least importantly because they just don't fit in (they're the underwhelming minority).

Ernest Hemingway said, “Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.” These people are pushed outside the social perimeter, where they are barely able to function, much less make significant contributions to society, and much much lesser make leadership decisions.

So, sadly, it is almost by necessity that this world is ruled by fucking idiots. Those who see the truth will want nothing to do with the charade that politics or any kind of "decision making" is.

How to improve the problem ? I dunno :)

So, sadly, it is almost by necessity that is world is ruled by fucking idiots. Those who see the truth would want nothing to do with this world. — Aurora

This is an abysmally lazy statement, and crude too -- no sign of refined thinking on your part. You and Myttenar too,

This is an abysmally lazy statement, and crude too -- no sign of refined thinking on your part. You and Myttenar too — Bitter Crank

Well, sir/madam, you are entitled to your opinion as are all of us. Have a wonderful day/afternoon/evening/night :)

I actually agree with You, but in my perspective of a person is going to be receptive and responsive to an idea has little to do with how sophisticated or pretty it sounds.

From my experience there are few that choose to logically build ideas.
Many seem to reject the idea when presented and express themselves emotionally, attacking others because of a difference of opinion. Logically refuting an idea is productive at least

Just something that has bothered me for quite some time, the undervalued and unappreciated philosophers, critical thinkers and logic officers that study reason and logic but who do not have a place in society. Instead of coordinating and collaborating with scientists the people we train to think fight for jobs like web designers and such. Those who have the skills and mental training to solve complex problems are never even consulted in times of crisis. 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. Our society tells our critical thinkers that philosophy won't make much money career wise and people vote for a guy like trump in the states because they think he will make good decisions for a country. That is how the stupidity of our society is reflected poorly on the philosophy community. If I could have the answer to any question it would be how to offer jobs in philosophy that philosophers can achieve and earn while contributing to society since we are not even consulted at the moment.
Jobs in philosophy. That'd be nice — Myttenar

I have some random thoughts on this old and interesting topic. I'll admit I like the idea of appropriating the insights and skills of philosophers and other thoughtful people in the service of the larger community - it sounds reasonable and desirable on the surface, but I think it needs to be worked out in much more detail than you've given it here.

I side with T Clark on many of the issues he brought up - especially the condescending stance taken against the masses which appears to underlie the position - but I'm open to a change of opinion if you can elaborate on your position beyond the notion that those skilled at solving problems using reason, logic, critical thinking, etc should be valued for their potential at solving the particular problems we face. That seems understanding seems a bit empty since most people, including a majority of those not at all disposed towards philosophy or other intellectual pursuits, use reason successfully in their personal lives on a daily basis in mundane ways.

Be that as it may the first thing I'd look to is historical precedent. For example, James Madison is widely regarded as the most impressive intellectual figure among the 'founding fathers' in the United States - a theoretical genius who was well-versed in ancient and modern philosophy - and he had a chance to put theory into practice when he became our nation's 4th president. How'd he do? By most accounts his performance was not very good - in fact he was far inferior to presidents like George Washington and Andrew Jackson who were "men of action" rather than men of intellect. So theoretical prowess and practical skill don't always (or even often) seem to overlap when it comes to politics.

We also have cases like Plato in Syracuse, Heidegger in Nazi Germany, the philosophes in revolutionary France, etc. that seem to reinforce the notion that there's a significant disconnect between the things which make for a good philosopher, and those that make for a good manager, technician, politician or bureaucrat. One could go further and argue that it was philosophically-inclined neocons (Bremer, Wolfowitz, et al.) who, after gaining some influence during the G.W. Bush administration, led us into a foolish war in Iraq which have only made the problems of the Middle East - and the world more generally - much worse than they were before they tried to 'solve' them.

To be fair I'd imagine a solid counter-example to this sad spectacle would be the reign of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius - but whatever his merits as a political leader, he apparently couldn't even manage his own household very well and turned out a son who wasn't a good emperor by any standard of judgment (perhaps @Ciceronianus the White could chime in on this assessment). Abraham Lincoln could be a more modern example of the benefits resulting when philosophy and political power are aligned, but the wisdom and statesmanship he embodied seemed to be more ethically and intuitively-oriented than overtly philosophical or calculative/logical/rational, although he combined those elements too.

But this leads to the issue of what exactly it is that philosophers do that makes them more capable of leading a nation than others? or even contributing in any way to the overall well-being of the people? Critical thinking? Reason? Problem solving? These are things that can be applied in many ways to many different things, and many a non-philosopher makes ready use of them in mundane ways on a daily basis. Is it the ends for which they're put to use that distinguishes philosophers from non-philosophers? The latter is locked in his or her own narrow self-interest whereas the philosopher grasps the whole or the universal? I think that's a useful distinction.

I think that's a useful distinction, and before utilizing the important skills in the way you're suggesting one needs to see the bigger picture - how each aspect of society (economy, culture, etc.) fits into a larger holistic framework. This seems to be where genuine philosophy is found. Before solving a problem we obviously have to identify it. So I think we should address, like Plato, what the proper subject matter(s) of philosophy is before proposing that those who practice it acquire a place of prominence in the community. It isn't nearly as self-evident as it sounds, and it's definitely more complex than simply the ability to solve problems.

Bean counters and the like may be good with numbers and at using logic, reason, etc. to solve certain problems to their business's advantage, but in my experience they also tend to be bad leaders precisely because they tend to get stuck in the small details while failing to grasp the entire situation, including 'intangible' things like employee morale that are extremely important to the long-term success of the company. Those sorts of things end up adversely affecting the numbers in ways those fixated on data-driven solutions are oblivious too.

Furthermore, the truly wise - the 'philosophers' as opposed to the sophists and other impostors - aren't nearly as interested in money and power and the other idols of the marketplace as most people are. This Socratic (Platonic) idea is clearly anachronistic but it still rings true to me. Beyond basic necessities of life the philosophically-inclined don't share many of the same needs or concerns as their fellow citizens, and that makes them laughable - as well as occasionally dangerous - to their community. This of course is an old view of philosophy but it's one that resonates with me, and it's the only one which someone like Plato had in mind when he made his statement regarding philosophy and political power.

We should recall that Socrates was put to death by his peers after all for corrupting the youth and not believing in the city's gods; for challenging those prejudices and assumptions which characterize every community, even the most ostensibly progressive, open and tolerant ones.

Anyhow I think it's best (pace Plato) these days if philosophers and artists work quietly at the margins of society. They should attempt to shape the culture and values of their community in ways that are mindful of and tactfully responsive to the common prejudices of the masses. I definitely don't feel like these things can or should be legislated in a top-down political manner in most cases (although there are exceptions e.g. Lincoln's outlawing slavery in the U.S against the desires of white Southerners).

That gradual shift in the way the general population understands itself and its world may ultimately lead to more practically-oriented men and women channeling these energies in the political sphere, but only once they've freely gathered enough momentum at the grassroots level. That outlook remains respectful of the dominant democratic ethos while also acknowledging the aristocratic spirit of authentic philosophy, which aims to lead in surreptitious ways beyond the chatter and noise so prevalent in the political realm. That's unlikely to happen but still the best case scenario for the role of philosophy.

I'm not trying to sound grandiose but there's something unique about philosophy that will probably never appeal to more than a small percentage of human beings. That doesn't necessarily make those uninterested in the topic lesser people in any way; in fact they're probably far superior to the philosopher in many of the things of great importance to a community or nation. That old (apocryphal) story of Thales falling into a ditch while looking up at the stars in front of a crowd of amused onlookers captures the perennial lack of respect for philosophy among the hoi polloi IMO, which is to be expected.

The last thing I'd add is a recommendation to pick up a copy of Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, if you haven't already read it, in order to get an interesting perspective on the significant problems which can result when supposedly enlightened and theoretical minds take over political power, and then try to implement changes without taking heed to the ingrained habits and mores of 'the people' which have been developed over long periods of time. This belief in the efficacy of social engineering can lead to barbarism of the worst sort, as when the purported champions of the people are willing to sacrifice many of those same people for the sake of their imagined utopia - a place in which all problems and conflicts are eliminated. So the arrogance and presumptuousness that intellectuals are prone to exhibit can be very dangerous, as can be their conspicuous lack of practical wisdom, and at the very least this is something to be on guard for in ourselves.

I often avoid long posts, but I read all of yours and liked it very much. I don't really disagree with anything you say and you added a lot of depth to the discussion.

As I was reading I was thinking about the difference between our rhetorical styles, at least in this thread. Mine was angry and harsh. Yours was well reasoned and conciliatory. I think I'm really good at angry/harsh. In my time on this forum, I've tried to move more toward the reasoned/conciliatory side. I've made some progress and I think I'm pretty good at that approach too. Then again, I think sometimes anger and ridicule are called for. For me, this is one of those situations. My posts weren't intended to convince, at least not convince Myttenar. Yours were and will certainly be more effective in that way.

There are a lot of really smart posters on this forum who bring an understanding of the history and structure of philosophical thought to our conversations. I am always grateful for what they have to offer. I come from a place which is very skeptical of much of western philosophy. In my time on the forum, I have become more open to seeing its value.

Let me add to my answer to this question:

"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? — T Clark

I don't have management or leadership skills.

And, as I said in a previous message:

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

Those things don't recommend me for governing.

But of course each of us prefers some governing policies to others. Suppose that your policy-preferences are right or best. If so, then, if you somehow had the power to institute those policies, that would be an improvement, right?

Realistically, of course, there's no way for that power or policy-making opportunity to ever happen.

What you, I, or any of the 99.99% want or prefer is, and will remain, entirely irrelevant.

Michael Ossipoff

From my experience there are few that choose to logically build ideas. — Myttenar

I suppose it depends on how few the few are, and what is considered "ideas".

True, most people... 80%? 90%? do not work with all-caps "ideas", big ideas, the all-time-great ideas, and it's a good thing they don't, because the world is not perpetuated by great ideas; it's perpetuated by working in the dirt to raise food and fiber, digging in the ground for metal; cooking, cleaning, mending, minding, and managing life. Without the tedious and exhausting labor of the many, there would be no survival of the few.

Martin Luther praised the labor of the many as sacred as the labor of priests, monks, and nuns. The labor of the many is God's work as much as the labor of the saints.

As for the 10% or 20% who are not weeding the crops and spinning cloth, most are not concerned with "philosophy" per se. There is nothing less elevated in their work if it doesn't concern philosophy. The fields of the Liberal Arts all entail as elevated an understanding of the abstract as philosophy. OK, I'll readily grant that Business Administration, Medicine, Technology, Agriculture, Chemistry, Physics, etc. are all concerned with the tangible world. But the tangible world should not be dirt under the philosopher's feet.

Further, the labor of the many which is as sacred as the labor of priests, as elevated as the supposedly elevated work of philosophers, isn't so simple. Compelling the tangible world to become useful was not, is not, ever easy. Take a small cattle herder as an example. Cattle may not be as clever as crows, but they aren't mindless and they don't have to cooperate. Sometimes they don't. A successful small herdsman understands the animals he works with, and knows how to appeal to the animal's preferences. Cattle have preferences, and they have precedence. A farmer that doesn't recognize which cow is First, Second, and Third won't get them organized in the barn. Even an above average philosopher will not be able to tell one cow in a herd from another. For most of us, all cows of the same kind (jersey, holstein...) look exactly alike.

The great mass of technology which holds the human world together, and has held the human world's functioning together for a long time, was built up by ordinary workers. Sowing grain by hand, for instance, is a technology. So is preparing the soil, so is harvesting, so is grinding, so is baking bread. A Platonically minded philosopher can talk about the ideal loaf of bread (which can not be eaten) but a humble woman making bread understand the physical thing of bread, how it must be handled if it is to be good bread. Project forward a few millennium to a French pastry chef: more understanding, more technology, a philosophical French croissant--but still the physical world which must be understood.

The rarified philosopher may be very deficient and impoverished in his understanding of the physical world. I feel this impoverishment in myself (though I am not much of a philosopher) when I confront ordinary physical problems like, fixing a leaking faucet, or trying to understand why my garden will not support certain plants. Of course, I CAN figure these things out -- at least I used to know how to fix a faucet, and the fact is, parts of the garden just have crappy soil--all sorts of different dirt, sand, gravel--even a sidewalk--have been buried there. But, bad experiences have led me to think I am better off paying a plumber to fix things, rather than having disasters later.

Getting a head of lettuce from California's fields to a Boston table, and have it be fresh, crisp, and flavorful, requires a lot of technology, thinking, logic, planning. Supply chain management is invisible to the philosopher, but without it, he'd starve--as would most of us.

The ultimate reason why philosophers are not superior beings is this: Trained in logic, thinking, and abstract ideas he may be, but his mind is no less subject to failure than anyone else, and his emotions are as likely to lead the philosopher into--or out of--the weeds as anybody else.

We are part of the natural physical world, whether we are troglodytes or live in the ivory tower, and are always physical beings Think we can, but it's all the physical world that makes it possible.

Commodus is something of a problem for admirers of Marcus Aurelius.

He may not have been quite the monster he's made out to be. I think we have to take into account the fact that those contemporary sources we have may be prejudiced against him or otherwise deficient. He was disliked by the Senate, although and possibly because he popular with the people (the Roman "mob") and the legions, and the primary historian of his reign was Cassius Dio, son of a senator and a senator himself. He was apparently considered frivolous and decadent by the Senate and too fond of gladiatorial games.

He also earned the Senate's dislike by abandoning the conquests made in his father's reign (and those of Trajan and Hadrian) in Germany and modern Bohemia and the empire's eastern border with Parthia. The Senate for the most part liked conquest; it generally increased the wealth of its members and presented opportunities for advancement. But, some have maintained this was appropriate at least in the case of the eastern European conquests, and that the empire was overextended. And his reign saw the end of about twenty years of constant warfare by the empire.

His father apparently tried quite hard to provide for his education and prepare him for administrative and military duties, appointing tutors and making him co-Augustus with him. Perhaps Marcus felt that he would do well as a result; perhaps he did do well, for some time, at least. He was born of the union of Marcus and his first cousin Faustina; maybe that accounts for his growing megalomania and other problems.

Personally, I think that the people we do not heed enough are cultural anthropologists.

Logic is a highly specialized science.

If you want leaders, voters, managers, etc. making better-informed decisions about the big picture, lobby for the employment of more people from cultural anthropology.

If you want to understand as much as you can about, say, overpopulation, how would a specialist in logic be more useful than a cultural anthropologist?

Without the tedious and exhausting labor of the many, there would be no survival of the few. — Bitter Crank

I can't find it right now, but I read a column a few months ago that said the opposite: it is the highly-educated elites who keep everything running. Without the highly-educated elites, I recall the author saying, the farmers, postal carriers, and the rest of us non-elites would be helpless.

What no side of this discussion tells me is why anybody wants to put their own role in the system on a pedestal. The common worker often sounds as elitist as the paper shuffling CEO ("Without the work that I do, the whole system would implode").

Let's be honest. People mostly care about power, influence, prestige, status, wealth, etc. Pragmatic considerations, such as keeping the population fed, are secondary at best.

If pragmatic considerations are our concern then we need the knowledge and skills of everybody. No matter if is the organizational skills of a CEO, the problem solving skills of a logician, or the skilled hands of a carpenter, we need all of it to be marshaled to the benefit of everybody.

Apparently people can't be happy with being good at something and being fairly compensated for it. Apparently people can't be happy unless what they are good at enjoys high social status, is allowed to have greater influence in public policy, and is widely recognized for its greatness.

It sounds like childish narcissism, to be honest.

People mostly care about power, influence, prestige, status, wealth, etc. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It sounds like childish narcissism, to be honest. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It would be, except that I don't think most people are so obsessed. Most people seem like they are just trying to get through the day, their life, without too much misery.

Some, a small minority, really are obsessed with power, influence, prestige, status, wealth, etc. and they are a troublesome lot.

Apparently people can't be happy with being good at something and being fairly compensated for it. Apparently people can't be happy unless what they are good at enjoys high social status, is allowed to have greater influence in public policy, and is widely recognized for its greatness. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It would be, except that I don't think most people are so obsessed. — Bitter Crank

I think they are so obsessed. Sure, they're not obsessed with power on a large scale, absolutely not. They can care less about it. But they are obsessed with power over their husbands, over their children, over their local community, etc. And they are often more draconian, perfidious and demanding when it comes to this sort of power than those who strive for power on a grand scale. Those who strive for power on a grand scale do get, sooner or later, a sense of their own smallness and vulnerability which persists, regardless of how powerful they become. Take people like Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and the like. Sure, there are also Neros out there, but they are an exception I would say.

Some, a small minority, really are obsessed with power, influence, prestige, status, wealth, etc. and they are a troublesome lot. — Bitter Crank

The small minority obsessed with power, influence, prestige, money etc. can be troublesome, depending on their characters. But more often than not, they happen to be less troublesome and less draconian than the relatively uninfluential who strive after influence even on a small level.

About money....

"There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money" - Samuel Johnson

And that is often true, because to make money, at least honestly, you have to do something that is valuable to others.

So, sadly, it is almost by necessity that is world is ruled by fucking idiots. Those who see the truth would want nothing to do with this world. — Aurora

I agree with BC - this is nonsense. 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? They're idiots afterall - it shouldn't be hard for you, given that you see the truth - to take power should it? If even the blind - those who do not see the truth - take power, why can't the enlightened ones? If they are so virtuous and strong, this should be child play for them, a warm-up. A real man or woman does not complain, he or she goes out there to change the world - precisely because they are smart and enlightened and have an advantage over everyone else who is blind and foolish.

And even if the world was ruled by idiots - it's your fault for allowing them. You are intelligent, why do they hold power?! What's that intelligence of yours doing fusting in you unused?

This is an abysmally lazy statement, and crude too -- no sign of refined thinking on your part. You and Myttenar too, — Bitter Crank

(Y)

The rarified philosopher may be very deficient and impoverished in his understanding of the physical world. — Bitter Crank

I agree. But theory and ideas are required to shape and change the world. Very many people discount books & study as a valid way of affecting the world, but I actually think that the learned are more powerful than the unlearned in shaping the world. Depending on the learning of course. It needs to be done with pragmatic aims in mind.

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 :)