:100:This task I hope to accomplish in the present chapter, and also to separate faith from philosophy, which is the chief aim of the whole treatise. (Theological Political Treatise, 14 - P02)
The treatise is not simply theological or political, it is called theological political. But the chief aim [is] to free philosophy from the tyranny of both. — Fooloso4
This vaguely reminds me of arch-elitist Leo Strauss' advocacy of indispensible "political myths" & "noble lies".In all these cases there is on the one hand the attempt to protect philosophical inquiry, and on the other, to give those not well suited to philosophy a salutary teaching, something to stand on or hold on to that instructs but at the same time hides from them what is not suited to them by ability or temperament.
Yes, in fact, philosophy, as the pursuit of wisdom (aretē, phronesis, eudaimonia), reduced to philosophy as "a simple pursuit of truth" (calculi) is, no doubt, "politics by other means".Far from a simple pursuit of the truth for the sake of truth, philosophy is politics by other means.
Philosophy does not serve the State or the Church, who have other concerns. It serves no established power. The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy that saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy. It is useful for harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful. — Gilles Deleuze
This vaguely reminds me of arch-elitist Leo Strauss' advocacy of indispensible "political myths" & "noble lies". — 180 Proof
At the root of all specifically modern obstacles to understanding Strauss is the suspicion that his thought endangers liberalism and liberal democracy. Is not liberal democracy a product of modern thought? Does not questioning the superiority of modern thought lead to questioning the goodness of liberal democracy and the importance of the innovations in politics that allowed its emergence? Does not Strauss's thought involve “a radical critique of liberalism” (Strauss 1965, p. 351)? What Strauss's critics do not grasp is that this critique enabled, not hindered, Strauss's defense of liberal democracy against its enemies, at a time when many intellectuals yielded to the attraction of modern tyrannies because of their dissatisfaction with liberal democracy.
Philosophy was in a different place then. Philosophical treatises contained musings on what would now be called everything from fundamental physics, to psychology, to social science. Any 'Philosopher' engaged in such discourse nowadays is just mouthing off without bothering to do the actual research sufficient to back up their claims and so very few are taken seriously. That leaves modern Philosophy very much engaged with far more niche subject matter than the deeply political issues of church, state and the fundamental nature of society that they used to be expounding on. — Isaac
This is, of course, from Plato's Republic. See the quote from Cicero above. — Fooloso4
Cato, said Cicero, "gives his opinion as if he were in Plato's Republic, not Romulus' cesspool." — Ciceronianus
... a [man] who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public life if [he] is to survive for even a short time (32a).
Do you interpret this as an indication of the difference between politics and philosophy? In what way? — Fooloso4
But this doesn't make them the same in any significant sense. — Ciceronianus
... we have followed that school particularly, or that manner particularly, which we believe Socrates had used (namely, the dialogical) in order to conceal our opinion ... (Tuscan Disputations V. 6.10-11)
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.