Thanks, Michael. It's a slightly more complex process on the chromebook I'm using. That or I'm just an idiot...

I think I finally figured it out.

Lol now you get some random handsome guy for a minute as damage control. I should have cropped the Melville pic or something but didn't pay much attention haha. Hope I didn't have any porn or other incriminating stuff open.

Thanks for that. — Posty McPostface

(Y)

Why are conservatives so opposed to it despite the economic argument that could be made in its favor? — Posty McPostface

I believe Charles Murray is strongly in favor of it, and to my understanding he's pretty conservative on economic matters. There's an interesting conversation between Murray and Bill Kristol (I think) on the topic where he discusses his pragmatic reasons for supporting the idea and also some specific ways it could be implemented. I'll try to track it down...

I think there were a myriad of reasons for people to vote for Trump. As long as it wasn't Hillary played a big role. Beliefs in economic models. Gay rights, legalisation of drugs and other social progressive issues people were against. Fear of the economy and the Other. I suspect a lot of people voted for him despite expecting him to be a problematic candidate and some voted for him despite their belief/suspicion he was a racist. It can't be but a minority who voted for him that did so specifically for his bigotry and mysogyny. I'd personally just suspect more people to be up in arms about it but that's just projection from the political system I'm used to in the Netherlands. — Benkei

Yes, these and other reasons contributed to Trump's election. Racism and xenophobia also played a role, of course, but his victory should not be reduced entirely to those things. The purpose of pushing that narrative, I think, is to deflect attention away from some of the legitimate grievances average Americans--and not just uneducated, ignorant white Americans--rightly feel against the dominant political, social and economic ruling class.

That widespread discontentment with the political status quo, along with the destabilizing sense that the culture and values of society are shifting rapidly, has led to a certain nostalgia for the good old days in which things may not have been perfect, but for many blue collar Americans they were much better. Practical things like finding a relatively stable and decent-paying job, purchasing a home, going to college without getting too far in debt, etc. are all far more rare now than they were 20-30-40 years ago.

Added to those basic material concerns is the impression--not entirely unfounded--that those who are in charge of things feel contempt for you and your lack of culture and sophistication. They mock you for your alleged racism and xenophobia while they live in cloistered neighborhoods, go on month long trips overseas, send their own kids to $40,000 a year private high schools, etc. I'd imagine it's fairly easy to be virtuous when you're in that genuinely privileged predicament.

So, along with rapidly diminishing prospects of material success for you and your children, there's a heightened sense of resentment felt towards the elites who have zero sympathy for your plight, who feel that this is the best of all possible worlds, and who treat you and all that you hold dear in a condescending and dismissive way.

And finally, I've mentioned it in other threads, but Democrats seem to have turned their backs on working class folk some time ago and opted instead for an odd coalition of their wealthy benefactors and marginalized groups. They don't even try to cultivate a broader working class narrative that could rally ALL less financially secure members of society together (other than Bernie Sanders), and they seem to purposely vilify older, less affluent white people as the source of the nation's problems. Why would this demographic vote for a party that wants nothing to do with them?

On the flip side, traditional small government Republicans have manipulated these same people through the use of various social and cultural issues to vote against their economic interests over the years. They've largely supported free trade agreements and outsourcing jobs (while simultaneously appealing to the patriotism of the masses and launching aggressive wars largely fought by them), mass immigration primarily in order to drive down labor costs for business owners, the scaling back of any remaining social programs which may benefit the poor or less fortunate in times of need, and the like.

In other words, they're up the creek without a paddle. Into this malaise comes Trump, who apparently ran numerous focus groups to find out what the major concerns of "average" Americans were. He's a lying, greedy, malicious douche, but he claimed to care about these people when nobody else did. All bullshit, there's little doubt about that, but the options were limited.

It's obviously more complex than this, but I do think we should consider the options available to the people who voted for Trump as possibly mitigating at least a small amount of the hatred we may feel for them.

But I also grew up in an area with a large percentage of Trump supporters and I can tell you that not all of them are the caricatured racists and xenophobes they're often portrayed as. In fact, I'm sure many won't believe this but I know many Mexican-American Trump supporters, and most of them are proud of their heritage. Now of course there's likely a large percentage of his base who do harbor deep-seated prejudices--and I've not met a single black Trump supporter yet--but it's a bit more complex than some people think and that others would like you to believe.

I don't remember that episode but once again it sounds entirely plausible given the hatred that many conservatives felt and continue to feel for Obama. And I do think much of it was/is racially-motivated.

Oh yeah Trump supporters would go ballistic.

I did not, but that seems completely in line with his character as he's shown himself thus far and so not at all surprising.

Yeah I'll try to track down the details again so I don't misspeak or misrepresent. I do recall being shocked that Trump would highlight the judge's Mexican heritage as a possible reason to dismiss him.

Come to think of it, I also remember Trump responding to an interviewer who asked him why the judge's Mexican background should disqualify him from judging Trump's case. His response: I'm building a wall.

LOL can't believe I forgot about that but this guy is indeed over the top.

I think these 8 pages reflect for starters different thresholds for what constitutes racism. To me it's quite clear in the context of everything else Trump has said and done that he's a xenophobe/racist/bigot. Remember his comments about an Indiana born judge being partial due to him being Mexican (e.g. ancestry leads to an inherent conflict of interest)? — Benkei

A bit off topic, but I vaguely recall an argument which explained Trump's position concerning the judge in question as being consistent with the guiding assumptions underlying the sort of identity politics which is espoused by those same Democrats who got so riled up here.

Democrats assume that people will largely behave in predictable patterns which align with the interests of their respective demographic groups (the black vote, the Latino vote, etc.). As the party of diversity they want more individuals form marginalized groups in the courts and elsewhere because they feel that a variety of perspectives is a good and necessary thing for our increasingly diverse country. So far so good.

Now, when Trump questioned the ability of that judge of Mexican ancestry and Democratic political leanings to handle his case impartially, Democrats quickly changed their tune and feigned shock that he could have the audacity to suggest that this man's racial (or other) background just might have an influence--perhaps even a significant influence--on his perspective and in turn his judicial decisions.

Anyhow, if I understood it correctly, the idea was that Trump (or whomever was advising him) was taking a fundamental tenet of identity politics and using it to expose hypocrisy. This isn't meant to support Trump on this or other things, and I likely botched the argument, but I did find it to be an interesting take on the issue regarding the (in)consistent application of principles.

Thank you, Bitter Crank, you've piqued my interest and I'm going to look into those books.

While I'm at it, I'd also add the quick observation that there seems to be a significant difference in aim and perspective between those who want to open up dialogue as a means of promoting genuine racial healing and equality, and others who appear to be much more motivated by a sense of gaining revenge for past and current injustices.

It obviously takes a great deal of magnanimity for those who've been subjected to constant affronts to their pride and dignity because of their race to pursue reconciliation over payback, and if I'm being totally honest I'd admit that I'd likely prefer the latter course if I were in their shoes. But I do think the conciliatory messages of certain black people through the years like, say, MLK or even Barack Obama, resonate much more with "average" white people than the more hostile and accusatory dialogue that's growing increasingly common in this day and age of identity politics.

White people for their (our) part need not feel guilty over being born white, but we should acknowledge the obvious--that black people have been and continue to be treated unjustly--and attempt to rectify the situation to the best of our abilities. That simple and honest acknowledgement may even open up an important space for connecting with the "other" in essential ways that transcend race.

IMO working to forward racial equality is a noble and extremely important goal, and how to best go about achieving this is something that should concern all thoughtful people. I definitely don't have the answers other than what tactics I think may work better (not perfectly) than ones currently practiced, at least given the goal of bettering racial relations. These are more emotional intuitions than anything else, and they may very well be misguided.

I think it's important for whites who, like me, have benefited from good education and growing up in neghbourhoods that are not terrorised by gangs, to be aware of their white privilege. However, I think it's very unhelpful to assert that all white people have white privilege. Even if that's true, it is a heartless and tactically foolish thing to say about white people that are economically disadvantaged. Such thoughtless statements only help the cause of populists and white supremacists, enabling them to equate anti-racism with a lack of concern for disadvantaged whites. — andrewk

Well said. I think these are important distinctions that are often obscured.

I think people generally attach a significance to the term "privilege" which carries with it certain (non-relative) connotations of positive advantage received through no effort of one's own. Things like not being pulled over by cops, or not being followed in a store, or not being denied the opportunity to rent an apartment solely because of the color of your skin seem like normal things rather than examples of the sort of concrete privileges--elite schools, financial independence due to family background, etc.--that some white people in our society are clearly the beneficiaries of.

I wish I could come up with a better analogy, but it'd almost be like telling a child who gets abused by his or her parents "only" once a month that they're privileged because there are other kids that get abused every single day. That may be true in a relative sense, but it still seems a bit insensitive to point it out. Furthermore, from a pragmatic standpoint "privilege" may not be the best word to describe such a state of affairs; it's a somewhat aggressive and even confrontational term, and this being so it often puts the one it's directed at on the defensive. It just seems like there's a better way of opening them up to the plight of those who obviously have it way worse than they do.

Anyhow, do you think it's possible to focus on combating racism and other forms of oppression against POC without also bringing white privilege into the discussion? I ask this in all sincerity since you seem to have a deep understanding of the issue and a judicious way of approaching it.

(Y) Great post.

I typically hold politicians to a higher standard than the masses. — Posty McPostface

Well I take a more cynical view. Politicians more often pander to and flatter the masses in order to gain support rather than challenge their prejudices.

Sure, they may cultivate a more respectable demeanor in public, but behind the scenes they reserve for themselves the right to engage in things that belie that carefully crafted image.

Basic Machiavellian stuff.

That sounds about right.

As someone who doesn't share many of Trump's positions, I do think he's often unnecessarily offensive towards groups that may otherwise find his positions congenial to their own. That goes for conservatives more generally.

I'll make a generalization of my own for the sake of clarifying what I mean. In my experience, there's some truth to the stereotype that Mexicans are in many ways hardworking, family-oriented and somewhat culturally conservative. IMO those are guiding values that he'd be better served by highlighting and connecting to his own political and economic narrative, rather than continue doing what he's done so far, which is to make disparaging and emotionally-alienating remarks about them.

But I'd imagine there are cynical calculations that politicians of all persuasions make that I'm largely oblivious to and which would go a long ways in explaining their strategies. For example, would Trump alienate some of his own largely anti-immigrant base by praising some of the those traits I just outlined and then identifying them specifically with Mexicans? Would he gain enough Mexican-American votes to offset the potential loss of the more traditional base he currently panders to?

Along similar lines, I've often wondered why most Democrats (other than Bernie Sanders) didn't reach out to white working class voters with an economic message transcending racial (and other) identities. They were often quite explicit when outlining the groups they do represent these days: blacks, Latinos, immigrants, women, young people, etc. What's conspicuously absent in their lists, obviously, are older, less-affluent white males. But had they made that more universal appeal then they may very well have alienated some of the important marginalized groups they do mention.

It's like Carl Schmitt's identification (according to my limited understanding of his work) of the essence of the sovereign being to distinguish friend from enemy. It's unfortunate but it does seem as though you need to cultivate resentments against an enemy in order to rally friends to your side.

It's probably too early to tell. I guess much will depend on how things develop over the next couple years with the economy and also who he runs against.

But I'm honestly not deeply engaged in the day to day political situation and will therefore defer to the expertise of others on that topic.

What's your opinion?

Yeah show me some evidence of this hypocrisy your talking about. — Posty McPostface

I'm not exactly sure what Thorongil has in mind here, but I'm pretty sure you'd agree that there's quite a double standard among many Leftists and Progressives when it comes to the issue of making sweeping generalizations about entire groups.

To use the most obvious example, making unqualified generalizations about Trump supporters as a bunch of ignorant, racist, redneck, hillbilly, sexist and xenophobic idiots or "deplorables" is perfectly acceptable.

Even cautioning against such blanket generalizations, or trying to make a distinction between Trump's lunacy and the idea that he may have tapped into some legitimate grievances among a segment of the voting public despite his profound flaws, often brings accusations of racism against the one doing the cautioning and/or distinguishing.

On the other hand, generalizing about immigrants, Muslims, etc. is clearly not acceptable according to those same people who have no qualms about caricaturing Trump's supporters.

Of course the opposite holds true in the case of many Trump supporters who openly generalize those groups he's attacked in negative terms while also protesting when unflattering portrayals are directed their way.

Just trying to make a non-partisan observation here about the pervasive hypocrisy in our society.

Probably this has less to do with being intelligent and more to do with being materially and socially privileged as to have the means to pursue personal interests in the depths these people did. Notice how every one of your examples was a white male, and everyone apart from Gauss I believe came from wealthy and powerful families. — darthbarracuda

There have been countless other wealthy white males who've had plenty of leisure time at their disposal throughout history, though, who have not made a lasting impact on society or the "life of the mind" in any way. Those who have done so are still in the tiny minority relative to their privileged counterparts, and we should therefore acknowledge their exceptional talents - and try to understand what made them "tick" - without reducing them entirely to other factors. IMO of course.

At most I think you could argue that being in possession of significant wealth, and the freedom that comes along with it, is a (typically) necessary but not sufficient condition for the sort of intellectual achievements that we attribute to those on Posty's list.

I agree with your other points though.

We have only one history, it is retrospective determinism to say that because Christianity preached compassion (along with it's justifications for holy wars, inquisitions, witch hunts and child abuse) we could not have arrived at the same point some other way had Christianity not done so. — Pseudonym

I wouldn't (and didn't to the best of my knowledge) say it couldn't have happened any other way, which would imply some sort of religious mysticism or dogmatism which I don't adhere to, but only that it did happen that way. That's clearly a disputable point, but nowhere near that much stronger first claim. If I somehow implied such a thing without expressly stating it, then you could maybe bring the quotes to my attention. I may be mistaken.

As for the rest, there's not much I disagree with. I think a lot rests, as you rightly surmise, on what sort of world predated Christianity or what continues to exist outside of its influence. This is admittedly one of those rare debates that I have zero interest in "winning" - I'm much more concerned with gaining some useful and important knowledge.

Ah forget I asked the question, I'm going to begin a topic soon addressing the very issue.

I know that's not entirely relevant to the topic at hand, and an ostensibly kind and loving God would not practice deception or promote elitism. At least not according to our modern values, which despite my ignorance of specifics I'm arguing have been influenced by Christianity.

Would you make anything of the notion that the ancients by and large practiced a form of esotericism?
The parables of Jesus no less than Plato's dialogues being open to various interpretations, and purposely so.

I would think (e.g.) that loving your enemy, even as s/he is in the process of torturing and killing you, is quite likely a significant point of departure from anything that predated Christianity. This strange sentiment seems completely unnatural.

I'd also imagine that advocating universal equality and compassion - beyond the narrow confines of the tribe, race, or nation - is something uniquely Christian. Well, perhaps Buddhism shares this advocacy of universal compassion, at least in theory if not always in practice. It clearly hasn't been practiced much by Christians throughout history.

Furthermore, inverting the relative value of human "types" within a particular community away from privileging the warrior, the ruler, the wealthy, etc. (i.e., those with power and influence) in favor of the meek, the humble, the marginalized and oppressed may be yet another contribution specific to Christianity.

One can even point these things out while acknowledging that the religion, especially in its later metaphysical garb (belief in an eternal soul, its otherworldliness, etc.), is likely total BS. This was Nietzsche's take, and he was a hardened atheist who had a deep understanding of the religion and the role it's played in the trajectory of Western civilization as a whole. I find his notion that Christianity supplanted the aristocratic and militaristic values of the Greco-Roman world of antiquity to be compelling. It clearly wasn't competing with the hunter-gatherer alternative.

But I'd also concede that if it can be proven that the "natural" state of human beings is one of universal compassion and cooperation which was somehow perverted through the advent of highly specialized and stratified societies, then that would clearly challenge this interpretation of Christianity as having a uniquely ameliorating impact (in a negative way for Nietzsche) upon the state of nature for man in which life, if not necessarily a war of all against all, is not quite as rosy as the picture of it portrayed by Rousseau et al.

And yeah, I may have only intimated it (if I did even that) earlier, but if all memory of those earlier hunter-gatherer tribes had been forgotten, which surely they were at the time when Christianity made its entrance on the world stage, then the latter's contribution to shaping the values of Western society and institutions can be plausibly maintained, even if we acquiesce to the thesis that its guiding values weren't entirely original. In other words it wouldn't need to be an either/or scenario.

But I still need to read through all the links provided by Pseudonym. I found the first one interesting and appreciate the alternate perspective. And this viewpoint does have serious implications in many ways if it's true. It would seem to support a secular humanist ethics as opposed to one grounded in some sense of transcendence, and this in turn could be traced to our early ancestors who were subsequently corrupted rather than "improved" by civilization.

I'm obviously an outsider in this conversation with limited knowledge about either the Bible or the main currents of anthropology.

But even Tacitus recognised that Rome prevailed. I'd put Tacitus in the camp of bigging-up your opponents to make yourself look good for conquering them.
He also seemed to be genuinely interesting in the way the Germans ran their political system, and historians and anthropologists use him as a source, especially in the interests of proto-democracy. — charleton

Good points. I'll have to dust off Tacitus' book and give it another read.

Fair enough, Pseudonym, but what if their children boasted? Would they be reprimanded like the adults? Are we to assume that children were given perfect freedom to do as they pleased and yet the adults were forced to rigidly conform to group values?

And also, pointing out that hunter-gatherer societies didn't subject their kids to schools or formal education of any sort is really odd, for the obvious reason that these things didn't even exist, and this because there was no need for them given the specific circumstances of the life of the tribe.

Concerning #2, the very idea of "personal" autonomy implies some sense of separateness from others. Again, if this term is being used in a special sense then IMO it should be clarified accordingly. As it is it carries strong connotations of the freedom of individuals to think and act in ways that aren't completely determined by larger social pressures and constraints. It's a matter of degree, though, and I'll gladly concede that absolute freedom and autonomy is a fiction.

I think I should also point out that this debate seems to have larger implications for many people that it doesn't for me. I'm not trying to disparage "primitive" peoples at all; in some ways they may have been much more advanced than us, and I'd like to explore these possibilities. This contrast appears to be way of criticizing "advanced" modern civilization in the very way that Rousseau did during his own time.

If that's so, then I want to make it clear that I'm not an uncritical proponent of the values and assumptions underlying our fast-paced consumerist world by any stretch. I'm actually a romantic of sorts who longs for a more "simplified" and less-alienated way of being than what we typically find in the West these days.

And when I say simplified I don't necessarily mean it in a negative way, and likewise more "developed" does not always equate to being superior in every way; in fact it could run contrary to being "developed" in essential ways: morally, ethically, environmentally, artistically... So I'm partly sympathetic to the position you're proposing here, but also haven't found much of it to be all that convincing so far.

Just wanted to throw that out there to avoid possible misunderstanding.

Sorry, I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you could provide me with some examples of behaviour which might demonstrate some of the above traits that is common in modern society but absent in hunter-gather society. That might help to clarify things. — Pseudonym

Individual rights as enshrined in our political constitutions. Specifically things like freedom of speech and freedom of conscience as developed in liberal democracies; the Reformation idea that each individual stands in a relationship to God alone and does not need a mediating clergy; a language in which concepts like individuality and "self-consciousness" seem to posit an inner/outer split that's probably not as natural or as obvious as it now seems to us and which seems to underlie assumptions about autonomous individuality, etc.

But maybe you can point out the historical precedents underlying hunter-gatherer individuality, though, as evinced in their language and customs. So far, what they understood by autonomous individuality appears to be a far cry from what we understand by it. Will you acknowledge that we may talking about vastly different notions here? And that we may be retroactively projecting certain ideas and values that have meaning for us onto previous groups that they may not have ascribed to or even understood in our sense? Seems an incredibly ahistorical approach.

I thought I had just explained how, in hunter-gatherer society, these are far from benign, is there something you don't understand, or disagree with. — Pseudonym

Maybe you could offer examples of what forms of "autonomous individuality" were commonly embraced and practiced in those early hunter-gatherer societies. If boasting is seen as a threat to the tribe, I'm honestly at a loss to understand how respect for the freedom of the individual has much meaning. Current prejudice, perhaps.

For sure, and I appreciate Rousseau's doing so. It seems like the motif goes much further back than modern times even, with Tacitus (if I recall correctly) favorably juxtaposing the barbarian Germanic tribes with the effeminate and decadent Romans of his time.

I think your problem is based on a lack of basic knowledge. People who study h/g Society would not accept your caricature. — charleton

Isn't the "noble savage" a caricature?

That's the picture painted of the hunter-gatherer in the blog post I read. It's likely that both sides simplify and ignore things that don't fit their model.

But you could be right. I sincerely appreciate being disabused of my ignorance on matters such as these.

I'm curious as to why you would assume this, perhaps you could expand? — Pseudonym

Provisionally, I'd say that when I think of individual autonomy I think of things like the Cartesian ego, an emphasis on the primacy of subjectivity and self-consciousness, a "rich inner life," and social contract theory grounded in atomic individuality, just to name a few. These and related concepts took a very long time to develop in the West.

I imagine most "experts" would agree that the ancient Greeks had reached a fairly high level of social and philosophical complexity during the times of Plato and Aristotle, and yet to my knowledge even they hadn't developed a notion of autonomous individuality comparable to our modern understanding of it.

These and other things seem to be preconditions for making any sense at all of autonomous individuality. But I'll assume the idea as it relates to hunter-gatherer tribes may be used in a much different way than we currently use it. If so, I think that difference should be highlighted in order to avoid confusion.

Pretty much in the same way as any respect for egalitarian values must. We cannot just let murderers murder out of respect for their autonomy, because it interferes with the autonomy of another. Tribes living from hand-to-mouth recognised that if one tribe member got ideas of grandeur that could literally be deadly to the tribe's survival, relying so heavily as it does on co-operation. At least, that's the theory. — Pseudonym

Well, let's at least acknowledge the massive difference between expressions of individuality which involve murdering other individuals and the much more benign examples offered up by the writer, like "boasting" and "putting on airs."

I'll take a look at each of these links and maybe respond in more depth later, but I did read some of the blog post and found it interesting. I don't think that positing hunter-gatherer tribes as largely peaceful and egalitarian necessarily precludes also acknowledging the significance of Christianity in disseminating similar positions within much larger and more stratified societies. Maintaining the equality of all members within a tribe of 20-50 people seems quite a bit different than acknowledging the equality of all people within all tribes.

I'm also a little suspicious of the idea that hunter-gatherer tribes maintained a deep respect for the individual autonomy of those tribal members. I would assume (perhaps erroneously) that the mere notion of individual autonomy could only arise within a fairly sophisticated moral and intellectual framework. Furthermore, the claim the author makes regarding this commitment to individuality seems vitiated by the his later claim that:

"The writings of anthropologists make it clear that hunter-gatherers were not passively egalitarian; they were actively so. Indeed, in the words of anthropologist Richard Lee, they were fiercely egalitarian.[2] They would not tolerate anyone's boasting, or putting on airs, or trying to lord it over others. Their first line of defense was ridicule. If anyone--especially if some young man--attempted to act better than others or failed to show proper humility in daily life, the rest of the group, especially the elders, would make fun of that person until proper humility was shown."

How does putting intense pressure on each member to conform to the egalitarian values of the tribe square with their ostensible valuing of the autonomy of each individual? I'll read it through again to see if there's a solution to the dilemma, but that seems a bit contradictory. To me, it would appear that individuality would need to be subordinated to the larger goals of the group in order to maintain its collective existence.

But I'm honestly not emotionally-invested in this issue, and if it turns out that I'm wrong then I'll gladly shift my position and give credit where credit is due. Or perhaps other, much more knowledgeable members who may be partial to Christianity (or religion more generally) will pick up the position I briefly outlined and defend it in a way that I'm incapable of.

As a non-Christian who's only skimmed parts of the Bible, I'm wondering if there's a fundamental distinction to be made between the Old and New Testaments when it comes to these sorts of issues? To my knowledge the more troubling things in the Bible--at least from our current perspective--are only found in the OT, while the NT seems much more aligned with modern values.

I'm largely ignorant as to how the reconciliation between the two takes place, other than being vaguely aware of explanations which point to the radically different historical contexts in which they occur.

I will say, however, that it seems as though many secular and progressive-minded people--who are often hostile to religion in an unqualified way--often mock and ridicule Christians and Christianity without realizing how deeply it's influenced their own values and beliefs. The religion has clearly been appropriated by racists, imperialists, and other reactionaries to justify heinous things, but it's also inspired many an anti-slavery abolitionist, anti-war pacifist, etc. through the years when these positions may not have been as popular or respectable as they are now.

Things like compassion for the less fortunate, the equality of all souls before God, and the inherent value and dignity of all human life seem to have their origin in the NT, right? The Enlightenment (and it's later development into socialism) are even understood by some, like Hegel and Nietzsche, as the secularization of these Biblical ideals.

And it's precisely this lingering moral influence that motivated Nietzsche's critique of Christianity! Or, more properly perhaps, his critique of the specific values which it was the first to articulate (compassion, equality, etc.) at the expense of a more "natural" and honest appraisal of the necessary conditions for an affirming life.

I've found it a bit odd that some of the most militantly non-religious, anti-Christian people frame their critique of it (more charitably, it's historical distortions, which they generally make no effort to distinguish from more genuine expressions) in terms of the very values that arose through the religion they're so strongly criticizing. Seems a little unfair. Apologies for the digression.

Great insight as usual. Thank you.

Thank you for the nice remarks. That post was too long but I appreciate you taking the time to read it. I'll be honest and admit that it gives me some satisfaction - a little boost to the ego - that you found it to be worth the trouble.

Oh and I found your harsh style here to be very effective. Warranted too I should add.

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.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/opinion/rich-getting-richer-taxes.html?referer

I thought this was an interesting short article. Seems like Mitt Romney's father was part of an older generation of conservatives who were able to balance personal monetary ambition with the harmful social and economic consequences that drive could lead to if left unchecked, or even worse, encouraged. In any case, I admire those who freely choose to make a little less money than they could in order to spread the wealth around a bit more fairly. That's the sort of high-minded and farsighted approach that's lacking in today's mercenary world IMO. But then again there could be a more cynical explanation for Romney's actions - other than the high tax rate on the super rich - that wasn't revealed in this piece.

Great OP. Hit the nail right on the head IMO.

Not sure what that inspiring new narrative could be, but it's something I think about all the time. Eager to check out those links.