Sunday 25 April 2010

Hmm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/general-election-2010-nickclegg

In relation to Ruth's previous post on the role of philosophy, it is interesting to see that Guy Damann writes in the Guardian today, when commenting on the UK general election, that when it comes to politics, philosophy and philosophers are best to leave well enough alone! After all, philosophers have tended to have a rather bad record when it comes to directly influencing rulers: Plato at Syracuse, Aristotle and Alexander, Foucault in Tehran, Heidegger and the Nazis to think of a few. Damann's point is that philosophy is founded on a suspension of action and is therefore, by definition ill-equipped for dealing with the cut and thrust reality of political life. He suggests that philosophy should retain a role as the Socratic 'gadfly.' I take this to mean that Damann thinks that philosophy's role should be to act as purely a form of critique, one that should challenge and remind rulers of the ideals that a society should be built on.

What do you think?

Patrick
Posted by at

7 comments:

  1. Ruth Griffin25 April 2010 at 08:29

    Well, fair play in the sense that yes, philosophers tend not to have a great track record when they get stuck into the nitty gritty of politics. Having said that, it seems a bit reductionist to confine a philosopher's role to a kind of transcendental critique which politicians can feel free to ignore at will.
    I guess it could be argued that religious and even "royal" figures are also criticised for trying to get involved in everyday concerns, and are told to basicially leave it to those expert in worldly matters.
    I'm not sure that such "experts" should be allowed free reign, though, with the philosopher passing judgment from his/her lofty ivory tower without fear of dirty hands...
    What do you think?
    Ruth

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rob25 April 2010 at 09:18

    I'm not really sure if I see what Mr Damann is trying to get at. Is he just saying that Philosophers can not be politically active or is he trying to say that there is no space for Philosophy at large in Politics?

    Saying a Philosopher isn't a Politician seems a bit obvious doesn't it?

    If we're supposed to stick to the University and let the real men get on with the Politics leave them to it. They'll be crawling back to us when they need justice in the courts!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Patrick O'Connor25 April 2010 at 09:37

    Experts, indeed. The last great example of this was Francis Fukuyama's noble neo-liberal contribution to global welfare!

    The point about the Royal's is interesting. It would imply that if you come from a sectional group you are barred from politics by dint of coming from a sectional group. Therefore, you would only have a limited experience of politics which is concerned with all aspects of the relationship between rulers and ruled. This however would by definition bar pretty much everyone from politics! Politics on this level would only ever be the art of managing competing identities and the proliferation of specialized policies catering for said groups. Pretty much what we got.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Patrick O'Connor25 April 2010 at 09:43

    Too right Rob! It's a good point though, philosophy is active irrespective of whether one is political or not. The legal profession, for better or worse, is a clear example of this. Damann has a rather simplified view of philosophy, one that supposes that it is either political or apolitical. To say that the political is exempt from the philosophical, and the philosophical is exempt from the political seems very narrow to me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Neil Turnbull26 April 2010 at 12:45

    Agreed, philosophy always has a political aspect because it relies on what the Greeks termed parrhesia - or 'outspoknenness'...

    Philosophers 'say things as they see them' - and this can get them into difficulties with the powers that be! In this sense philosophy always carries with it a critical potential vis-a-vis existing structures of power.

    To deny is is simply to endorse a philosophy of quiet deliberation and consensus formation - i.e. liberalism...

    So we can't escape the political when doing philosophy

    Neil Turnbull

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ruth Griffin27 April 2010 at 02:04

    I agree that philosophers should be permitted to get involved in politics in the sense that philosophy is (or ought to be) inextricably linked to the human and what it means to be human, and one can't separate the political realm from that.
    The fact that philosophers haven't always acquitted themselves well in the political realm doesnt' mean they should be kept out of it. The level of involvement in politics is another matter, in the sense I assume that one doesn't have to get involved in party politics to be involved in politics in the wider sense? Certainly philosophers should be critiquing the status quo, not endorsing it. Critique is surely one of the primary roles of the philosopher, not "deliberation and consensus forming"... The degree of radicalism exercised by the philosopher differs according to individual prediliction, of course, but those who want to "get involved" should get on with it! And I, for one, am interested to know what we are to do about the existing power structure!
    Ruth

    ReplyDelete
  7. James Smith27 April 2010 at 13:04

    As Marx stated

    'Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.’(Marx, 1845)

    and ignoring the controversial communism. Politics is a way to change the world for the better. I personally don’t see why Philosophers should simply criticize rather than act. Philosophers should keep applying new ideas-eventually they will get it right. On our way to a brighter future....hopefully

    Jim

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)