On Entering the Active Sector…
Well. I’ve never blogged before, so this is a big day for me. Before I get started, let me just say that I really love being in classes with David, Steve, and Chris. They challenge me to think more critically, read more thoroughly, participate more actively, and really just keep up with them! I am quite honored to be invited to contribute to this blog. I was a bit hesitant at first because I’m rather a private person. I’m not sure how I feel about having my thoughts thrust into cyberspace for anyone to read. However, I think it’s important to not only come to conclusions about tough topics, but also to share those conclusions and thus make the world around me a little bit brighter, and just a little bit more truthful. This first foray of mine into the blogosphere represents my own personal resolve to live the life of an active, instead of a contemplative, philosopher.
The dilemma of the philosopher goes all the way back to Plato, but I was first introduced to it when reading Thomas More’s Utopia. More asks, should a wise philosopher waste his precious time by advising political leaders? Many leaders simply surround themselves with false flatterers who care for nothing but the advancement of their own careers, so the philosopher’s wisdom might be completely ignored. His time would be much better devoted to personal study and growth. On the other hand, who is in a better position to advise political leaders than a wise philosopher, who constantly devotes herself to study? Society’s dull-witted and downtrodden have a natural right to be served by their own best and brightest. What good is the personal growth of the philosopher if he never shares his conclusions with those in power?
More suggests a sort of compromise. He argues that truly wise philosophers will not waste their time talking about ideas that will not be listened to, but will rather try to influence policy indirectly as best they can. He writes, “What you cannot turn to good, you may at least make as little bad as possible.” Making something “as little bad as possible” may not be very idealistic, but at least it’s a step in the right direction. The philosopher or intellectual who isolates herself from the world she studies becomes the worst sort of hypocrite; she is more detrimental to society than someone who never noticed its ills in the first place. Plato wrote that there will “never be a perfect state or society or individual until some chance compels this minority of uncorrupted philosophers to take a hand in politics.”
Let’s keep our hands in, shall we? And maybe one day soon, we’ll be blessed with political leaders who are willing to listen.
Indeed Plato saw the perfect kallipolis — the beautiful and noble city — as one ruled by people of the “third nature,” the rationale philosopher kings. The humans who ascribe to the highest ruling order of human nature are those who ascribe to the most rationale frame of mind. They are, subsequently, those who embody the three fundamental traits of civic virtue: courage, moderation, and wisdom. They are socially and legally just and promote the general welfare of the citizens of the city.
More, in your description, attempts to qualify this statement with what I would call “political realities.” What the philosopher king will think and say isn’t always the most profitable, or the most beneficial to the rulers of the city. It will be just and socially healthy, but it won’t always resonate with the personal convictions of the leaders, nor will it often bring personal glory and wealth. We can, however, make the best of the situation. It’s a nice compromise, given that the perfect kallipolis or the conceived of Utopia is, as More puts it in his title, nonexistent. So perhaps it is through compromise and diligence that progress can come about.
I, for one, am delighted to have Karie as a author here at Political Cartel. Aside from bringing some gender diversity, it will give us a new perspective on , hopefully, a myriad of issues. Welcome to the Harding dialectic, Karie; there often isn’t a place I’d rather be. May your time here be a benefiting experience for yourself, for us, and for the many who interact here.
S.C. Denney
19 Mar 08 at 10:18 pm
Karie: Welcome! What a way to start out! This post is very interesting and it is a fundamental challenge for intellectually-minded people. I look forward to reading more of your posts and hearing your perspective on all kinds of issues.
Although, I have to admit, it is kind of intimidating knowing that you are an English major. You’ll probably be correcting our grammar in your head when you read our posts.
Steve: “The Harding dialectic.” Excellent choice of phrasing.
“Let’s keep our hands in.”
David M. Manes
19 Mar 08 at 10:43 pm
Thanks for the warm welcome, guys.
You’re intimidated by my English major? I’m the one who’s now blogging with professional debators. Maybe we should just quit being intimidated and call it even.
By the way, I think Steve just inadvertantly came up with the solution for repairing the “Other World,” or “Global South” as we’re so fond of calling it: Philosopher Kings.
Karie
20 Mar 08 at 12:12 am
Welcome to the blogosphere, Karie.
Perhaps we see so many David-Steve-David-David-Steve-Steve-David-Chris-David-Steve strings of posts now. =D
TheChrisBerry
20 Mar 08 at 12:24 am
*Perhaps we won’t see…
TheChrisBerry
20 Mar 08 at 12:45 am
Hooray for English Majors! I have, for some time now, enjoyed the Political Cartel. Thanks for what you have to say Karie. I have only encountered Platonic thought in relation to literary criticism and theory; but my understanding is that, in order to create his ideal leaders, Plato advocates shielding them from all that he considers negative–namely Homer.
It’s a little ambitious to ask our leaders and “decider in chiefs” to remain above the fray of popular thought and entertainment but it’s nice to imagine that there are rational thinkers, of all party leanings, who are attempting to guide our leaders. It’s even nicer to imagine that our leaders listen.
Ian
20 Mar 08 at 11:42 am
English majors (and Plato) unite against Homer: I like it.
Karie
20 Mar 08 at 9:43 pm
[...] Political Cartel: On Entering the Active Sector… [...]
Vox Bloguli » Mark Elrod’s Lame-O Weblog
21 Mar 08 at 8:02 am
I think that there is a place for both idealism and pragmatism in interactive philosophy. After all, we live in a pluralist society; we’re supposed to throw everything out there for consideration, and try to arrive at the compromise that’s best for everyone. Focusing on the pragmatic is good and necessary, but it’s the dreamers, the puritans, who keep us all honest, so long as they exercise their freedom of speech. Demanding to know WHY we aren’t taking the most moral course is as important as, perhaps is more important than, demanding that we DO take the most moral course. For so long as there are influences seeking to drag us from the moral path, there should be countering voices and opposing forces, pushing us back to the straight and narrow. And who knows, perhaps if enough push in the right direction, we’ll even get there.
I guess the real question I want to address is this: Is being ignored really a waste of time? Would Thomas More have had the vision of the philosopher who picks his battles if Plato hadn’t suggested the philosopher who champions every cause? If there is no pure white, doesn’t gray become the opposite of black? Which, of course, leads to further compromise, which is a slippery slope, one I believe we’ve been traveling down for, oh, about the duration of history, if not longer.
So yes, I believe that those who gain influence need to keep in mind what is and isn’t within the “likely” range on the scope of “possible.” But we also need to keep the whole spectrum in clear view, and I don’t think it’s a waste to devote yourself to stretching that spectrum towards the ideal.
Michael Allen
22 Mar 08 at 1:48 am
Michael: I don’t know how familiiar you are with More’s history, but he counseled King Henry VIII for years but was eventually imprisoned in the Tower of London and beheaded for his refusal to compromise his beliefs and acknowledge Henry as the Supreme Head of the Church of England.
More’s views were heard and even sought by the King until he disagreed with him. Even though he probably knew it meant his death, he stood up for his idealistic views and we’re still talking about him today. So I would say no, being ignored (and executed) by King Henry was not a waste of time.
It’s really good to hear from someone as idealistic as me, so thanks.
Karie
22 Mar 08 at 12:59 pm