The Politics of Philosophy

Fooloso4

It has been suggested that political philosophy be seen as more than a political science. It is not simply knowledge of politics but the politics of knowledge This can be seen vividly in the trial of Socrates and Plato’s response, the Republic.

Cicero: "The Republic does not bring to light the best possible regime but rather the nature of political things—the nature of the city."

To know the nature of the city is to know the tension between the philosopher and the city. Nietzsche, echoing Plato, says that real philosophers are commanders and law-givers. (BGE 211)

The “battle between the ancients and the moderns” sheds light on this as well. Descartes, whose motto was taken from Ovid:

“He who lives well lives well hidden”

attempted to undermine the authority of Aristotle and the Church. This was a treacherous move that he attempted to find a safe course through by the rhetorical route of proceeding by doubting everything.

Spinoza, whose signet ring read “caute”, faced a similar problem:

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 to free philosophy from the tyranny of both.

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.

Far from a simple pursuit of the truth for the sake of truth, philosophy is politics by other means.

180 Proof

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

:100:

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.

This vaguely reminds me of arch-elitist Leo Strauss' advocacy of indispensible "political myths" & "noble lies".

Far from a simple pursuit of the truth for the sake of truth, philosophy is politics by other means.

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".

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

Isaac

↪Fooloso4

I think that may have been true a few hundred years ago, and more, but 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.

Small 'p' philosophy may be another matter, but that's mostly post hoc. I don't see much evidence of people rationally arriving at some belief system and then changing their political approach as a result. I do, however, see a lot of evidence of one's political position being justified, post hoc, by some philosophical rationalisation, in the face of a challenge to the position.

The pursuit of politics will, I think, forever be practised by the usual tools of group membership, obedience to authority, and disempowerment/disenfranchisement of opposition. Any philosophy accompanying that will be constructed as an afterthought, some window dressing to give more academic air to the basic act of repression.

Fooloso4

This vaguely reminds me of arch-elitist Leo Strauss' advocacy of indispensible "political myths" & "noble lies". — 180 Proof

This is, of course, from Plato's Republic. See the quote from Cicero above.

It is also standard political practice today even in democratic regimes such as the U.S. Whether it is possible or advisable for a government to be transparent is both an ideological and practical question. A social experiment whose consequences are unknown and unpredictable.

Strauss continues to be a polarizing figure. It is as if his critics and advocates are talking about several different people. Elitist? Yes, in the sense that he maintains that with regard to both philosophical and active pursuits, some are better suited to lead than others. But this does not translate into matters of privilege or degrees of worth.

From The Intellectual Legacy of Leo Strauss:

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.

invicta

I can’t say that I’m an expert in politics or even political philosophy although I’m vaguely aware of Plato’s idea of philosopher king.

I’m also aware of Machiavelli’s take on the very same idea in his most important and influential work the Prince. Although that’s where the similarities end as Machiavelli advocated more controversial and morally ambiguous ideas of his own at the time.

What interests me from a purely humanist point of view is the idea of will to power which I believe Nietzsche wrote about in more detail.

In any society democratic or otherwise the will of the people must either be subdued or represented by those who wish to achieve those agendas.

The conflict arises when the decision makers/presidents/kings tyrants etc alienates the will of the citizens. Which causes change in leadership in democratic societies.

It’s important to note however that no matter how virtuous or good a power wishes to be or at least be seen as then Mandeville’s fable of the bees anticipates the downfall of such regimes or powers.

Joshs

↪Isaac

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

Speaking of just mouthing off without bothering to do the actual research sufficient to back up their claims, I recommend not just using Alan Sokal as your source, but actually reading Deleuze, Foucault, Derrida, Merleau-Ponty and so many other modern contemporaries who never abandoned the larger questions of philosophy, and who have the rigor to back it up.

Heiko

Far from a simple pursuit of the truth for the sake of truth, philosophy is politics by other means. — Fooloso4

Could it be true? The most impactful philosophers in modern history had either to flee their countries or decided to leave for good. Is the paycheck a sure indicator of agency?

Fooloso4

↪Heiko

It is not clear to me what you are asking. If these philosophers had to flee that is an indication that they have touched a political nerve. Ideas matter. As far as a paycheck, it often works as a constraint on agency. Tenure worked against that constraint but there is both a political and economic push to make it a thing of the past. While ideas matter in the short term money seems to matter more. But the philosopher plays the long game.

Ciceronianus

This is, of course, from Plato's Republic. See the quote from Cicero above. — Fooloso4

Cicero knew quite well the difference between politics and philosophy. We see this in his criticism of Cato the Younger (though he admired Cato in some respects). Cato, said Cicero, "gives his opinion as if he were in Plato's Republic, not Romulus' cesspool."

Fooloso4

Cato, said Cicero, "gives his opinion as if he were in Plato's Republic, not Romulus' cesspool." — Ciceronianus

Do you interpret this as an indication of the difference between politics and philosophy? In what way?

In Plato's Apology Socrates says:

... 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).

There is a difference between what one says in the political arena and what one says in private. But, of course, when one writes books the boundaries between them are porous. When writing philosophy there must always be political considerations, both, on the one hand, with regard to what may happen to you and your work, and, on the other, the good or harm it may cause.

Ciceronianus

Do you interpret this as an indication of the difference between politics and philosophy? In what way? — Fooloso4

In the way Cicero did. Cicero criticized Cato in his letters for being on occasion harmful to the Roman Republic because of his insistence on acting as a philosopher while acting as a Senator, and on his insistence that all other Senators do the same. If Cato had his way, the Republic would not function.
Plato himself failed miserably in his effort to have Syracuse's tyrant govern in accordance with philosophy.

That is to say, simply, that there's a difference between the politics as practical governance and the practice of philosophy.

No doubt philosophy may have political implications. But this doesn't make them the same in any significant sense.

Fooloso4

But this doesn't make them the same in any significant sense. — Ciceronianus

Not the same, but rather, my argument is that there is a politics of knowledge which apparently from the quote Cato failed to understand.

Cicero on the other hand, following Plato, wrote his own Republic and Laws.

Cicero famously said that Socrates was the first to call philosophy down from the heavens. Socrates' concern was with how we are to live, both in public and in private.

@Ciceronianus {Added

A few lines later he says:

... 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)

The importance of concealing one's opinion is something Cato failed to learn.

When reading Plato it is importance to keep this practice in mind.}

As treated by Plato this is both the politics of the soul and the politics of the city.

Statesmanship is not only the knowledge of how to rule effectively but how to rule well. What it means to rule well, so too how to live well, raises several philosophical questions.

The Politics of Philosophy

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions