Yes, I think that it is about juggling so many factors and it would depend on what group of philosophers. It is not as if they agree, and even though the philosophers are important, would this exclude those in related fields, such as the social sciences and humanities? Another problem is that if it were philosophers, or even other academics, they might be elite, and lack diversity of race, gender and other aspects of difference, so it would seem that these factors would need to be taken into account. Aspects of inequality are on many political agendas, but thinking of solutions is an ongoing process.

Also, it would depend on what countries were involved, because there are such varying politics and social circumstances. If it was international we would end up with all kinds of conflicts, and I am not sure that a one world government would work.

For this reason, I think that the idea of philosophical plumbing is a useful concept, and even the questioning of the social contract is an interesting area for thinking about, but the reality is so much more complex. Hopefully, the ideas of the philosophers can be of importance, and part of the problem is that such ideas are marginalised anyway. But, I think that while social change is important and worth thinking about, it is more of an organic process.

...you can't force philosophy on people. — Janus

Nor need we force anything on anyone...

Governmental policy is all about what ought and/or ought not be done. Politics is all about government. All political positions on the role of government are inherently philosophical. Thus, whenever a politician(or anyone really for that matter) openly degrades philosophy, they ought very well be taken to task.

What can be done is provide the American public with an accurate timeline of events showing which policies resulted in unwanted consequences for Americans overall, and which politicians voted for those policies, as a means to produce a well informed electorate.

Governmental policy is all about what ought and/or ought not be done. Politics is all about government. All political positions on the role of government are inherently philosophical. Thus, whenever a politician openly degrades philosophy, they ought very well be taken to task. — creativesoul

The problem is that philosophy is not a monolith; so it might not be all that easy to decide who is "degrading" it. If philosophy is being degraded it is always according to some perspective or other. The right might accuse the left of degrading philosophy when they advocate social security and universal healthcare, for example, because such things do not accord with their philosophical vision of how society ought to be.

What can be done is provide the American public with an accurate timeline of events showing which policies resulted in unwanted consequences for Americans overall, and which politicians voted for those policies, as a means to produce a well informed electorate. — creativesoul

You would need to get consensus on what constitutes "unwanted consequences". You would already be assuming a particular vision in order to determine that.

My advocacy of individualism is only to the extent that the individual has the right to hold opinions and positions that may be very different to mine, with the caveat being that they should not be anti-social. I don't agree that the sovereignty of the individual extends to the point where he or she can be said to owe nothing to society, since that would be absurd, given that all individuals depend so much on society, if they don't choose to live in the wilderness.

It's useful to have some idea or orientation in mind, while being aware that in some crucial respects some of our ideas will be way off the mark in relation to how other people react to them.

The issue I'm not clear on, which you discussed quite well, is that I'm not sure what is specifically philosophical about critiquing, say, the idea of the social contract. David Graeber was an anthropologist, and he also mentioned the same thing, in less detail though.

It's not that reading or thinking about matters in a broad manner isn't helpful, on the contrary, it can be a heuristic, if nothing else. But currently -I'm not as confident on this as I used to be - I'm not sure what's specifically philosophical about critiquing these ideas.

On the other hand, if the critique is based on a tradition such as the skeptical, empirical or rationalist tradition, or pragmatism, then I do see the philosophy.

David Graeber was an anthropologist, and he also mentioned the same thing, in less detail though. — Manuel

He as actually a committed anarchist too.

I know. He did extremely interesting work. It was so sad when he died out of the blue really.

What I think could become very complicated in this discussion thread is if the idea of philosophical plumbing, and the social contract, lbecomes a general discussion about how philosophy should be a basis for changing politics. I think that is far too wide because there are so many philosophical perspectives and individual voices, but we will have to see how Banno wishes to develop the thread really. It may be more of a brainstorming exercise, but I thought it the focus was intended to be more of a critique of Midgely's idea of philosophical plumbing.

If the discussion is about philosophical plumbing, I think that, so far, it points to how complicated it is, especially in relation to the idea of the social contract. It seems like trying to remove the pipes and cut off the water supply if it simply about trying to overhaul the social contract, which is more of an implicit assumption. I am sure that the social contract is problematic because it has not been negotiated fully, but if it was just replaced with one that is decided by a group of people, we would end up with something which may be artificial, and I am sure that it would end up needing to be worked upon. So, I think that the idea of philosophical plumbing is best seen as a metaphorical one for thinking about ways to improve upon ideals, especially in the application to politics.

Yeah, good point. It can get too wide for the purposes of this thread.

It is a good metaphor and I think that it is ripe for much speculation based on the idea of plumbing, as in how philosophy could be used as a replacement for religion, which is to say open to mysticism or profound experiences albeit within a roughly rational context.

No I mean, her approach looks to me to be quite solid. It's just that based on what it says, it's hard to know what to do next.

philosophical truths, which I hold to lie in the intersection between logical/mathematical and rhetorical/artistic truths — Pfhorrest

Sometimes, a language, despite its immense capabilities, lacks the word that matches the feelings/ideas going through our hearts/minds and then, what usually happens is we choose (have to) the next best word. I believe the concepts rhetorics and art are like that - they're good, good enough, as they say, for government work but deep down, we know they're not it.

Mind you, I'm not saying that you're off the mark (inaccurate); all I mean to say is there's room for improvement.

All that said, I suppose we're on the same page.

I am a great fan of the comparison between philosophers and plumbers, and have used it on TPF several times. One advantage is that it deflates philosophy from some heroic thinking act to a more prosaic but potentially more useful kind of work. So the comparison puts off people who do philosophy as a mere pretense, because pretending to be a plumber is not that gratifying...

Another advantage is that it helps combat concept fetishism. You can point at the concepts of philosophy as tools, as means to an end. So the next time some guy tells you that a given concept is illegitimate or inappropriate and that you really shouldn't use it, remember the plumber comparison. Only a very confused plumber would waste his time telling OTHER plumbers to NEVER use a wrench, because wrenches are "unclear". And if a plumber would try to cancel the wrench, other plumbers would just ask him: "what do you replace it with? Do you have something better to propose?"

Part of my series: Fake philosophers - how to spot them and avoid them.

The ball valve allows the dishwasher to be disconnected. — Banno

Ah, I know what you mean. Ball-cocks or float-valves are sometimes call ball-valves, but not any more it seems.

I agree that her approach does seem solid. I think that what her metaphor does point to is the importance of rethinking of basic concepts, and it is at this level that philosophy can be important, even though the practical applications of ideas is so complex. Replacing the idea of the social contract may not be completely possible because it is an implicit assumption, but fuller consideration of such an idea does mean that more thought can be applied to what is happening in social life.

This may enable the questioning of the underlying ideological narrative structures, and contribute to the evolution of ideas about the practical aspects of living in social groups. But, on a funnier level, perhaps we don't really wish, in becoming plumbers, to just end up in the toilets and urinals of philosophy, but rise to the heights of best ideals about living.

Surely we don't want that. :)

They are necessary and we cannot live without them and art has been made of toilets and urinals. So maybe we need newer redesigned models, which are more reliable and visionary in scope: beautiful toilets and beautiful philosophy.

Or maybe we could speak of architecture instead.

You are fine to speak of whatever metaphors you wish, but I just think that Midgely's plumbing one gives so much scope. The reason for this it draws on ideas of dirt and cleanliness. My own feeling is that in the history of philosophy we had a puritanical strand, arising from Kant. Then, we had the whole exploration of taboos in the advent of psychoanalysis, which was drawn upon in postmodernist philosophy.

But, I don't wish to draw out the plumbing imagery and sidetrack from the point about ideas of a social contract. But, I am about to log out shortly because I am so hot that my hands are too sticky to hold my phone to write.Besides, I don't wish to dominate the discussion, especially as I love playing with metaphors and imagery. For the time being, I will let you and others get on with the hardcore excavation of concepts at the architectural level.

Nothing in individualism forbids addressing moral issues. And I would think any ideology that emphasizes the moral worth of individuals necessarily considers others, each with their own lives, personalities and dignity.

Thinking collectively is worthwhile for ease of thought and economy of language but piss poor for addressing moral issues. Once one starts thinking collectively he does so abstractly, considering the thoughts in his head long before manifesting any concern for the flesh-and-blood human beings outside of it. At any rate, it does not not follow that thinking generally, pluralistically, collectively leads to concern for others. More often than not it has led to the in-group/out-group, "othering" type of stuff as collectivist ideology has consistently proven.

Hence my puzzlement that Joshs thinks "We find something better and only then do we see the limits of the previous approach". Recognising the problem seems an essential first step. — Banno

It only can be seen as a problem when one has already made an incipient , perhaps only vaguely articulated step beyond the borders of the old conceptual scheme. The explanatory power of the old scheme represses the discovery of anomalies. Potential internal inconsistencies seem mere errors in interpretation. But eventually the very success of the worldview plants the seeds of its destruction.

I am somewhat puzzled that Žižek is not mentioned more hereabouts. I gather that he has no traction in 'merica? Perhaps they prefer their home-grown left wing, Chomsky - whom they habitually ignore.

Never read him. Links?

Thinking collectively... — NOS4A2

Seems to me I need to make the point again. Morality is not about collectives, it's about the Other. The poverty of the myth of the individual is that it just fails to address the Other, and so fails to enter into moral discussion. Self-interest cannot form the basis for morality, because morality begins when one puts the interests of an Other ahead of one's own interests. In this sense individualism is the antithesis of morality.

The Other is not a collective; it is the person before you, now. The plurality is not a collective, but the Other.

That looks vaguely Hegelian - the antithesis is needed in order to articulate the difficulties with the thesis and hence form the synthesis.

It just ain't always so. Preemptively assuming that it is so doesn't look a good policy.

Seems to me I need to make the point again. Morality is not about collectives, it's about the Other. The poverty of the myth of the individual is that it just fails to address the Other, and so fails to enter into moral discussion. Self-interest cannot form the basis for morality, because morality begins when one puts the interests of an Other ahead of one's own interests. In this sense individualism is the antithesis of morality.

The Other is not a collective; it is the person before you, now. The plurality is not a collective, but the Other. — Banno

That's an elegant way to put this, B.

On the contrary, Žižek is quite well known within left academia in the US. Just look at the amount of speeches he's given at US Universities and several left leaning channels.

Of course, this doesn't mean he gets into "mainstream" news, but hardly any leftists get exposure in CNN, MSNBC and the like. Sometimes such figures appear, but briefly and are usually quite hated, like Sanders was before Biden beat him.

Žižek's problem, as I see it, is that he suffers from quite serious problems in terms of scholarship. He often cites dubious sources - random tabloid magazines - or he makes up stories. I've seen several instances, after having watched too many of his conferences. He for example says that Israel is one of the most "aethistic" countries in the world, which is false.

He's said he's spoken to Chomsky by phone, which is not true. He reviews movies he has not watched, which is misleading and so on.

This doesn't meant he is not worth listening to. He is and is also quite entertaining. But I'd take him with a grain of salt.

Cheers. You would see the point, given your activities.

...he suffers from quite serious problems in terms of scholarship. — Manuel

Oh, perhaps you are right, but I'm not sure that matters. Random tabloid articles and fictitious accounts are the tools of the iconoclast. Žižek uses them to set out the ideologies he seeks to undermine. His application of Hegelian dialectic is second to none.

He's perfectly fine for ideas. And his documentaries are quite entertaining, aside from his books.

Anyway, I think Midgley misfires.

While philosophers might explicitly address the myths and ideologies the rest of us take for granted, there are others who do the same, if perhaps less directly. It's the domain of art, or humanities more broadly, to contextualise the assumptions we make and hence to put them to the test. More effective examples that philosophy can be found in journalism, comedy, activism, authors of fiction, and advocacy than in philosophical dialogue.

So while at first I was gladdened to see a defence of the need for philosophising, I don't think Midgley succeeds in her defence. Philosophy remains unavoidable rather than necessary or useful

I believe that she does provide a useful metaphorical perspective for reflection. However, it has its limitations, in translating it into specific analysis. It is a memorable discussion and next time I have a blocked drain, I will probably think of philosophical plumbing.

Philosophy remains unavoidable rather than necessary or useful — Banno

:100:

We ('merica, 'Stralya, Britain)

Straya*