Oct 24 2012: Probably because Openness to Experience (one of the "big 5") will lead to more liberal viewpoints as well as being more difficult to disgust.
Jan 4 2012: Look back at when I was talking about guilt and its elimination.
"Hmmm... defining what makes someone a philosopher or not is very tricky, at least in its most classical definition. This is not what I'm debating here. Yes, I am labeling one side of a black-and-white spectrum as a philosopher, in order to meet the context of this argument. I don't think one can define a philosopher without context: language is all subjective and whatnot--it needs to have some sort of stated relevance before something can just be defined.
But my relevance and context for a philosopher is basically originating from how one deals with guilt. Do they distinguish it with emotion, feeling, and then move on without its ethical contemplation? Or do they distinguish it with passion, thought, consider its large scale implications, and arrange their worldview accordingly?"
There is my definition of a philosopher. I do not believe in any government, or in any lack of it, necessarily. Each government or lack of government must be in relation to some sort of objective. Even then, these objectives are transient. What I want the government to move towards right now is not what I may want it to do in different situations or in the future. There is no one perfect government. This being said, I think society should move towards making every citizen as virtuous and philosophical as possible.
Jan 3 2012: The civil society. From the beginning of the political parabola of anarchy of the State of Nature, all the way to it's other extreme, the civil society, a different type of anarchy. But this is Utopian, and only achievable assuming every citizen is philosophy virtuous and self-educated.
Jan 3 2012: Let me address the latter part of your argument. First off, I think you are presenting a very good point here. I admit that. Because if this were to happen the current state of people would not allow that, i.e., the philosopher king has to be in constant service to the ignorant people he rules over, the true philosopher king society is not realized until everyone is equally a philosopher, and therefore we don't need rulers to begin with. The system, therefore, is dynamic, and growing, and exponential. It IS, however, unlike the current system, not static, and therefore I would argue automatically an improvement.
You bring up a very good point about defining virtue, which is a trap I have read too much about to comfortably go into. But perhaps we can just say, in context to this theoretically society, people who place idealism above practical and material value?
And yes, I think that is a decent definition of a philosopher, though I really equate my definition of virtue to be synonymous with philosopher in these contexts.
Another valid point is that the philosopher in power may not think he's the best one suited for the job. Perhaps he has a protegee or has learned of a young student recently out of the amazing education system we would theoretically enjoy. Or just some other old coot who he thinks could do a decent job. Most philosophers, given their personalities, would probably tire after serving too long. They want to pass it on!
Jan 3 2012: I think you're limiting yourself a lot by sticking with your definition of "philosopher." Simply, someone who is virtuous and dispenses guilt through ethical consideration, someone who honestly believes in their ideas and the pursuit of them rather than power or their name being stamped on them.
Jan 3 2012: I wouldn't say "one" way, exactly. Think of humanity as a library and we're all reading a different book. If we could get everyone on the same book, they could still all be reading a different chapter. But essentially, I do agree that society's superficial personality and lack of intellectual depth does need to be marginalized.
Jan 3 2012: Also Ayn Rand is an extreme example who's barely a philosopher, and most modern philosophers don't subscribe to her views (unless you're considering the pseudo-philosophers who see philosophy as a justification for their greed and immense wealth; more in love with money than wisdom).
Jan 3 2012: Yes, there would still be some form of mechanization here. I'm also glad you caught that part about Pirsig vs. Chomsky. Very astute. And a very good point. But can you imagine the type of debate that would ensue? The media would have a very difficult time sensationalizing it. The masses would have to adapt. Philosophical people just make better decisions, on average. And in theory this would lead to a more philosophical populace.
Jan 3 2012: You are very correct. We have to, therefore, turn everyone into a philosopher, an intellectual, a poet, an artist. Now, this would in theory be achieved with education, but the way I see it the bureaucracy, the culture, and the government combined have created a vicious cycle that inhibits any true education reformation. The only possible good I can see in changing the entire cultural format is to take advantage of the poor system (the top-down system) by replacing its leaders with philosophers, therefore being able to reform education, and therefore the people as well.
TEDCred score: +0.40 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Talk: David Pizarro: The strange politics of disgust
A reply on Conversation: Philosophers should replace politicians as the primary decision makers of the world.
"Hmmm... defining what makes someone a philosopher or not is very tricky, at least in its most classical definition. This is not what I'm debating here. Yes, I am labeling one side of a black-and-white spectrum as a philosopher, in order to meet the context of this argument. I don't think one can define a philosopher without context: language is all subjective and whatnot--it needs to have some sort of stated relevance before something can just be defined.
But my relevance and context for a philosopher is basically originating from how one deals with guilt. Do they distinguish it with emotion, feeling, and then move on without its ethical contemplation? Or do they distinguish it with passion, thought, consider its large scale implications, and arrange their worldview accordingly?"
There is my definition of a philosopher. I do not believe in any government, or in any lack of it, necessarily. Each government or lack of government must be in relation to some sort of objective. Even then, these objectives are transient. What I want the government to move towards right now is not what I may want it to do in different situations or in the future. There is no one perfect government. This being said, I think society should move towards making every citizen as virtuous and philosophical as possible.
A reply on Conversation: Philosophers should replace politicians as the primary decision makers of the world.
A reply on Conversation: Philosophers should replace politicians as the primary decision makers of the world.
You bring up a very good point about defining virtue, which is a trap I have read too much about to comfortably go into. But perhaps we can just say, in context to this theoretically society, people who place idealism above practical and material value?
And yes, I think that is a decent definition of a philosopher, though I really equate my definition of virtue to be synonymous with philosopher in these contexts.
Another valid point is that the philosopher in power may not think he's the best one suited for the job. Perhaps he has a protegee or has learned of a young student recently out of the amazing education system we would theoretically enjoy. Or just some other old coot who he thinks could do a decent job. Most philosophers, given their personalities, would probably tire after serving too long. They want to pass it on!
A reply on Conversation: Philosophers should replace politicians as the primary decision makers of the world.
A reply on Conversation: Philosophers should replace politicians as the primary decision makers of the world.
A reply on Conversation: Philosophers should replace politicians as the primary decision makers of the world.
A reply on Conversation: Philosophers should replace politicians as the primary decision makers of the world.
A reply on Conversation: Philosophers should replace politicians as the primary decision makers of the world.
A reply on Conversation: Philosophers should replace politicians as the primary decision makers of the world.