GENIUS FORUMS

Hey. I need some opinions. Been doing Plato's Republic in class and my thoughts about it are starting to get muddy. So I figured I could get some feedback from the geniuses to help me see things more clearly. Harassed the lecturer already, who ended up by saying "Ok, bye". Helpful. Revolutionary.

Anyway, as we know, Plato argued that philosophers should be the true rulers or "kings". Which I thought about for a while, and, being a realist, I decided to first ask "so why aren't they rulers then?" The answer is simple if you look at it this way. They lack. What do they lack? Courage? will-power? Economic resources? charisma? Intellect? Political tactics? Partners? Plato had a good idea, namely that people who really think about what is the right and fair and just for the masses should be in control. But if philosophers are such persons, why do they not put themselves up there on the podiums to vote for? Why do they hide in the shadows and sit around thinking and writing in universities etc? All of the above mentioned reasons might count, but I also would like to argue that true philosophers would need incredible amounts of time to devote themselves PROPERLY and LOVINGLY to their true passion: to sit around and think and research. This is why they are called philosophers and not politicians ( in my humble opinion ). It also takes considerably less courage to avoid being a ruler and thus directly responsible for any tragic, weird new failing laws that the politicians make, i.e. politicians can be seen as types of scape goats who can be blamed when stuff goes wrong under the spot lights of media etc. Plato also shoots himself in foot by saying that justice in a state requires that "everyone should do what he is best at and concentrate on this alone". Because, is there not a clear difference between politicians and philosophers? Sure, no democratic politician get elected without having philosophical ideas and intellect to a vague degree...but they are not professional philosophers or don't claim to be. So, anyway, if there exists this clear difference, then shouldn't the philosopher stay one side and do what he is best at and the politician on another side and do what he is best at? Sure, politics needs philosophical ideas, which is why we have professional philosophers who spend hours thinking and then come up with their main points which governments are free to take up or employ in their law systems. But governments also need medical, financial, infrastructure etc. experts and analysts who they can consult and who can tell them what routes to take. The government consists of debators who are willing to lead the masses, take the risk of leading the masses, communicate with them, make deals for them etc. I therefore propose that you do not need philosophers to rule, but rather persons who: "have excellent communication abilities, intelligence, a will to see the people thrive, and a will to monitor the state affairs and complaints constantly. This means that not only philosophers can lay claim to being rulers because intellect, bravery and morality ( wanting the best for all ) does not only belong to the philosophical mind/heart but can belong to many different persons

Or can it be that rulers are already philosophers? Am I missing the point? This is where my thoughts go fuzzy. Any ruler must at least think about the best options for his country. Is this not what rulers do already? Are they not philosophers to an extent? Where do you draw the line between philosopher and politician?

And don't get me started on Plato's World of Forms. There is only one world of forms, and that is HERE on EARTH and in the human mind. The stupid lecturer drew this, like, triangle on the board and was like,"So, how do we know these angles constitute 180 degrees altogether? Logic! Proof of Plato's World of forms from which we have derived logic!" And I was like "No, you idiot the maths people measured the angles of all triangles and, like, deduced that they will always make 180 degrees altogether not from logic of a Forms World but from right here on earth where they gathered the very EXISTING, VISUAL evidence. Everything is not copies from perfect shapes in the world of forms but from everything else we see right here on earth. And i was like, come on, Plato tried to flee from the mythical thoughts of Ancient Greece only to end up with this mumbo eternal soul and World of Forms idea? Come on, the world of forms is right here on earth and nowhere else.

Where do you draw the line between philosopher and politician?

Politicians murder people by the thousands, philosophers murder them by the billions.

HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote:
Anyway, as we know, Plato argued that philosophers should be the true rulers or "kings". Which I thought about for a while, and, being a realist, I decided to first ask "so why aren't they rulers then?"

The way I see it is that the ruler is a function of what needs to be ruled. So a philosophically inclined people will create the circumstances for philosophers to become involved in ruling them wisely. Or at least teach or advice the rulers.

It doesn't matter really if we're talking about democracy or not, though one could say that there will be a degree of democracy or some other form of oversight in any wise government.

A wise philosopher put in charge over an idiot bunch will indeed become a monster to them. Most probably he'll avoid the situation as to not end up assassinated after a few days.

yeah, see, that's my point. the truly brave, visionary ( or just plain dumb ) are the only ones who truly go for presidency. Obviously, the smarter a person is, the better ruler they would make, for they will see the traps and complications of political situations coming from a mile away...and avoid them...but anyone with vague intelligence who has a good heart and is prepared to listen to the wise old owls around him will also make quite a good president. Unfortunately a lot of smart people are not just scared of being assasinated, like Diebert believes, but also the fear of governing millions of lives is quite a challenge for any brilliant person with a conscience, especially if they know how dumb the masses can be.

But, however, I also believe the faults lie with the philosophers who are not able to convince governments to do things in better ways. If you are truly, sickeningly smart, you will be able to convince a government with pure logic of which routes are the best to take. It seems there just are not philosophers who are smart enough to get the points accross. If they can create situations where they know maximum amounts of people will benefit, the governments will go for it.

Oh, yeah, sorry, I think the main difference between politicians and philosophers is that politicians monitor everything in a state ( see to it that it goes according to plan ). Philosophers think the whole time about how things should/could go according to plan.

HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote:If you are truly, sickeningly smart, you will be able to convince a government with pure logic of which routes are the best to take.

I disagree. It takes people with a certain amount of philosophical intelligence to even be able to see logic. A philosopher could present logic until blue in the face and the illogical will never understand, much less go along with what is being presented.

The paradox is that the brighter people are, the less likely they are to want to go into politics because they are bright enough to see how futile it is. Some may set aside their recognition of the futility of it all in hopes of being able to do something, but there is more power in the private secotr anyway. There are just too many cogs in the machinery of government for anyone to make a real impact. Government grows into a self-feeding beast, feeding off the descendants of the people who created it.

Then private sector people usually don't do anything because the demands of life mount, and what is left of their spirit gets crushed by the evils encountered by society gone amok. Anyone with enough spunk to try to right the wrongs is seen as a target for the ugly herd to kill, at least in spirit if not physically.
.

No, I think one can break a thing down until those with reasonable intellect can understand it. Most people are just not very good at explaining themselves. If no one can grasp their logic, is it really logic?? But you are correct Elizabeth, the political situations are quite futile, and yes, geniuses know this, especially philosophers, so though Plato says that they should rule because they have "true wisdom", you and I know that philosophers are smart enough to know that they don't really have true wisdom!! Sure, they can say "do this, do that etc.", but they don't have the wisdom to make the people "do this, do that", and they know a political situation can spin out of control at any moment, and they know they are no match for destiny. They might have more wisdom than most, but they lack the courage to follow through their own plots.

"Pure logic" does not dictate anything. Logic does not dictate a course of action until you have a value system, and values are not founded on logic.

Philosophaster wrote:values are not founded on logic.

Well that part is true for most people, but that is because most people are not concious. When pure logic dictates a value system, then the course of action would be logical.

No. Logic in itself cannot dictate a value system. If you think otherwise, then try to prove that your values are better than all others using only logic. Should be good for a laugh.

Values are fundamentally about wanting the world to be in one state rather than another. If you value freedom, you want people to be free and not enslaved. If you value truth, you want people to tell truth rather than lies, and to believe truths rather than falsehoods.

If a person does not want the world to be in the same or similar state as you want it to be in (widespread freedom rather than slavery, for example), then he does not have the same values.

Philosophaster wrote:No. Logic in itself cannot dictate a value system. If you think otherwise, then try to prove that your values are better than all others using only logic. Should be good for a laugh.

It depends on how you define 'better'. If better means; 'more logical', then it would seem that you can use logic to prove what values are the most logical.

Why not?

Not only that, but you can determine what your values will be with logic, as long as 'better' is defined as 'more logical'

What does it even mean for a value to be "more logical?" A "value" is just a preference that the world be in one state rather than another.

If somebody wants a world in which everybody is forced to stand on his head for twenty minutes at the start of every day, then he values that. This preference may seem "useless" to you, but that means nothing in terms of pure logic. Logic is the art of reasoning from evidence to conclusions in such a way that the conclusions prove correct. Calling preferences "correct" or "incorrect" only makes sense in the light of other preferences. If you think this is false, then demonstrate how it is incorrect to prefer, say, murdering all babies at birth, without bringing in any of your own values or preferences.

Philosophaster wrote:If you value truth, you want people to tell truth rather than lies, and to believe truths rather than falsehoods.

But still, one values the distinction - assigns it meaning, no matter if it's between blue and red or truth and lie. This distinction, any distinction is based in core logic; the reflexive identity.

One is caused to assign value or meaning to a certain distinction or one isn't. But if there's no distinction there can never be any assigning. So the distinction seems like the more primary cause. It cannot be mere preference itself. The process of making distinctions while not confusing them [assuming distinctions where none have been made] is also known as truth; or consciousness.

Some say identity is not part of logic but there are enough arguments to be made that all fundamental laws of logic are based on establishing identity first. Metaphysical arguments as well as formal logical ones.

Philophaster wrote: What does it even mean for a value to be "more logical?"

Phobias are a good example. There was a woman who was so frightened of sharks that her anxiety become generalized to the point where she avoided all water, including the shower. She knew that her preferences were irrational, and sought medical help because she valued a more logical way of living. A way of living that didn't associate the shower with a threat of being harmed by a shark.

Philophaster wrote: A "value" is just a preference that the world be in one state rather than another.

Yes, a preference that the world be in a more logical state, rather than the more illogical state of present.

Philophaster wrote: If somebody wants a world in which everybody is forced to stand on his head for twenty minutes at the start of every day, then he values that.

There would be a degree of logic behind this preference. People just don't arbitrarily have values. There are reasons for why people value what they value. You can't have values without a degree of logic.

Philosophaster,

What does it even mean for a value to be "more logical?" A "value" is just a preference that the world be in one state rather than another.

We can say that a value is more "logical" if it is consistent with one's core purpose in life. For example, if one's core value in life is understanding truth, then valuing reason and open-mindedness would be more "logical" than, say, valuing blind belief in a Christian tenet.

It's using the word "logical" more loosely than academics normally would in their specialized work, but it is still valid enough for everyday life.

Logic in itself cannot dictate a value system. If you think otherwise, then try to prove that your values are better than all others using only logic. Should be good for a laugh.

It cannot dictate a value system on its own, but it can be instrumental in shaping it. For example, if you understand through logical reasoning that suffering is fundamentally caused by an attachment to happiness, it can lead you to reassess your priorities in life.

-

There are reasons for why people value what they value.

Yes, they want the world to be in a certain way, often because the world being in this way benefits them and gets them the things they want. But these "basic" preferences are not founded on logic. Why should I prefer life to death? Can you give me a "purely logical" reason for that? I doubt it. I simply prefer being around and doing the things I do and would rather keep on this way.

Once you have certain basic preferences, like truth over falsehood or pleasure over pain, then you can use logic to find out the best way to satisfy those preferences, and other things you should value if you want to satisfy them. But the basic preferences themselves are not based solely on logic unless we define the term "logic" so that it automatically includes certain values. But then we would be talking past one another, since I see logic as the process by which a person reaches true conclusions about matters of fact, nothing more.

Philosophaster wrote: I see logic as the process by which a person reaches true conclusions about matters of fact, nothing more.

Since I don't see how you can distinguish between 'true conclusions' and 'matters of fact', the process you describe seems like a mis-identification in itself.

Feel free to clarify.

Philophaster wrote: Once you have certain basic preferences, like truth over falsehood or pleasure over pain, then you can use logic to find out the best way to satisfy those preferences, and other things you should value if you want to satisfy them.

Doesnt the very essence of logic involve making distinctions between truth and lie, pleasure and pain?

Before values/preferences are even established, logic has laid the ground neccesary to have values.

Philosophaster,

Once you have certain basic preferences, like truth over falsehood or pleasure over pain, then you can use logic to find out the best way to satisfy those preferences, and other things you should value if you want to satisfy them. But the basic preferences themselves are not based solely on logic unless we define the term "logic" so that it automatically includes certain values.

You're right. Core values, such as truth or happiness, are beyond the scope of logic to establish. They are arbitrarily arrived at.

A person believes in truth, or in happiness, simply because it seems like the best thing to believe in. It is the way that Nature has happened to program that particular individual.

-

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Since I don't see how you can distinguish between 'true conclusions' and 'matters of fact', the process you describe seems like a mis-identification in itself.

A "matter of fact" is anything of which we can say simply "it is" or "it is not." I can reach a true conclusion about the matter of whether it is raining outside or a false conclusion about the same matter.

On the other hand, if a person's core value is happiness, then it is possible for him to use logic to come to the conclusion that the greatest happiness for him lies in pursuiing truth.

-

David Quinn wrote:You're right. Core values, such as truth or happiness, are beyond the scope of logic to establish. They are arbitrarily arrived at.

Core concepts, which are based on the most primitive distinctions, such as truth and happiness, is what logic is made out of. I don't understand why you are saying that it is beyond logic.

David wrote: A person believes in truth, or in happiness, simply because it seems like the best thing to believe in. It is the way that Nature has happened to program that particular individual.

Making distinctions between truth, happiness, etc, is a logical operation.

Animals are logical in this way, without even being conscious that they are. They make distinctions. Isnt this what logic is?

Logic makes distinctions, but on its own it cannot tell you which "side" of the distinction to prefer.