A common criticism I have come across during my philosophical wanderings the accusation that such thinkers and dreamers cannot possibly expect their ideas to ever take hold among society. “What is the point of philosophy”, they cry, “if the very musings they are proposing cannot be realistically and pragmatically implemented?” The subtle power of this argument is often overlooked; its point is more than valid. If all philosophy can do is outline an individual’s thoughts in a clear and concise manner without even a hint of how to implement said ideas then what is the point in even airing them! Apart from the intellectual stimulation such discussion brings of course, it seems as though the observations of philosophers are wasted.

In the modern world, the philosopher takes a backseat when it comes to government policy and the daily operation of state. Plato painted a far rosier picture in his ideal Republic which placed philosophers directly in the ruling class. Plato placed great emphasis on the abilities of philosophers to lead effectively.

“Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophise, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils,… nor, I think, will the human race.” (Republic 473c-d)

But is this really attainable? Was Plato correct in stating ‘until (my italics, TC) philosophers rule as kings’? The implication here is that philosophers currently lack certain qualities which make them suitable for the role of leadership. Was Plato referring to a lack of practicality, a lack of confidence in their abilities to lead or something more menial such as the public’s intrinsic distrust of intellectualism? Certainly, looking at the qualities of today’s leaders it seems that one requires expert skills in the art of social deception and persuasion if they are to succeed. When Plato speaks of “those who love the sight of truth” in his description of the ideal “philosopher kings” that would rule the republic, it seems at loggerheads with the reality of modern politics.

So in order to become a successful leader in the modern world, one must be socially skilled and able-minded to sway the opinions of others, even if you don’t end up delivering. The balancing act becomes one that aims to please the majority (either through actual deliverance of election promises or ‘pulling the wool over eyes’ until we forget about them) and upset the minority. Politicians need to know how to ‘play the system’ to their advantage. They must also exude power, real or imaginary, relying on unconscious processes such as social dominance through both verbal and non-verbal communication. Smear campaigns act to taint the reputation of adversaries and deals are brokered with the powerful few that can fund the election campaign with a ‘win at all costs’ attitude (in return for favours once the individual is elected).

So why do such individuals gain a place above the world’s thinkers? Plato would surely be turning in his grave if he knew that his republic ideal would thus far be unrealised. I intend to argue that it is their pragmatism, their ability to turn policies into realities that makes politicians suitable over philosophers. Politicians seem to know the best ways of pleasing everyone at once, even if the outcome is not the best course of action. They can simply snap their fingers and make a problem disappear; ‘swept under the carpet’ temporarily at least until their term ends and the aftermath must be dealt with by another political hopeful.

Philosophers are inherently unpopular. Not because they are wrinkly old men with white beards that mumble and smoke pipes indoors, but rather they tell the truth. The scary thing is, the public does not want to hear about how things should be done; they just want them gone with the least possible inconvenience to their own lives as possible. This is where philosophy runs into trouble.

The whole ethos of philosophy is to objectively consider the evidence and plan for every contingency. It relies on criticism and deliberation in order to arrive at the most efficient outcome possible; and even after all that philosophers are still humble enough to admit they may be wrong. Is this what the public detests so much? Can they not bring themselves to respect a humbled attitude that is open to the possibility of error and willing to make changes for the sake of growth and improvement? It seems this way; society would rather be lied to and feel safe in their false sense of security than be led by individuals that genuinely had the best interests of humanity at heart.

Of course, there is the dark side to philosophy that could possibly destroy its chances of ever becoming a ruling class. The adoption of certain moral standpoints, for instance, are a cause for argument insofar as the majority would never be able to arrive at a consensus in order for them to be enacted. Philosophers seem to have alot of work remaining if they are ever to unite under a banner of cooperation and agreement on their individual positions. Perhaps the search for universals amongst the menagerie of current philosophical paradigms is needed before a ruling body can emerge. As it currently stands, there is simply too much disagreement between individuals over the best course of action to make for a governing body. At least the present system is organised under political parties with members that share a common ideology, thus making deliberations far more efficient than a group of fundamentally opposed (on not only beliefs but also plans of action) philosophers.

Does a philosophical dictatorship offer a way out of this mess? While the concept at heart seems totally counter to what the discipline stands for, perhaps it is the only way forward. At least, in the sense that a solitary individual has greater authoritative power over a lower council of advisors and informants. This arrangement eliminates the problems that arise from disagreement, but seems fundamentally flawed (in the sense that the distibution of power is unequal).

The stuggle between the mental and the practical is not only limited to the realm of politics/philosophy. An individual’s sense of self seems to be split into two distinct entities; one that is intangible, rational, conscious and impractical (the thinker) whilst the other is the inverse, a practical incarnation of ‘you’ that can deal with the unpredicabilities of the world with ease, but exists mostly at some unconsious level. People are adept at planning future events using their mental capacities, although the vast majority of the time, the unconsious ‘pragmatist’ takes over and manages to destroy such carefully laid plans (think of how you plan to tell your loved one you are going out for the night. it doesn’t quite go as smoothly as you planed). Does this problem stem from the inherent inaccuracy of our ‘mental simulators’ which prevents every possible outcome from arising in conscious consideration prior to action? Or does our automatic, unconsious self have a much further reach than we might have hoped? If the latter is correct, the very existence of free-will could be in jeopardy (the possibility of actions arising before conscious thought – to be explored at a later date).

So what of a solution to this quandry. Thus far, it could be argued that this article simply follows in the footsteps of previous philosophy which advocates a strictly ‘thought only’ debate without any real call to action or suggestions for practical implementation. First and foremost, I believe philosophers have a lot to learn from politicians (and quite rightly, vice versa). The notion of Plato’s republic ruled by mental  giants who are experienced in the philosophy of knowledge, ethics and meaning seems, at face value, attractive. Perhaps this is the next step for governmental systems on this planet; if it can be realised in an attainable and realistic fashion.

Perhaps we are already on our way towards Plato’s goal. Rising education levels could be reaching sufficient levels so as to act in a catalytic explosion of political and ideological revolution. But just as philosopher’s tend to forget about the realities of the world, so too are we getting a bit ahead of ourselves. Education levels are not uniform across the globe, even intelligence (we can’t even measure it properly) varies greatly between individuals. Therfore, the problem remains; how to introduce the philosophical principles of meta-knowledge, respect for truth and deliberated moral codes of conduct? Is such a feat even possible what with the variety of intellects on this planet?

One thing is certain. If philosophers (and individuals alike) are ever to overcome the problems that arise from transferring ideas into reality they must take a regular ‘reality check’ and ensure that their discourse can be applicable to society. This is not in any way, shape or form advocating the outlaw of discussion on impractical thought exercises and radical new ideas, but rather pursuading more philosophers to reason about worldly concerns, rather than the abstract. The public needs a new generation of leaders to guide, rather than push or sweep aside, through the troublesome times that surely lay ahead. Likewise, policitians need to start leading passionately and genuinely, with the interests of their citizens at the forefront of every decision and policy amendment. They need to wear their hearts on their sleeves, advocating not only a pragmatic, law-abiding mentality within society, but also a redesign and revitalisation of morality itself. Politicians should be wholly open to criticism, in fact encouraging it in order to truly lead their people with confidence.

Finally, we as individuals should also take time out to think of ways in which we can give that little deliberating voice inside our heads a bit more power to enact itself on the outside world, rather than being silenced by the unconsious, animalistic and unfairly dominating automaton that seems to often cause more harm than good. The phrase ‘look before you leap’ connotes a whole new meaning if this point is to be taken with even a grain of truth.

Advertisements