Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It can, although it doesn't happen very often. From the history of Ancient Greece, perhaps the most appropriate example is Solon: not quite a philosopher, but often included in the pre-philosophical tradition; not quite a ruler, but an important figure in the history of the formation of Athenian democracy.
In Ancient Rome, a vivid example of a philosopher-ruler is Marcus Aurelius. He was a rare example of a man who was successful both as an emperor and as a philosopher, leaving as a philosophical legacy “Reflections” that still look quite modern.
Sometimes, however, it is not very clear who to consider or not to consider a philosopher. So, the standard course of American philosophy will include Benjamin Franklin and other founding fathers of the United States, who belong to the American Enlightenment. Franklin, for example, in addition to his political career, was the initiator of the creation of the American Philosophical Society. Subsequently, for 18 years, the society was headed by US President Thomas Jefferson. However, in most cases, their ideas were not expressed in the form of finished works, but were presented in the form of correspondence, speeches, etc. In addition, from a philosophical point of view, they are not very original, but broadcast the general attitudes of the Enlightenment. But that didn't stop the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy from including a detailed article about Jefferson.
Among the modern leaders of states, one can cite the example of French President Emmanuel Macron – he really received a philosophical education (his works were devoted to the political philosophy of Machiavelli and Hegel) and even managed to work in academic philosophy. In France, by the way, the philosophy exam is mandatory for admission to a bachelor's degree.
However, more often philosophers prefer to avoid direct participation in politics. Classic examples are Heraclitus and Plato. The first was the heir to the throne in one of the Greek colonies, the second was from a family of Athenian politicians, but gave up his political career after meeting Socrates.
The reasons why this is so can be discussed for a long time, but for a philosopher, in the end, the role of a teacher, adviser, and voice of reason is more organic; philosophical ideas can eventually be used as the basis for political and legal concepts. This is their important humanistic function; we see the reflection of many centuries of philosophical development in such documents as, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These documents are important insofar as they make us think about important social problems and set a strategic vector for the development of society.
At the same time, there is a certain internal friction between philosophy and political practice. Philosophy teaches us to doubt, ask questions, and realize the complexity of the world, man, and society. Political ideologies, on the other hand, are more successful if they are simpler and more understandable for the general population and, at the same time, if they radically divide the world into “their own” and “others'”, thereby forming a sense of identity. The problem is that philosophy as a practice resists this and thus turns out to be a bad ideology, and any ideology is a bad philosophy.
Yes, why not. Among the cases that have already come true are Nezahualcoyotl and Marcus Aurelius, Syracuse from 388 to 344 BC, and some consider Catherine the Great and Frederick the Great to be philosophers on the throne. There were also philosophers at the thrones.
The problem is that Plato, when he said that the state should be governed by philosophers, put a completely different meaning in the term “philosophers”. Today, ” philosopher “is synonymous with”boltologist”. According to Plato, a “philosopher” is a competent, brave, skillful and, most importantly, fair person. They are the ones who should run the state.
Actually, this is exactly what is provided for in human society, on the one hand, strict secular power! And next to or on the other side of philosophy, namely religious. In this case, a symphony of social management is provided. Capable of punishing and pardoning. The breakup will inevitably lead, and will continue to lead, to bloody civil strife. With respect.
In the USSR, the state was run by engineers, in the time of Lenin in the party half without higher education at all, what else can we talk about? Yes, a philosopher can manage the state, as in principle anyone, the question is how to manage, what methods and what results will come from this.
Philosophers are different, however, the philosopher is a textbook, constantly staying in deep thoughts, not just not the best first, but as if not the worst possible.
After all, what is the point of involving a philosopher in averaging interests, searching for consensus between different strata of society? unless it's to confuse things completely.
Does the philosopher want to run the state? It seems to me that philosophers are closer to the role of advisers than rulers. Rulers are obliged to think about everyday matters, and not to build philosophical systems.
it seems to me that politics is a practical philosophy.
that is, if science answers the question: “how does it work?”, ” for what reason does something happen?”, and then ” how to technically do this or that?”
then philosophy tries to answer the question ” why is this happening?” and “for what purpose to do something?”
that is why scientific discoveries are managed by politicians as practicing philosophers. by and large, scientists don't care — they've satisfied their curiosity 🙂
In 2008, in the WRC, the high priest of the lineage of the Luminns, Iheteheen Hoooruuldaah, became the ruler of the state of Luminn dir a Delinn (or shortened-Laden).�
Throughout history, Japan has cut off the country's oxygen supply, preventing it from developing normally and contacting the outside world.�
Since childhood, he had hated Japan with all his heart and soul, considering this country to be the center of everything disharmonious, vile and disgusting, perverted and ugly. His most famous phrase was this one: “Death to Nippon!”�
He himself aspired to utopian and animist ideals. Mixing utopianism, animism, entoism and patriotism, he created a powerful ideology.�
His reign was marked by instability in society, the rise of patriotic and national ideas, the fall of humanistic values and the bloody invasion of UN troops. Ihateheen Hooruuldaah was killed in an anti-terrorist operation.�
So was he a philosopher? Absolutely-yes. Here are his philosophical sayings:�
“Death to Nippon!”
“Live to die and die to live!”
“Live to die and die to live!”
“We die to live and we live to die”
“Suffering is the highest music.”
“Murder is not a crime, but a necessity for the continuation of life.”
“Pain is sweet, but death is beautiful.”
“Their morals are lies. There is only a Great Goal.”
“We are heroes of legend and gods to our descendants.”
“Nippon, die and let us breathe!”
“The West. My homeland is there.” – last words.