They all play subtly different roles in the same function. I like to think of ideas and thought systems as computer programs running on our brains. If you’ll grant me that analogy, then I compare philosophers to politicians in this way (taken from my website mm-theory.com):
The priest must have a niche in there somewhere as well, though I haven’t given much thought to it 'til now. Off the top of my head, I’d say the priest specializes in installing and maintaining programs.
He sure does, but I think you’re understating the “invents new concepts” part - even if it’s only to look at already existing situations in different ways, such differences can have dramatic effects on people’s minds and where society goes from there.
I have come to understand that the whole question of the philosopher’s function has a few common recurring answers: 1) uncover the truth (this is the classic one), 2) to lead society into a better/happier life (the pragmatic one - may conflict with truth), and 3) to undertake a semantic analysis of the basic concepts we use in our daily affairs (to clarify our assumption, not to invent new ones). There may be others, but none come to mind at the moment. I take it, you’re referring to 3). Historically, I think the philosopher has been seen to partake in both 2) and 3) (and, for the most part, thinks he’s partaking in 1)). The philosopher often begins with 3), and starting from the clarification thus derived, follows the implications that fall out of it to new concepts that have been obscured due to the lack of clarity in the concepts that would otherwise lead to them. At this point in my life, I really doubt 1) is all that accurate. I have a mind to say truth - or Truth - if it even exists, is far beyond us.
I’d be willing to go so far as to propose a crude science can be applied here. We don’t seem to have much trouble deciding what’s right for society in fields other than philosophy. We all know what we want in this time of economic crisis: we want more jobs, a better economy, better health care. We all seem to agree that terrorism and oppressive dictatorships are a horrible thing and should be wiped off the face of the planet. We all seem to agree that hunger and disease are things we’d be better off without. So it seems to me that we do have some relatively objective goals towards which we can attempt to move. It also seem as though these things are measurable in a scientific manner. I’m even willing to say that we can scientifically determine a correlation between the sorts of ideas a society embraces and the type of life that leads to (ex. capitalism seems to foster a more thriving economy than communism, democracy and freedom of speech seem to foster a more effective and peaceful sociopolitical system than dictatorship, etc.).
This is actually a good question. I wouldn’t know really, i’d say a lot of things influence thought, depending on what sources one is exposed too. Media, advertising, politicians, writers, peers, priests, artists, eductation, science… and maybe philosophers. I don’t know if one can control such a thing for a larger popoulation. A philosopher could try to, but what happens with what he writes is out of his hands. Look a what people did to Nietzsche’s thought. I think a philosopher can only put it out there, and let people decide what to make of it.
I see the philosopher more in a descriptive role, and less normative as in ‘trying to influence society at large right now’. That’s what politician, media, priests,… try to do. And they work more with wide images, myth, as platonism for the people. If a philosopher would try to do that, he’d have to abandon a lot nuance for it to have a chance to work. And then you couldn’t exactly call it philosophy anymore.
Gib, you raised some points i haven’t considered all that well. At first glance, your analogy seems a bit off. As I’ve said in my last response to xzc, i don’t think a philosopher can really control what happens with his thought. There are ample examples of this, Nietzsche comes to mind, but also Deleuze (when his thought was (mis)used in the hippie movement),… Time and again philosophers have been misinterpreted by the larger public, politicians,… resulting in movements that gained their own dynamic. And this is when they did have an influence. A lot of the time the influence was minimal at the time. It’s tempting to overestimated the influence if you have an interest in philosophy, but it think historically the influence hasn’t been all that big. Or if it was, it wasn’t as intended. So i don’t think the philosopher as a programmer of thought is a justified analogy. The programs allready exists, the philosopher is more like the debugger, analysing particular areas he deems problematic, and tweaking certain programs here and there by inventing new concepts.
You’re absolutely right, Diekon. Philosophers are only one of many different players in this game - all performing similar functions. And you’re right about politicians, priests, and media. They seem to want the lion’s share of control, but they still do depend on the materials that philosophers, artists, writers, and even sceintists have made available over the years. Very rarely do they come up with completely new ideas themselves, and when they do, one could say they are acting as philosophers. Even a poet, should he have some influence over what people think, could be said to have been acting as a philosopher to a certain extent, or that there is a hint of philosophy in his poetry.
I might also add that there is a difference between what a philosopher intends to do and what his function is vis-a-vis the purpose for having them in general (i.e. why societies evolved with them) - just as the function of a politician may be to lead the people and to take care of the interests of society although his intentions may be totally self-serving and power oriented.
Well, you’re right about that, but a debugger is still a programmer, which is different from a user or a reseller. I guess it’s wrong to say that the philosopher creates new thought-programs ex nihilo - he’s more like a force (among many others as you rightfully pointed out) guiding the evolution of ideas, like a programmer taking old programs that exist beforehand and adding his own touches and modifications as he sees fit.
Hey hey - a fairly civilized and interesting discussion
Darn ya outted me!
Yea I was just finished reading his “what is philosophy?”
That’s an interesting idea – I guess that’s the clarifying – analytical philosophy seems to think that it’s in the clarifying business – though as some people have pointed out much philosophy of either tradition seems to be in the confuse and muddy the waters business!
Eating children might be harsh as philosophers are such aesthetics eh!?!?
So what about my rough and ready joining of continental and analytical to get 2 things – creating concepts and clarifying concepts - at least it would give them philosophers something to do!