Closing Thoughts on Philosophy
I wish it was true of philosophy that it was such a subversive and disruptive process, but it often has been the opposite. Much of philosophy is state-sustaining philosophy, defending, unconditionally, any kind of authority, ecclesiastic and secular. It d
- PDF / 144,488 Bytes
- 5 Pages / 612 x 792 pts (letter) Page_size
- 98 Downloads / 232 Views
CLOSING THOUGHTS ON PHILOSOPHY
QUESTION 93
Philosophy has been described as invariably subversive and disruptive, as corrosive towards political power. It has never been welcomed by political authorities, but has been recognized as dangerous because it casts light on that which many would prefer remain unseen or unthought. Many have been exiled, imprisoned and even executed for philosophizing. One can think of the trial of Socrates, how unwelcome he was in Athens, the hostility he encountered throughout his life, the extent to which the political authorities feared him. Do you see philosophy this way? Do you think there is invariably a tension between philosophy and political power? Misgeld I wish it was true of philosophy that it was such a subversive and disruptive process, but it often has been the opposite. Much of philosophy is state-sustaining philosophy, defending, unconditionally, any kind of authority, ecclesiastic and secular. It depends on what philosophy you think of. Apart from Socrates, an almost mythological figure, when you look at more recent times, the British philosophy of the social contract and of the state of nature, liberal political philosophy beginning with Hobbes, and extending to John Stuart Mill, is very much state-sustaining. In fact, it is empire sustaining. Locke was a philosopher who had much influence on the American Declaration of Independence. Thomas Paine referred to him often. He was seen as providing a philosophical basis for the Independence Movement, which was a liberal movement, overall. John Stuart Mill and his father James Mill were linked very clearly with imperial policies in the India office of the British Empire. French philosophy prior to Sartre was like that. Hegel in his later years wrote as if the Prussian Constitutional Monarchic State was the best form of state that there could be. This was very contrary to much of German liberal opinion, which led to a revolution in 1848 (after Hegel’s death—he didn’t know about this), and conflict with Prussia. Prussia viciously suppressed this liberal revolution. Much of philosophy is very much establishment philosophy. How would we say that one is philosophy, the other is not? I don’t think there’s any way to do that. Rather than use the phrase that you have here, I would say “not to be on the side of the abuse of political power, or to develop something which provides a limit or alternative to the tendencies inherent in political power to be abusive.” One has to ask “what kind of philosophy would that be,” and then one can talk about that. 227
CHAPTER 11
Depending on the times it would have different forms and appearances. There was Marx in his time, there was Nietzsche, there’s post-modernism today. Habermas tried to be more constructive rather than be subversive, and wanted to provide models that can be used to improve the State and forms of social organization. There are many ways of responding. I can think of many people who have not been philosophers who have been executed in prison, possibly more than philosophers
Data Loading...
