Why Political Philosophy?

[Cato]

While this is not intended to be part of the P.ie Political Philosophy Series, it is a question that has presented itself on both the ‘Intro’ thread to this forum and on the thread in ‘Feedback’ where I first suggested this. The question has come up in a few forms - are there not more important things to be discussing right now?; are such discussions pointless as people do not wish for such things but only want shelter, food, clothes etc.?; are such discussions not just exercises in intellectual masturbation/dick measuring/showing off and so on?


In light of that I thought that we might address the value of political philosophy and rather than bunging up what threads here that are to follow.


Philosophy in the European tradition kicked off in the Greek Ionian colonies over 2,500 years ago. For the first while, the main concerns were with questions concerning what material reality was made of. It developed from there into ethical concerns, particularly with Socrates. With Aristotle, the originator of several disciplines, political philosophy became an important part of philosophy and has remained as such since then. The emphasis and issues twisted, turned, and changed over the years with some being utopian and idealistic and others being brutally realistic.


Political philosophy is main concerned questions like: who should rule?; why should we obey?; justifying the state; the place of liberty; the question of private property and how should it be distributed; are there natural rights; is there a social contract, what is its nature and how is it justified; what is the best way of organizing society. And so on and so forth.


Jonathan Wolff in his book An Introduction to Political Philosophy (a good general introduction book for someone new to the subject) puts it even more succinctly, “It has been said that there are only two questions in political philosophy: ‘who gets what?’, and ‘says who?’”


Many individuals, societies, and civilizations have attempted to answer these questions and how they answered them was heavily influenced by the circumstances and challenges of their time, but each development feed into that which followed, sometimes in sympathy, sometimes in reaction. Sometimes an idea, say democracy, could disappear only to reappear again or could twist and change in to new forms. Ideas could also have separate ‘inspirations’; again democracy owes as much to the folk gatherings of the northern tribes - the ‘things’ of the northmen - as it does to the Greeks.


There are, in my view, two main reasons to discuss and engage with political philosophy. The first is, as Wolff observes, that of all areas of philosophy, the political one is one that is impossible to be agnostic about - someone will always have political power and property will be distributed in some manner. Failure to engage in a debate on these matters is simply to surrender the determination of these matters to others. To not engage is simply to consent to the status quo.


The second reason is that ideas have real power. I’ll leave this one to Heinrich Heine;

The idea tries to become action, the word desires to be made flesh, and lo, a man… has only to express his thought, and the world forms itself… The world is but the outer manifestation of the word.
Note this, you proud men of action, you are nothing but the unconscious tools of the men of thought, who in humble stillness have often drawn up your most definite places of action. Maximilien Robespierre was nothing but the hand of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the bloodstained hand that drew from the womb of time the body whose soul R had created… The Critique of Pure Reason by Kant… is the sword with which deism is beheaded.

Heine was a great reader of ideas and performed the role of the prophet when he warned the French of the eventual outcome of the ideas prevalent in Germany at the time.


One reason to understand such ideas is not only to understand what is effecting current political activities, but also to recognize their effect on ourselves. Even those who proclaim not to care for such matters will, in their expression of their own political views, reflect ideas without even being aware of where they came from or even being able to identify or articulate those ideas that operate on them.


If we have not reflected on the ends to which we believe that political action ought to tend, if we have no clear idea of how they might be realized, then we our politics will lack direction and we will fall victim to those who manage.


Finally, political philosophy is not some esoteric thing. It is a part of politics and do not refer to some external reality but are produced as a normal part of the social milieu in which politics itself is a part of. It reacts and changes to the challenges and issues of the time and the best of them are informed by the past without being trapped by it.

[between the bridges]

If you have, as leader, to decide on the conduct of a great number of men, seek the most perfect manner of doing so that your own conduct may be without reproach. Justice is great, invariable, and assured; it has not been disturbed since the age of Ptah. To throw obstacles in the way of the laws is to open the way before violence. Shall that which is below gain the upper hand, if the unjust does not attain to the place of justice? Even he who says: I take for myself, of my own free-will; but says not: I take by virtue of my authority. The limitations of justice are invariable; such is the instruction which every man receives from his father.

The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep 2200 BC

[Dandahan4]

Please continue to make your philosophy known. Quoting others has little relevance though interesting to read.

It may be argued that every citizen has a political philosophy.

What makes you think that political ideas are not part of Irish political thought in 2012?

[1982BCE]

are there not more important things to be discussing right now?

Surely a political party is, at least in theory, guided by it's political philosophy? as such this is, and should always be, an important question.
What ideas do our elected leader's subscribe to?
How do these idea's affect their decisions in government?
Do the actions of the government conform with the philosophy they claimed to adhere to during the election?

Or is this a thread about political philosophy in general? I don't find the title and OP to be very clear on this.

[Cato]

Surely a political party is, at least in theory, guided by it's political philosophy? as such this is, and should always be, an important question.
What ideas do our elected leader's subscribe to?
How do these idea's affect their decisions in government?
Do the actions of the government conform with the philosophy they claimed to adhere to during the election?

Or is this a thread about political philosophy in general? I don't find the title and OP to be very clear on this.

Parties in Ireland seem to me to rarely lay out their 'philosophy'. A kind of managerialism seems to be the over-riding approach. 'What works best' is the answer that can be given (by Blair in the UK, for example) as if such an answer implies that there is no ideology operating, ignoring as it does that the idea of what constitutes 'working' is itself a question of political philosophy as open and determined by one's ideology as any other.

We rarely, all to rarely, hear of what the philosophy of our political leaders is. They either have not thought it through or shy away from it - perhaps from the fear the the prevailing storm of cynicism towards politics in Ireland would simply have no patience for it.

[1982BCE]

Parties in Ireland seem to me to rarely lay out there 'philosophy'. A kind of managerialism seems to be the over-riding approach. 'What works best' is the answer that can be given (by Blair in the UK, for example) as if such an answer implies that there is no ideology operating, ignoring as it does that the idea of what constitutes 'working' is itself a question of political philosophy as open and determined by one's ideology as any other.

We rarely, all to rarely, hear of what the philosophy of our political leaders is. They either have not thought it through or shy away from it - perhaps from the fear the the prevailing storm of cynicism towards politics in Ireland would simply have no patience for it.

That is sadly the general feeling i've had about Irish politics for a while. That what constitutes "working" in the mind mind of the Irish politician is "anything which returns me to power", with little thought to the long term consequences of their policy's and decision's.

[Ceatharlach555]

That is sadly the general feeling i've had about Irish politics for a while. That what constitutes "working" in the mind mind of the Irish politician is "anything which returns me to power", with little thought to the long term consequences of their policy's and decision's.

Agreed. There is no political philosophy guiding our national parties. A working philosophy is not simply based on thought, it is also based on conscience, morality and courage so that adherents of a philosophy will not simply abandon it at the first sign of difficulty. If any of our leaders ever subscribed to a political philosophy they have long since abandoned it, unless you count gaining power and wealth and holding onto it by any means necessary a philosophy.