A History of the World Part 1 (YouTube)
"Occupation?"
"Stand-up Philosopher..."
"Oh, a Bullshit Artist..."
[This article I wrote some time ago covers many of the same issues as yesterday's post but from a political/philosophical rather than perspective... it provide, in a way a philosophical backdrop for the previous post (truthfully, I had forgotten writing it until I googled the spelling of Andrzejewski's name and it popped up on google- I feel downright famous now). I know that the beginning is a bit repetitious so feel free to skip down.]
Science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon penned what came to be known as Sturgeon's Law: "90% of science fiction is bullshit because 90% of everything is bullshit." Concomitantly, seeing how this is a discussion of philosophy, we should factor in Stanislaw Andrzejewski's Law of Nebulous Verbosity: "Verbiage increases to the extent that ambition exceeds knowledge." This is not to say that philosophy lacks knowledge but for our purposes we might also expand on the old adage- "[that] a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"- by adding that a lot of knowledge (or at least education) can prove equally if not more disastrous.
So, let's begin with the "Fathers of Modern Philosophy," Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. What is it that sets them apart? Well, it could be argued that each of their particular mode of bullshit was "original"- although Plato would argue that there are no original thoughts. Socrates cribbed from Heraclitus and he from Hesiod, and so on and so on. Plato cribbed from him and Aristotle from Plato. These lofty thinkers were practicers of, as well as victims of, sophistry although the proponents of Aristotle would argue against that point. One characteristic of philosophers of every age is their use of excessive verbiage to explain often simple concepts- anything worth explaining is worth over-explaining it would seem. This leads us to our two types of thinkers: Intellectuals and Practical Thinkers (Practicalists...A term I employ as a convenience not as a philosophical definition related to the school of Practicalism)
Intellectuals, for whatever reason, seem to be easily bullshitted, whereas Practicalists seem to possess some innate defense mechanism- probably common sense. For example, by examining the three fundamental branches of philosophy, we can observe how each would view them.
Metaphysics: asks the question what is it? An intellectual would argue: we can never be truly certain without fully understanding all of "it's" characteristics... and would inevitably get lost in a miasma of labyrinthine verbiage (bullshit). A Practicalist would say "it" is what it is and be done with it (much to Plato's dismay).
Epistemology: How do we know what it is (or anything else, for that matter). This would include the great unanswerable question: "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" The Intellectual would undoubtedly posit that it is indeed unanswerable- even though it is not necessary for human ears to become excited by sound waves emitted by falling timber for the soundwaves themselves to exist. The Practicalist would say, "who cares, if no one is there, what possible difference does it make?" Similarly, if an Intellectual views a cow he/she would ask how can we truly know it's a cow, if "cow" is just a label? The Practicalist would say, "I've got vision, it's got horns and teats...it's a fucking cow!" Immanuel Kant went way out on a limb with this with his "Transcendental Aesthetic- That knowledge, at least most, is A Posteriori (learned, or experiential)- but some is innate (A Priori)... In effect playing both ends to the middle.
Ethics: What is just? Here is where the sophistry of the Intellectual class really shines through. The Intellectual would attempt to rhetorically obfuscate this simple issue with arguments such as: "right and wrong are subjective concepts." And, "nothing is black & white, only shades of gray." Nonsense- every sentient being knows right from wrong (maybe that's it... sentience and Intellectualism don't mix. The Practicalist, naturally would say, "right is right, wrong is wrong." And from Ethics we get philosophy's political bastard stepchild, Ideology.
Ideology is where the philosophical bus took a detour and ran off the road. Ideology has created far more problems than any it's solved. If the bodycount from isoeolgically engendered wars in the late 20th Century alone, the total would be staggering... Hitler- 6 million dead... Stalin 15-40 million dead... Mao 60-100 million dead. All of the statistics cited are the result of "intellectual" movements- resulting from the nonsense first offered by Karl Marx. When Intellectualism is applied to politics, Practicalism and common sense fly out the window.
In applying Intellectualism vs. Practicalism to American politics, it must be again noted that Ideology is the antithesis of Practicalism. There is nothing whatever practical about Ideology. The Framers of the Constitution were not ideologues, they were, with perhaps one exception, very practical men. George Washington was a surveyor and soldier. Jefferson was a farmer. Franklin was a printer, an inventor and tinkerer. John Hancock was a businessman. Paul Revere, a silversmith. Hamilton was a real estate speculator (con man) and soldier. The one exception perhaps, was Madison whose job it was to write everything down in hard to understand language. That way the concepts would also appeal to Intellectuals. It could probably be argued that Madison was a Practicalist as well, except nobody could really understand him very well. As stated before ideology really took root with the advent of Marxist "thought." The reason I used "though in quotations is that Marxism's appeal is more emotional than the product of reason. Instead of looking at the world in terms of what is practical, the Marxist ideologue looks at things in terms of emotional desirability. It is based on a Utopian fantasy, nothing more.
It is Ideology that gets us gender politics, race politics, LGBT issues, etc.. No reasonable person can argue that everyone in the country should not be entitled to the same rights and privileges. But the ideologues want more... nothing will ever be enough. These movements are designed to destroy the status quo with no concrete notion of what to replace it with... it's merely an emotionally engendered appeal against what the ideologues don't like. Because philosophy is based on the ability to reason (no matter how poorly), Ideology should not even be a philosophical consideration. Given that Ideology is based solely on emotional appeals, there is no argument against the ravings of an ideologue. Therefore, in conclusion, on a philosophical bullshit scale, Ideology (particularly Cultural Marxism and its many offshoots) is off the chart.
GIF by @papa-pepper
