Wasn't the whole point of Plato's The Republic to be a warning AGAINEST philosophers becoming involved in politics
No, not at all. I don't know who you've been reading, but they are completely wrong. The first line of Book I of the Republic is "I went down to the Piraeus the other day." Hell, the Republic is Plato trying to come up with a polis wherein moral knowledge (paideia) is married with political power. Indeed, the entire methodology advocated by Socrates and Plato throughout the dialogues relies on philosophers being involved in the world - conversation can't exactly go on if it's just one guy sitting around thinking a lot.
If you buy into the whole theory of the forms, then scientists are a sort of philosopher
No, and no. Let's not talk about the Doctrine of the Forms - it doesn't really exist the way you think it does. Second, scientists are not in anyway like philosophers according to Plato. At the very most they would be philodoxers, which is something quite different.
In other words, more worrying to me than the thought of the populace not benefitting from science is science being corrupted by outside interests (more than this has already occurred, nothing is totally segregated of course). And, on an individual level, scientists also becoming corrupted. It's like a doctor being corrupted by having to be both a capitalist and a doctor, one takes away from the other and its why we like our judges and doctors and others to be as worry free of all other things (like money) as possible.
If you read my post on page one, you'll discover that science is completely unsuited in just about everyway for being more involved in politics. I believe someone quoted the Statesman somewhere in this thread, and it is applicable - the weaver is good at being a weaver, and the scientist is good at being a scientist. The job of the politician or statesman is to be a good statesman. The two don't mix.
Also, "science" or any kind of scientific methodology doesn't give you jack shit in terms of judgments. Okay, say, I'm a scientist - a biologist, say. How will that inform me on questions of philosophy or politics? It may give me some variant of logical positivism to guide a metaphysics, but even then that itself is quite dubious, and will in no way allow me, a biologist, any insight into how to rule properly. How does one determine the interests of the state? What are the interests of the state? Science can't answer those questions for you, and as such, it has absolutely no place - other than perhaps an advisory role - within the political arena.
Why the hell are people acting like Plato was sane?
Because he recognized the biggest problems with politics, and his philosophical goals are still being pursued today (how do you get power and knowledge together?).
The idea that the best form of government would be one, perfectly intelligent and benign ruler, second place philosopher kings, third uncorrupted democracy, fourth corrupt democracy, fifth corrupt oligarchy, and the worst a corrupt dictator.
No. No. No. No. The ideal form of government is one where power is determined by moral knowledge (see Books I-VI of the Republic), not by popularity, birth, or power itself (see Callicles' criticism in the Gorgias). Socrates constructs his ideal city in an attempt to create power structures that imbue knowledge of The Good (tm), and as a result, lead to justice in rule and for the citizens of the ideal city. Everything that Plato talks about in Book VIII of the Republic is dealing with the fact that because the fundamental power structures of the polis were not themselves changed, the decline and degradation of the ideal polis was and continues to be inevitable. The various levels of degradation are assigned various levels of worth based on the level which each system is able to marry power and (moral) knowledge.
How is this related to policy making? Unless we're talking whether to prescribe pyritic sediments as medication because of it's cheap cost and relatively close chemical make up to a proper... this is absurd. How is this relevant?
Cat's example is a good one. Her Boss' Catholicism is completely unsuited to giving any sort of insight as far as scientific methodology is concerned. The judgments that the Catholicism helps her boss make have to do with theology and morality - not science or anything to do with pyritic sediments (no idea what those are). The same is true about science. It's absolutely no help when it comes to politics and policy, because the judgments that are available within science are utterly inapplicable. For example, E = mc2. Great - how does that help me determine the action that will best serve the interests of my nation and its citizens?
Wrong on the first sentence, though I agree that it should have greater influence.
Science is the aim of understanding the physical universe we inhabit.
Science has nothing to say on anything beyond the physical universe (except perhaps mathematics, wherein strange abstract objects like "math" happen to describe physical events)
Science has absolutely nothing to say on, for example, ethics or art, nor should it. We can also agree I think that ethics and art both fall under the umbrella of "reality". I think most good scientists would agree with these statements.
Science is an enormously useful tool (and believe me, I'm a science guy - my field is chemistry/chemical engineering) but let's not set it up as the ne plus ultra of humankind.
The same is true about science. It's absolutely no help when it comes to politics and policy, because the judgments that are available within science are utterly inapplicable. For example, E = mc2. Great - how does that help me determine the action that will best serve the interests of my nation and its citizens?
I want to stress that I'm not cherry-picking only one thing to argue. But this above is the only thing I really had an issue with.
That is such a strawman of what I was arguing, I'm coughing straw. Straw is protruding out of almost every orifice I can see, and even the Scarecrow would say, "My gosh, that's quite a strawman!"
Where the hell did I argue that the literal field of Physics mattered wholly or at all to policy making?
Where scientific understanding applies and is available, it should matter. Stem cell research is one. E=mc2 means nothing to stem cell research. I guess science doesn't matter there either? What?
The same is true about science. It's absolutely no help when it comes to politics and policy, because the judgments that are available within science are utterly inapplicable. For example, E = mc2. Great - how does that help me determine the action that will best serve the interests of my nation and its citizens?
I want to stress that I'm not cherry-picking only one thing to argue. But this above is the only thing I really had an issue with.
That is such a strawman of what I was arguing, I'm coughing straw. Straw is protruding out of almost every orifice I can see, and even the Scarecrow would say, "My gosh, that's quite a strawman!"
Where the hell did I argue that the literal field of Physics mattered wholly or at all to policy making?
Where scientific understanding applies and is available, it should matter. Stem cell research is one. E=mc2 means nothing to stem cell research. I guess science doesn't matter there either? What?
I'm not trying to strawman. Although, I guess that was a bit of a strawman.
My point is that science can only ever have an advisory capacity in politics. You seem to be arguing that this is somehow not enough, and I can't exactly figure out how there could exist any reality where science is anything but advisory in terms of politics. You are going to have to help me out, here.
... I can't exactly figure out how there could exist any reality where science is anything but advisory in terms of politics. You are going to have to help me out, here.
The planet Krypton. Everyone on Krypton was a scientist.
My point is that science can only ever have an advisory capacity in politics. You seem to be arguing that this is somehow not enough, and I can't exactly figure out how there could exist any reality where science is anything but advisory in terms of politics. You are going to have to help me out, here.
Oh, then nothing wrong here. Just a misunderstanding.
I never meant science to be more than advisory. It's advice, currently, I feel, just isn't be sought enough. I suppose the off-hand examples of how it could be improved were a bad idea. I didn't meant for science to rule. I was only shooting off ideas of how scientific correspondence could be improved.
Really all I'm saying is that my answer to the question in the title would be, "More than it is now."
Wasn't the whole point of Plato's The Republic to be a warning AGAINEST philosophers becoming involved in politics
No, not at all. I don't know who you've been reading, but they are completely wrong. The first line of Book I of the Republic is "I went down to the Piraeus the other day." Hell, the Republic is Plato trying to come up with a polis wherein moral knowledge (paideia) is married with political power. Indeed, the entire methodology advocated by Socrates and Plato throughout the dialogues relies on philosophers being involved in the world - conversation can't exactly go on if it's just one guy sitting around thinking a lot.
It depends on how you interpret the text, latent versus manifest. I think there is a latent message and it is a lot more believable (unless you think Plato was a dumbass). Philosophers attempt to find justice, and by becoming involved in politics they corrupt themselves and become unjust (myth of the metals, heavily censored media, state children, forcing what they deem to happiest people into servitude; the p-kings, and of course genocide). Could be a whole 'ends justify the means' going on there, but it seems counter-intuitive and doesn't work at all with his own theories of the forms and the divided line.
If you buy into the whole theory of the forms, then scientists are a sort of philosopher
No, and no. Let's not talk about the Doctrine of the Forms - it doesn't really exist the way you think it does. Second, scientists are not in anyway like philosophers according to Plato. At the very most they would be philodoxers, which is something quite different.
Tell me how it does exist then, not trying to be pompous, just genuinely interested in philosophy.
I thought philosophers, according to Plato, were simply people constantly attempting to reach an ultimate understanding of reality. If scientists (or any philosopher, as science is just a stepping stone to higher understanding/form) stop reaching for the higher truth and attempt to control the others then they fall back down to lower forms. Once again, I don't buy the theory of the forms, but I'm pretty sure that’s how it works and it has weight in the fact that crafts are corrupted when one is forced to 'multitask'.
In other words, more worrying to me than the thought of the populace not benefitting from science is science being corrupted by outside interests (more than this has already occurred, nothing is totally segregated of course). And, on an individual level, scientists also becoming corrupted. It's like a doctor being corrupted by having to be both a capitalist and a doctor, one takes away from the other and its why we like our judges and doctors and others to be as worry free of all other things (like money) as possible.
If you read my post on page one, you'll discover that science is completely unsuited in just about everyway for being more involved in politics. I believe someone quoted the Statesman somewhere in this thread, and it is applicable - the weaver is good at being a weaver, and the scientist is good at being a scientist. The job of the politician or statesman is to be a good statesman. The two don't mix.
Also, "science" or any kind of scientific methodology doesn't give you jack shit in terms of judgments. Okay, say, I'm a scientist - a biologist, say. How will that inform me on questions of philosophy or politics? It may give me some variant of logical positivism to guide a metaphysics, but even then that itself is quite dubious, and will in no way allow me, a biologist, any insight into how to rule properly. How does one determine the interests of the state? What are the interests of the state? Science can't answer those questions for you, and as such, it has absolutely no place - other than perhaps an advisory role - within the political arena.
This is saying PHILOSOPHERS =! SCIENTISTS right? I get it, but scientists still are philosophers. Not the kind that answer your moral questions but still philosophers in the sense I gave above this quote text. Anyways, I am agreeing with you, just from a different perspective (i.e. don't corrupt science). Although I do think a rigorous education (arts, sciences, and athletics) should be prerequisite before the final trial of philosophy for statesmen and those involved in politics.
Also, I am not pretending to be an expert on Plato and stuff, I am just going off what I read in The Republic a couple months ago.
It depends on how you interpret the text, latent versus manifest. I think there is a latent message and it is a lot more believable (unless you think Plato was a dumbass). Philosophers attempt to find justice, and by becoming involved in politics they corrupt themselves and become unjust (myth of the metals, heavily censored media, state children, forcing what they deem to happiest people into servitude; the p-kings, and of course genocide). Could be a whole 'ends justify the means' going on there, but it seems counter-intuitive and doesn't work at all with his own theories of the forms and the divided line.
You have to take everything in context, especially with Plato. The defining characteristic of his middle period is the attempt to come to grips with the fact that moral knowledge and political power are traditionally separate. His project during this time is especially concerned with attempting to marry the two in an effective manner. Indeed, the Gorgias is a very valiant defense of knowledge (and thus justice) over power (or injustice). Some may certainly argue that Plato fails in this, especially in regards to Callicles' criticism, but I would disagree; in terms of the Republic, Book I is almost identical to the Gorgias in terms of content, and the rest of the Republic is just a very expansive, meandering attempt to fully refute Callicles' criticism.
I would hold that the recognition that the ideal polis will eventually degrade and come apart is Plato's recognition that the largest issue is not with power or knowledge themselves, but with the structures which give rise and then reinforce power. Specifically, the ruler-elite-mob dynamic, which he goes to great pains to deal with in his early discussions on education (Books II-VI). Plato certainly attempts to remove the elite part of the ruler-elite-mob dynamic, primarily through a) removing property and the household as the chief power structure from the guardian class, and, b) moral education and philosophy of the guardian class.
The eventual failure of the ideal city is due completely to the reinstatement of a), and the slackening of b). Now, there are some really interesting things to be discussed with regards to Plato's awareness of the problem of power in terms of structure, but that is a bit of an aside. The failure of the city is not the failure of the philosopher (just read the Allegory of the Cave), the failure of the city is the failure to hold to the original precepts.
Tell me how it does exist then, not trying to be pompous, just genuinely interested in philosophy.
I thought philosophers, according to Plato, were simply people constantly attempting to reach an ultimate understanding of reality. If scientists (or any philosopher, as science is just a stepping stone to higher understanding/form) stop reaching for the higher truth and attempt to control the others then they fall back down to lower forms. Once again, I don't buy the theory of the forms, but I'm pretty sure that’s how it works and it has weight in the fact that crafts are corrupted when one is forced to 'multitask'.
Part of Plato's philosophical project is his inherent aversion to metaphysics, along with his dedication to his methodology. The "doctrine of the forms," first of all, only ever exists in any writing by Plato (dialogue or otherwise) as a paradigma - a likeness. Never at any point does Plato give a full on, philosophical explanation of his metaphysics. On the contrary, in the Seventh Letter, he writes:
But this much at any rate I can affirm about any present or future writers who pretend to knowledge of the matters with which I concern myself, whether they claim to have been taught by me, or by a third party or to have discovered the truth for themselves; in my judgment it is impossible they should have any understanding of the subject. No treatise by me concerning it exists or ever will exist. It is not something that can be put into words like other branches of learning; only after long partnership in a common life devoted to this very thing does truth flash upon the soul, like a flame kindled by a leaping spark, and once it is born there it nourishes itself thereafter.
The issue, then, is that metaphysics is, according to Plato's project, ultimately incompatible with the preferred kind of methodology, and the only way which one is able to speak about it is through paradigma - an inferior form of understanding (think "Picture thinking" from Hegel) when compared to the Socratic dialectic. The forms that are spoken about by everyone and their cat only exist in a kind of hazy state, and only then in one dialogue. Hell, Aristotle himself wrote that the metaphysics of Plato became so abstract and mathematical by the end of his life that it didn't even resemble the likeness that was presented in the Republic.
This is saying PHILOSOPHERS =! SCIENTISTS right? I get it, but scientists still are philosophers.
No, I'm sorry, they are not. Plato uses the word "philosopher" in a very, very particular way, which is very often ignored. Most modern usages of "philosopher" are identical to "philodoxer," which is quite different than a "philosopher" as defined by Plato. A rather important distinction.
Posts
That's fine as it would be an off-topic tangent. Anti-choice is not synonymous with anti-science. De-facto banning of scientific research is.
No, not at all. I don't know who you've been reading, but they are completely wrong. The first line of Book I of the Republic is "I went down to the Piraeus the other day." Hell, the Republic is Plato trying to come up with a polis wherein moral knowledge (paideia) is married with political power. Indeed, the entire methodology advocated by Socrates and Plato throughout the dialogues relies on philosophers being involved in the world - conversation can't exactly go on if it's just one guy sitting around thinking a lot.
No, and no. Let's not talk about the Doctrine of the Forms - it doesn't really exist the way you think it does. Second, scientists are not in anyway like philosophers according to Plato. At the very most they would be philodoxers, which is something quite different.
If you read my post on page one, you'll discover that science is completely unsuited in just about everyway for being more involved in politics. I believe someone quoted the Statesman somewhere in this thread, and it is applicable - the weaver is good at being a weaver, and the scientist is good at being a scientist. The job of the politician or statesman is to be a good statesman. The two don't mix.
Also, "science" or any kind of scientific methodology doesn't give you jack shit in terms of judgments. Okay, say, I'm a scientist - a biologist, say. How will that inform me on questions of philosophy or politics? It may give me some variant of logical positivism to guide a metaphysics, but even then that itself is quite dubious, and will in no way allow me, a biologist, any insight into how to rule properly. How does one determine the interests of the state? What are the interests of the state? Science can't answer those questions for you, and as such, it has absolutely no place - other than perhaps an advisory role - within the political arena.
You are doing yourself no favours taking Book VIII of the Republic out of context. Best stop while you are ahead.
Because he recognized the biggest problems with politics, and his philosophical goals are still being pursued today (how do you get power and knowledge together?).
No. No. No. No. The ideal form of government is one where power is determined by moral knowledge (see Books I-VI of the Republic), not by popularity, birth, or power itself (see Callicles' criticism in the Gorgias). Socrates constructs his ideal city in an attempt to create power structures that imbue knowledge of The Good (tm), and as a result, lead to justice in rule and for the citizens of the ideal city. Everything that Plato talks about in Book VIII of the Republic is dealing with the fact that because the fundamental power structures of the polis were not themselves changed, the decline and degradation of the ideal polis was and continues to be inevitable. The various levels of degradation are assigned various levels of worth based on the level which each system is able to marry power and (moral) knowledge.
I don't know if you are still talking about Plato or not. But if you are, you are dead wrong. It was fucking democracy that killed Socrates.
Cat's example is a good one. Her Boss' Catholicism is completely unsuited to giving any sort of insight as far as scientific methodology is concerned. The judgments that the Catholicism helps her boss make have to do with theology and morality - not science or anything to do with pyritic sediments (no idea what those are). The same is true about science. It's absolutely no help when it comes to politics and policy, because the judgments that are available within science are utterly inapplicable. For example, E = mc2. Great - how does that help me determine the action that will best serve the interests of my nation and its citizens?
Wrong on the first sentence, though I agree that it should have greater influence.
Science is the aim of understanding the physical universe we inhabit.
Science has nothing to say on anything beyond the physical universe (except perhaps mathematics, wherein strange abstract objects like "math" happen to describe physical events)
Science has absolutely nothing to say on, for example, ethics or art, nor should it. We can also agree I think that ethics and art both fall under the umbrella of "reality". I think most good scientists would agree with these statements.
Science is an enormously useful tool (and believe me, I'm a science guy - my field is chemistry/chemical engineering) but let's not set it up as the ne plus ultra of humankind.
I want to stress that I'm not cherry-picking only one thing to argue. But this above is the only thing I really had an issue with.
That is such a strawman of what I was arguing, I'm coughing straw. Straw is protruding out of almost every orifice I can see, and even the Scarecrow would say, "My gosh, that's quite a strawman!"
Where the hell did I argue that the literal field of Physics mattered wholly or at all to policy making?
Where scientific understanding applies and is available, it should matter. Stem cell research is one. E=mc2 means nothing to stem cell research. I guess science doesn't matter there either? What?
I'm not trying to strawman. Although, I guess that was a bit of a strawman.
My point is that science can only ever have an advisory capacity in politics. You seem to be arguing that this is somehow not enough, and I can't exactly figure out how there could exist any reality where science is anything but advisory in terms of politics. You are going to have to help me out, here.
The planet Krypton. Everyone on Krypton was a scientist.
Oh, then nothing wrong here. Just a misunderstanding.
I never meant science to be more than advisory. It's advice, currently, I feel, just isn't be sought enough. I suppose the off-hand examples of how it could be improved were a bad idea. I didn't meant for science to rule. I was only shooting off ideas of how scientific correspondence could be improved.
Really all I'm saying is that my answer to the question in the title would be, "More than it is now."
It depends on how you interpret the text, latent versus manifest. I think there is a latent message and it is a lot more believable (unless you think Plato was a dumbass). Philosophers attempt to find justice, and by becoming involved in politics they corrupt themselves and become unjust (myth of the metals, heavily censored media, state children, forcing what they deem to happiest people into servitude; the p-kings, and of course genocide). Could be a whole 'ends justify the means' going on there, but it seems counter-intuitive and doesn't work at all with his own theories of the forms and the divided line.
Tell me how it does exist then, not trying to be pompous, just genuinely interested in philosophy.
I thought philosophers, according to Plato, were simply people constantly attempting to reach an ultimate understanding of reality. If scientists (or any philosopher, as science is just a stepping stone to higher understanding/form) stop reaching for the higher truth and attempt to control the others then they fall back down to lower forms. Once again, I don't buy the theory of the forms, but I'm pretty sure that’s how it works and it has weight in the fact that crafts are corrupted when one is forced to 'multitask'.
This is saying PHILOSOPHERS =! SCIENTISTS right? I get it, but scientists still are philosophers. Not the kind that answer your moral questions but still philosophers in the sense I gave above this quote text. Anyways, I am agreeing with you, just from a different perspective (i.e. don't corrupt science). Although I do think a rigorous education (arts, sciences, and athletics) should be prerequisite before the final trial of philosophy for statesmen and those involved in politics.
Also, I am not pretending to be an expert on Plato and stuff, I am just going off what I read in The Republic a couple months ago.
You have to take everything in context, especially with Plato. The defining characteristic of his middle period is the attempt to come to grips with the fact that moral knowledge and political power are traditionally separate. His project during this time is especially concerned with attempting to marry the two in an effective manner. Indeed, the Gorgias is a very valiant defense of knowledge (and thus justice) over power (or injustice). Some may certainly argue that Plato fails in this, especially in regards to Callicles' criticism, but I would disagree; in terms of the Republic, Book I is almost identical to the Gorgias in terms of content, and the rest of the Republic is just a very expansive, meandering attempt to fully refute Callicles' criticism.
I would hold that the recognition that the ideal polis will eventually degrade and come apart is Plato's recognition that the largest issue is not with power or knowledge themselves, but with the structures which give rise and then reinforce power. Specifically, the ruler-elite-mob dynamic, which he goes to great pains to deal with in his early discussions on education (Books II-VI). Plato certainly attempts to remove the elite part of the ruler-elite-mob dynamic, primarily through a) removing property and the household as the chief power structure from the guardian class, and, b) moral education and philosophy of the guardian class.
The eventual failure of the ideal city is due completely to the reinstatement of a), and the slackening of b). Now, there are some really interesting things to be discussed with regards to Plato's awareness of the problem of power in terms of structure, but that is a bit of an aside. The failure of the city is not the failure of the philosopher (just read the Allegory of the Cave), the failure of the city is the failure to hold to the original precepts.
Part of Plato's philosophical project is his inherent aversion to metaphysics, along with his dedication to his methodology. The "doctrine of the forms," first of all, only ever exists in any writing by Plato (dialogue or otherwise) as a paradigma - a likeness. Never at any point does Plato give a full on, philosophical explanation of his metaphysics. On the contrary, in the Seventh Letter, he writes:
The issue, then, is that metaphysics is, according to Plato's project, ultimately incompatible with the preferred kind of methodology, and the only way which one is able to speak about it is through paradigma - an inferior form of understanding (think "Picture thinking" from Hegel) when compared to the Socratic dialectic. The forms that are spoken about by everyone and their cat only exist in a kind of hazy state, and only then in one dialogue. Hell, Aristotle himself wrote that the metaphysics of Plato became so abstract and mathematical by the end of his life that it didn't even resemble the likeness that was presented in the Republic.
No, I'm sorry, they are not. Plato uses the word "philosopher" in a very, very particular way, which is very often ignored. Most modern usages of "philosopher" are identical to "philodoxer," which is quite different than a "philosopher" as defined by Plato. A rather important distinction.