> Supporting the odd philosopher poet is the exact function of society, in my opinion.
Have you considered that society should also be the natural predator of the odd philosopher poet so that their numbers do not become problematic for their environment?
Why would society need to even be a predator though? The whole point of society is that we organized into large enough groups that what the "natural order" was no longer applies: societies literally rise above the natural order by replacing that order with something we as society control.
That means things like corporations, and working hard for your money, but also means things like "meaningless art", and allowing people with permanent disabilities to still live a normal life, where the fruits of society get to be enjoyed by everyone in society, skewed towards different demographics based on your favourite -ism. And it doesn't matter which -ism you subscribe to: the whole point of society is that we don't need this ridiculous "natural" nonsense. We beat it. It can stay outside. We replaced it with society.
>the whole point of society is that we don't need this ridiculous "natural" nonsense. We beat it. It can stay outside. We replaced it with society.
When the silent part is said out loud. "We" didn't beat anything, and "we" certainly aren't gods that managed to counter natural law, despite the current zeitgeist that likes to pretend it is so.
Humans are predators, and to pretend otherwise will be the folly of our species. One need not look any further than the political, corporate, or social elite to see what predators look like in so-called civilized society.
What a wonderfully Machiavellian and incomplete argument, given the history of societies all the way up to today. You'll go far, kid.
Next time though, don't make the classic mistake of talking about the group by talking about individuals in the group. Society is, and this one's confusing if no one taught you this before, not the same as the sum of the behaviour of individuals in that society. They're entirely different rungs on the ladder of abstraction.
Clever condescension, you'll go a long way with intellect like that, kid.
Nice job dropping 'given history' in there, you win! History shows that is a fantastic argument and adds significant value to your post.
Next time, though, try to use that big brain of yours to figure out how to address what I said instead of resorting to reddit level dialog and a straw man.
Did you genuinely believe that I was referring to every individual human? That's an awfully Machiavellian take on what I said.
Illustration counter to assertion (not an argument): "Of course humans have red hair, just google 'natural redhead'"
Society is, and this might be confusing if nobody's taught you this before, filled with people with disproportionate amounts of power, whether social, capital, political, corporate, legal, or other. This might be scary to your sensibilities, but predators are attracted to positions of power. I don't think anyone of consequence disagrees with this.
We obviously agree here, because you based your entire straw man on the fact that they don't represent every single human everywhere.
I would however like to understand how you think we beat 'natural law' and the predators with this mythical society when you also think that they are the richest and most powerful in said society.
Society "beat" predators? I think most people who have been victims of systemic or institutional oppression would disagree here. I know every police victim I have worked with sure would.
Or maybe I'm wrong and they are all just misunderstood when they beat, steal, lie, and kill the underclass while they destroy our planet and laugh about it.
Foraging scavengers, who figured out that the stone used to crack skulls of already-dead animals could also crack the one of animals that were still alive.
I mean, to some extend they’re self regulating. Few people have the stomach for a life like that so the total amount of philosopher poets is likely a function of your total population.
How many crazed homeless drug addicts per philosopher poet do you find acceptable? Is it somewhere near the current 10k to 1 level? Of course you are willing to patronize a cabal of homeless on your block as well.
Our society used to have places for these people, like farmhand jobs, cheap poor houses in the city, etc. Perhaps it is a failure on our part that we have now have nothing better for these people then a desire to push them out of sight. It seems they get a lot of blame for not being able to keep up with an increasingly demanding modern consumerist society.
> How many crazed homeless drug addicts per philosopher poet do you find acceptable?
I think the only acceptable number is zero. The philosopher poet clearly desires this life. The crazed homeless drug addict would much rather inject his morphine at home.
In other words, I think the fact that a drug addict is homeless is incidental. They should be treated because they’re a drug addict, not because they’re homeless.
Look: a “social Darwinist”! I should get a spotter's guide.
If society preys on philosopher poets, we don't get philosophy or poetry, our ethics never develops, and the fundamental principles of society don't improve, limiting how much technological progress can raise the standard of living. I personally call that a bad outcome.
I don't think it's accurate to claim that ethics follows moral philosophy, and certainly most philosophers would not endorse that viewpoint. Philosophy doesn't tell society how to improve or behave. Philosophy helps question and understand, it hasn't historically been a driver of change.
Driver? No. Heck, I hardly know any philosophers. But most of our big ideas were written down by a philosopher and then, decades later, read by to-be-important people at the beginnings of a social movement.
Social philosophy influences societal change, by providing ideas. Without philosophers, activists have to be more visionary than they already are, making them rarer.
(Moral philosophy, not really, I'll agree with you.)
On the other hand there is such a thing as a statist parasite (think politicians, bureaucrats, crony capitalists, etc.), and hobos with a belief they're superior to others and love to do virtue signaling as making a life decision to live until the end of their lives supported by others, directly or indirectly, is something very, very wise.
I think you misunderstand the scale at which I’m thinking.
This guy has amused me for, say half an hour of reading the article, and for a bunch more while replying to the comments.
It’s possible I would have been as amused by a corporate drone’s story, but it’s doubtful. I read enough of those, so the marginal utility of one extra story is very low.
That said, I’ve met philosopher poets on the street before, and the encounters are always memorable.
A guy of whom we have only embellished apocryphal stories, and who I have the suspicion either never existed or wasn’t nothing as portrayed afterwards.
The various “legends” around him like meeting Alexander the Great and dying at the same time are also suspect as hell.
And for all of that, what we have is what exactly? A philosophical justification for being an asshole I guess? The world would have been pretty much the same if he had not existed.
Socrates was a stonemason --- effectively a skilled labourer or tradesman, but not wealthy. He was a footsoldier. In a culture where most were slaves, he was a citizen, but not a member of the aristocracy (notably contrasting with Plato). His long-suffering wife Xanthippe complained of his failure to provide for the family, and Socrates lived simply.
Socrates as a citizen was likely the third of Athens' four classes: slaves, metics, citizens, nobles. Not destitute, but neither wealthy.
Supporting the odd philosopher poet is the exact function of society, in my opinion.
Some good things come out of having them that do not come out of having another corporate drone.