Politics, candidates and philosophy

Philosophy is an odd thing. At a basic level it means nothing more than the love of wisdom (philo=love/friendship, soph=wisdom). But it has taken on quite a different meaning, depending on who's using the word. Some strictly define it within specific, pre-defined categories (Existentialism, Humanism, etc.) some expand it further to include a wider array of ideas. In all honesty, I see most of these types as not as much in love with wisdom but in love with the pretense of wisdom that comes from regurgitating other people's thoughts. What they do would more accurately be described as philophilosophy, since it's the love of the love of wisdom, not actually the love of wisdom.

"Political Philosophy" is odder

still. The same philophilosophical nonsense has been applied to various political ideas, attempting to sort and define them within preset parameters, which, more often than not, simply obscure much of what's really believed, taught or expounded by the original sources. Take our current "political spectrum" used by so many. It's long been recognize as intellectually inadequate to explain even the most rudimentary distinctions in political ideology, but it continues to be used. There is no true Left and Right, especially when National Socialists (Nazis) are classified as the extreme right while International Socialists (Communists) are classified are extreme left. (How can the same political ideology be at both extremes?) It continues to be used because it serves the purpose of confusing real, political ideology.

An attempt has been made to turn the two dimensional spectrum into a four dimensional spectrum, which gets us slightly closer to reality as Social Conservatives are distinguished from Economic Conservatives which are distinguished from Libertarians which are distinguished from Liberals, but even that fails to map an accurate assessment of political ideology.

What's happening is that the problem is being approached backward. Rather than attempting to define philosophy based on politics, we should be defining politics based on philosophy, and not "Political Philosophy", but real, actually, personal philosophy. But there's the catch—personal philosophy.

That phrase makes some people fear. They don't like the idea of philosophy being defined on an individual level. What distinguishes us from the animals is our ability to seek meaning in our lives. Toward that end, we naturally dwell on such concepts as: Who am I? Where did the universe come from? Why am I here? Those quickly become religious questions. Therefore, to spoon-feed people a predigested explanation helps avoid that nasty problem of seeking an explanation that may be less than beneficial to some political ideologies. Thus the predefined definitions as well as the opposition to the concept of a personal philosophy. It's ironic in that those that argue the loudest for an individually-created value system (moral relativism) are the first to circumvent just that by force-feeding their own philosophies in taxpayer funded schools, deceiving the individual into thinking the philosophy carefully fed to them, is of their own making.

There are recognizable distinctions in the various, personal philosophies we see in people. Will Durant, author of The Story of Civilization once said, "The greatest question of our time is not communism versus individualism, not Europe versus America, not even the East versus the West; it is whether men can live without God." And there is the most basic of distinctions in personal philosophies—Am I my own, or am I God's?

If one says they are their own, then they must find a way to answer the next most pressing question every human has—then what purpose do I serve?

You can see how from very simple, philosophical concepts, a more complex personal philosophy grows. Each question leads one of two or more ways, leading to the next question, ultimately building a framework that becomes that person's personal philosophy.

It is then from that framework we can more readily comprehend the real political ideology a candidate has, which is not necessarily what they readily admit to.

Do they behave as if man is the measure of things, or that God is the measure of things? Is that really what they believe, or an act to get votes? Is their stand on the issues consistent with the foundational philosophical concepts they espouse and display?

Charles Colson was deeply affected in the years following Watergate by the influence of the Liberal Senator Harold Hughes. While disagreeing politically, Colson was impressed with Hughes' sincerity and motives. Colson remains, politically, a Conservative, although politics is no longer his primary focus. But Hughes' own personal philosophy impacted Colson's. It also defied conventional definitions for "Political Philosophy". Hughes could easily have been lumped in with many politicians, that while also Democrats, were very much different in intent and thinking than Hughes. It is only by approaching the definition of Hughes' political ideology, first through his own personal philosophy, that the true nature of that ideology could be understood and defined.

Pay close attention to the candidates and see if you can tell which are struggling to make American better, and which are struggling to make their own lives better, then you'll know a lot more about what philosophical foundation their ideology is based on.

Posted by Danny Carlton at March 25, 2008 6:40 AM