Philosophy Now Forum

Alan Malachowski tries to unravel the philosophical mistakes which led to America’s recent boardroom catastrophes.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/39/Corporate_Crises_A_Philosophical_Challenge

Alan Malachowski writes that philosophers in general have not been very good about business or understanding it. And he is right.

Part of the problem, as he suggested, is the analytical nature of philosophy practiced today. It is niche orientated. Philosophers are too specialized in their thinking (which is not always a bad thing) and have a problem seeing the larger picture, which the world of business tends to be. For instance, it's amazing how the profession doesn't understand globalization or the nature of the financial crisis of 2008 and what led to it. They just point to greed, which is far too simple an explanation.

I wonder how many philosophers have read Peter Drucker, the quintessential guru of business management. Philosophers probably avoid reading him because they think they will be polluted by his thoughts and thus wouldn't remain anti-business as they pride themselves to be.

However, philosophy and business have something in common. They both have a speculative nature.

Alan Malachowski writes a follow-up article in issue 41, "Corporate Crises Revisited". It's "on readers’ responses to his recent article about philosophical mistakes that lead to boardroom disasters.": http://philosophynow.org/issues/41/ ... _Revisited

Malachowski doesn't make clear the philosophical mistakes that led to boardroom disasters (and what boardroom disasters) other than the mistake philosophers make in remaining Platonic thinkers. He gives the impression that philosophers can have an influence in boardroom decisions. Maybe they can. But he also argues that philosophy departments in academia are failing to turn out business minded philosophers, to the detriment of those departments.

On reading this follow-up article I was reminded of John Ralston Saul's book "Voltaire's Bastards". In the article Malachowski is taking issue with the opposite, Plato's Bastards, of which Ralston Saul is one. Plato and his bastard thinkers are idealists. Malachowski is saying that it is the idealistic thinking of many philosophers that has hindered their understanding of the business and corporate world. He is suggesting that they shed their idealistic thinking about how the world ought to be and think more about how it is.

As Malachowski suggests philosophers should think more like Voltaire and less like Plato. Voltaire seemed to understand better the ultimate nature of things. like it's a postmodern world, not a black and white one like Platonians seem to think.

This, by the way, Articles in Philosophy Now, is the only worthwhile category on this forum.

You have a strange view of philosophers.

The reason why you don't hear the academic philosophers upon 'business'(whatever this is supposed to mean?) is that most agreed with Marx's analysis that its about maximising profits and value comes from labour and were considered dangerous radical left-wing political philosophers, as such they have pretty much been exterminated from academic philosophy departments, in fact philosophy departments have pretty much been exterminated, as their thoughts about capitalism and globalization were not wanted by those who fund such institutions.

Funny and ironic that they are now being proved true about where the value of money and wealth creation actually comes from.

This is exactly what is being talked about, about many philosophers only and just following what they think and understand about business and corporations rather than digging deeper. With a number of philosophers, in regard to business, it is thinking about them and us, which is wrong.

One thing that many philosophers, especially Platonic philosophers, don't understand is that if it wasn't it wasn't for the business world there wouldn't be much of a world to philosophize about. There would be no intellectual or art world without a business world first. The business, economic world has supplied philosophers with the grist to chew on. Without that world we would not have the human interaction or engagement on which to build and support our morals and values. Marxism and communism proved a failure because they deprived humanity of such human interaction and engagement.

Civilization abhors isolation and complacency. If we didn't have a business world to agitate and stimulate things civilization would surely die of both, as the Marxist/Communist civilization did.

Are you claiming that communist societies do not have a "business world"?

How do you define "business world" anyway?

Philosophical thought thrived amongst the Soviets, they just couldn't print it.

Do you think the Greeks had 'business' in the sense I think you mean? As they pretty much wrote the book upon philosophy.

Philosophers have long understood that philosophy needs leisure to thrive, as did the sciences and pretty much all abstract thought.

What do you mean by "business" in your posts?

No idea who you refer to when you say "Platonic philosophers", what do you mean by this?

No, with a number of philosophers its that they think this is the business of the political economists. If they wish to have their ideas examined from an ethical philosophical viewpoint I'm sure the philosophers will oblige. In fact when I do a quick goggle I see a myriad of courses and papers upon business ethics and applied ethics with respect to business. The thing is that business and economics is essentially political philosophy and the last time a philosopher took a serious look, no-one liked the results. Go figure!

Business, as commonly understood, is a financial or commercial transaction done between people open and freely, the overriding philosophy being open and freely.

At its roots economics is not political philosophy.

Are you claiming that "business" was not done in communist regimes then?

By definition that is true. Business was not conducted freely and openly in communism. Business and economics under communism was essentially a cloak and dagger operation.

If economics is essentially political philosophy then you end up with a state like Greece where the government and the people treated economics like a political football. Politicians gave people what they wanted just to get elected without acknowledging the consequences. People took it freely, as though money grew on trees. The whole thing was akin to smoke and mirrors like politics tends to be. If economics is essentially treated that way the hall of mirrors eventually comes crashing down, like happened to Greece.

Economics is more akin to moral philosophy, as it started with Adam Smith late in the 18th century.

I'm trying to get to the heart of your earlier statements, namely:



If you don't think communist countries had a "business world" then your statements seem evidently false because those countries had intellectuals and artists. If you've defined "business world" in such a general way to more or less mean any society where people transact then it's so all encompassing that it is rendered meaningless.

It also seems that you're claiming that morality is derived from the way business is done rather than the way business is done is dependent on our morals.

We are all given morals at birth as to how we should conduct and behave ourselves. But those moral are theory and generally meaningless if one doesn't act them out or put them into practice. Business activity, of the open and free kind, has been one of the best ways to give meaning and entrench those morals.

Under communism morals like trust thy neighbor, fair exchange and the Gold Rule were never properly learnt, if at all, because people couldn't be open and free with each other. Instead they learned to mistrust one another. Mistrusting one's community is no way to develop and progress.

The Business that was done under communism was state controlled. So were the arts. The arts were not an individual enterprise as they were in the West. Under communism there was a kind of artificial, non-reality about the arts. In comparison, look how robust the art scene was in the West.

I think you've developed a fantasy vision of the West where everyone trusts everyone else.

You also have a highly chauvinistic view of the world if you're prepared to dismiss all art created under communist regimes. If you want to adjust your claim to say that the arts flourish in a liberal system but otherwise suffer then you could make a case. If you stick to your all or nothing argument it's easy to provide contrary examples and shoot it down.