Is Knowing the Truth Enough?

[Systematic]

Most of the people have no respect for what is wise and true. They don't think critically, and neither do they listen to those who do. Plato was the first to introduce the ideal of the philosopher king.
The philosophers will likely reject the idea due to the notion that no one should have absolute power. My rebuttal is based on a worse situation—the blind leadership with which we are saddled. This leadership is mostly based on the notion that those who are lucky enough to have made vast amounts of money somehow are always right. Mankind has found a way to overcome its own namesake—homo sapiens (i.e. wise man). Perhaps we should now be called homo obedens (i.e. obedient man). It would reflect the apparent apathy in the face of indoctrination and lack of good ideas from our leaders.

[Jaded Sage]

Yeah, we're more of an oligarchy than a democracy.

[Dalek Prime]

It's not our leaders. It's the money behind them. The unelected money. We are in the same relative position today, as we were in the Gilded Age. And yes, it is an oligarchy, though not as brutal right now as the oligarchs in Russia.

These people need you and I to be convinced that there is no alternative to the status quo. They also need us convinced on present day property rights, that they may keep the lions share of our resources for themselves.

[Dubious]

Our 'leaders' are nothing more than misfits who are only in it for themselves regardless of any country though some are worse than others. They are the scions of the whole caste of blue bloods that ruled throughout most of history. As the new elite they enrich themselves endlessly whenever they get into a position of power. One of the main differences between the old and new versions of elitism is that in the latter they operate behind those monolithic institutions which seem to be benign but function as virtual fortresses protecting them from the consequences of their own stupidity, greed and corruption as long as 'corruption' doesn't become overtly criminal and obvious to the public. The 'crime' is not in the act but in being discovered. Why is the world as screwed up as it is? When the truth is ugly, simply knowing it is not enough if it's allowed to continue or worse, escalating.

[Jaded Sage]

Until the kings become philosophers, or philosophers become the kings...

[Impenitent]

if you know the game, play it

-Imp

[Arising_uk]

Fair point but if the game is inheritance? Hard to play that one.

[Impenitent]

Fair point but if the game is inheritance? Hard to play that one.

not if you are a probate lawyer

-Imp

[Dalek Prime]

Woof! Double post!

[Dalek Prime]

Fair point but if the game is inheritance? Hard to play that one.

not if you are a probate lawyer

-Imp

Hence all the billionaire oligarch probate lawyers, yeah?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Our 'leaders' are nothing more than misfits who are only in it for themselves regardless of any country though some are worse than others. They are the scions of the whole caste of blue bloods that ruled throughout most of history. As the new elite they enrich themselves endlessly whenever they get into a position of power. One of the main differences between the old and new versions of elitism is that in the latter they operate behind those monolithic institutions which seem to be benign but function as virtual fortresses protecting them from the consequences of their own stupidity, greed and corruption as long as 'corruption' doesn't become overtly criminal and obvious to the public. The 'crime' is not in the act but in being discovered. Why is the world as screwed up as it is? When the truth is ugly, simply knowing it is not enough if it's allowed to continue or worse, escalating.

If we had up-thumbs I would give this one.

[HexHammer]

Most of the people have no respect for what is wise and true. They don't think critically, and neither do they listen to those who do. Plato was the first to introduce the ideal of the philosopher king.
The philosophers will likely reject the idea due to the notion that no one should have absolute power. My rebuttal is based on a worse situation—the blind leadership with which we are saddled. This leadership is mostly based on the notion that those who are lucky enough to have made vast amounts of money somehow are always right. Mankind has found a way to overcome its own namesake—homo sapiens (i.e. wise man). Perhaps we should now be called homo obedens (i.e. obedient man). It would reflect the apparent apathy in the face of indoctrination and lack of good ideas from our leaders.

You don't have any idea what you are talking about, could you give some real life examples of your complaints?

So, if you actually knew what you are talking about, then you would know some people can only do parrot speeches, like "rain men" they have a vast knowledge, but no idea how to use it. You'll see people with limited knowledge make very smart and wise desitions, because they'r intelligent which "rain men" are not, because "rain men" has "computer intelligence", they can't think abstract and hollisticly.

[Nick_A]

Systematic wrote:

Perhaps we should now be called homo obedens (i.e. obedient man). It would reflect the apparent apathy in the face of indoctrination and lack of good ideas from our leaders.

Why blame our leaders? Maybe what you see in the world is the result of the human condition: what we ARE.

Simone Weil wrote:

The Great Beast is introduced in Book VI of The Republic. It represents the prejudices and passions of the masses. To please the Great Beast you call what it delights in Good, and what it dislikes Evil. In America this is called politics.

In Purity of Heart, Kierkegaard also speaks very negatively about "the crowd." And offers some ideas about how to respond:

In so far as the good man is clever, he knows, how in the very face of truth the world wishes to have the Good made agreeable, how the crowd desires to be won--the much feared crowd, who "desire that the teacher shall tremble before his hearers and flatter them." He knows all about this--in order not to follow it, but rather by the very opposite conduct to keep as free as possible of these deceptions, that he himself may not adopt any illicit way of deriving some advantage from the Good (earning money, distinction, and admiration) and so that he may deceive no one...

Whenever possible he will prefer to withdraw the Good from contact with the crowd. He will seek to split the crowd up in order to get hold of the individual or to get each by himself. He will be reminded of what that simple old sage remarked in ancient times, "When they meet together, and the world sets down at assembly, or in a court of law, or a theater, or a camp, or any other popular resort, and there is a great uproar and they praise some things as being said or done, and blame other things, equally exaggerating both, shouting and clapping their hands, and the echo of the rocks and the place in which they are assembled redoubles the sound of praise or blame--at such times will not a young man's heart, as they say, leap within him?"... The same persons, who singly, as solitary individuals are able to will the Good, are immediately seduced as soon as they associate themselves and become a crowd. On that account the good man will neither seek to secure the assistance of a crowd in order to split up the crowd, nor will he seek to have a crowd back of him, during the time that he breaks up the crowd in front of him.

But just how a good man will make use of cleverness in the outer world does not permit of being more precisely specified in general terms, for that which is necesary can be totally different with respect to each time and to the circumstances of each time. [For example,] that stern prophet who went out into the desert and lived on locusts knew how, in relation to his contemporaries, he ought to express this decisively: that it is not the truth that is in need of men, but men who are in need of the truth. Hence they must come to him, come out into the desert.

it is not the truth that is in need of men, but men who are in need of the truth.

The Great Beast doesn't want truth. It wants justification for its dominant imagination. Leaders are eager to offer this in exchange for power. Only a rare few are dedicated to the conscious experience of truth. So what you see is the result of the dominance of imagination.

Imagination and fiction make up more than three quarters of our real life.

Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it. - Simone Weil

So what you see is what you get and leaders will help you to get it. Just keep playing with your remote and everything will be fine.

[Arising_uk]

Most of the people have no respect for what is wise and true. They don't think critically, and neither do they listen to those who do. Plato was the first to introduce the ideal of the philosopher king. The philosophers will likely reject the idea due to the notion that no one should have absolute power. My rebuttal is based on a worse situation—the blind leadership with which we are saddled. This leadership is mostly based on the notion that those who are lucky enough to have made vast amounts of money somehow are always right. Mankind has found a way to overcome its own namesake—homo sapiens (i.e. wise man). Perhaps we should now be called homo obedens (i.e. obedient man). It would reflect the apparent apathy in the face of indoctrination and lack of good ideas from our leaders.

Will you be okay living in such a system where you are not the 'philosopher king'?

[Systematic]

Most of the people have no respect for what is wise and true. They don't think critically, and neither do they listen to those who do. Plato was the first to introduce the ideal of the philosopher king. The philosophers will likely reject the idea due to the notion that no one should have absolute power. My rebuttal is based on a worse situation—the blind leadership with which we are saddled. This leadership is mostly based on the notion that those who are lucky enough to have made vast amounts of money somehow are always right. Mankind has found a way to overcome its own namesake—homo sapiens (i.e. wise man). Perhaps we should now be called homo obedens (i.e. obedient man). It would reflect the apparent apathy in the face of indoctrination and lack of good ideas from our leaders.

Will you be okay living in such a system where you are not the 'philosopher king'?

Good question. But the way the world is set up now, it seems that we have a king already: the masses. And they seem to be more interested in the choices displayed before them than in what is wisest or even what is in their own best interest.