I'm currently reading Hume's treatise and I'd probably write a commentary on it soon, but for now, since I'm late with my due date, I'll talk about something else.
A few weeks ago, school of life published a video called 'why Socrates hated democracies'.
In short, it's because the common folk are more prone to rhetoric. So, we should give the torch to philosophers.
The video started a train of thoughts ending with today's subject.
A friend of mine who watched it, stated that we don't encounter this problem today thanks to the education system, which teaches us to find logical fallacies in arguments.
Well... While it would have been easier showing a video of a US presidential debate and knock off to lunch, we are more professional. He is right, people today are more aware of logics and construction of arguments. So how come the two US candidates mostly based their campaigns on cat callings and ad hominem?
My first explanation comes from medicine. Like viruses, as our immune system for bullshit gets better, the politicians become more elusive layers. The best example would be John Oliver.
True, he's not lying, but he's aware and stated himself that a lot of his arguments are based on rhetorics and humor, rather then sound logic.
Yet time and time I got links to his videos as amazing evidence against trump.
Second reason would be that an argument doesn't have to be and usually isn't logically false in order to be messed up.
I'll shoot a complete video on it when my copy of philosophical investigations come. but for now I'll just reference Thomas Kuhn. Newtonian Physics weren't wrong because of logical fallacies, but because they didn't explain the current problems. The architecture of paradigms usually isn't the problem, rather it's relation to reality itself.
So philosophers are irrelevant here.
And besides, since when do we rely on philosophers when dealing with such subjects?
Samsung's manager is no philosopher, rather an expert of big human systems, a craftsman if you will.
The problem still holds obviously. Common men are terrible at picking a manager of the state.
This usually results a big dissatisfaction from the presidents, no matter who he is.
This is the thing: I'm more satisfied with the phone I buy then the vote I cast.
If I had to establish a team to build my phone, he'll turn out crappy. I have no idea how phones work, but I know which phone I like.
We measure things by performance indicators we know, and we are able to do so only if we find a correlation between the indicator and the performance of our decision. A manager with experience knows better the indicators of quality of employees, as I know from my experience which indicators correlate with a quality phone for me.
I don't know how to chose a president who'll create a better product, state.
A system in which professionals with experience rule, is called a technocracy.
Democracy supporters would quickly say that this escalates to an hegemonic class, serving it's own interest.
This is where the capitalist comes into the picture.
In some ways, free market is one of the greatest expressions of democracy. We decide which company lives and what it will produce by our consumption. Sure, the more money we have the more we can consume and so not every voice is equal, but mcdonald proves that the number of buyers may be more important then the amount of money they invest.
Eventually, the industrial craftsman is chosen only by the product of his hands and not the beauty of his words.
Let's imagine that the best craftsmen of the health, education, security industries, who rose to power by the consumption power of the mass, chose the best of the best to serve the country.
As before, this is a mere thought, not a factional claim. but... it's pretty interesting to think about.
Let me know your opinion.
A few weeks ago, school of life published a video called 'why Socrates hated democracies'.
In short, it's because the common folk are more prone to rhetoric. So, we should give the torch to philosophers.
The video started a train of thoughts ending with today's subject.
A friend of mine who watched it, stated that we don't encounter this problem today thanks to the education system, which teaches us to find logical fallacies in arguments.
Well... While it would have been easier showing a video of a US presidential debate and knock off to lunch, we are more professional. He is right, people today are more aware of logics and construction of arguments. So how come the two US candidates mostly based their campaigns on cat callings and ad hominem?
My first explanation comes from medicine. Like viruses, as our immune system for bullshit gets better, the politicians become more elusive layers. The best example would be John Oliver.
True, he's not lying, but he's aware and stated himself that a lot of his arguments are based on rhetorics and humor, rather then sound logic.
Yet time and time I got links to his videos as amazing evidence against trump.
Second reason would be that an argument doesn't have to be and usually isn't logically false in order to be messed up.
I'll shoot a complete video on it when my copy of philosophical investigations come. but for now I'll just reference Thomas Kuhn. Newtonian Physics weren't wrong because of logical fallacies, but because they didn't explain the current problems. The architecture of paradigms usually isn't the problem, rather it's relation to reality itself.
So philosophers are irrelevant here.
And besides, since when do we rely on philosophers when dealing with such subjects?
Samsung's manager is no philosopher, rather an expert of big human systems, a craftsman if you will.
The problem still holds obviously. Common men are terrible at picking a manager of the state.
This usually results a big dissatisfaction from the presidents, no matter who he is.
This is the thing: I'm more satisfied with the phone I buy then the vote I cast.
If I had to establish a team to build my phone, he'll turn out crappy. I have no idea how phones work, but I know which phone I like.
We measure things by performance indicators we know, and we are able to do so only if we find a correlation between the indicator and the performance of our decision. A manager with experience knows better the indicators of quality of employees, as I know from my experience which indicators correlate with a quality phone for me.
I don't know how to chose a president who'll create a better product, state.
A system in which professionals with experience rule, is called a technocracy.
Democracy supporters would quickly say that this escalates to an hegemonic class, serving it's own interest.
This is where the capitalist comes into the picture.
In some ways, free market is one of the greatest expressions of democracy. We decide which company lives and what it will produce by our consumption. Sure, the more money we have the more we can consume and so not every voice is equal, but mcdonald proves that the number of buyers may be more important then the amount of money they invest.
Eventually, the industrial craftsman is chosen only by the product of his hands and not the beauty of his words.
Let's imagine that the best craftsmen of the health, education, security industries, who rose to power by the consumption power of the mass, chose the best of the best to serve the country.
As before, this is a mere thought, not a factional claim. but... it's pretty interesting to think about.
Let me know your opinion.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה