Noocracy

Page 1 of 1 [ 15 posts ]

Joined: 29 Jan 2015
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 771

02 Oct 2015, 4:07 pm

Noocracy is the "rule of the wise". Imagine philosophers being voted into parliament/congress. Do you think it will work? Or do you think that philosophers could be too amoral or indecisive?

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,890
Location: Stendec

02 Oct 2015, 7:20 pm

There's an old joke that goes something like ...

Quote:

Q: Why wouldn't Jesus be born today?

A: Because it's impossible these days to find three wise men and a virgin.

All kidding aside, why would a truly wise person want to rule?

Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

02 Oct 2015, 7:25 pm

Aniihya wrote:

Noocracy is the "rule of the wise". Imagine philosophers being voted into parliament/congress. Do you think it will work? Or do you think that philosophers could be too amoral or indecisive?

Look up Plato's "philosopher king" and then read all the nasty comments made about the philosophy and you'll understand why it will never take hold-- the masses don't like smart people in control, it makes them feel inferior.

Fnord wrote:

All kidding aside, why would a truly wise person want to rule?

Again, a Plato quote, albeit paraphrased because I can't remember it exactly: "The wise man avoids politics and is punished for it."

edit: addressed Fnord's comment.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,890
Location: Stendec

02 Oct 2015, 7:31 pm

Aristophanes wrote:

Aniihya wrote:

Noocracy is the "rule of the wise". Imagine philosophers being voted into parliament/congress. Do you think it will work? Or do you think that philosophers could be too amoral or indecisive?

It seems that people want popular people in charge. Not necessarily people who know how to lead, but people who know how to pander to the masses.

Aniihya
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 29 Jan 2015
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 771

02 Oct 2015, 7:32 pm

Well in European governments you often have technocrats. Most of the parliaments are made up of people who have master's degrees or doctorates. So I do not see the wise being to far off in a position that many "smart" or supposedly "knowledgable" people are in.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

02 Oct 2015, 7:40 pm

Not to insult Dwight Eisenhower--because he was a good man.

But had we valued brains over everything else, Adlai Stevenson would have been president instead of Eisenhower.

In general, people of a philosophical bent (if they are not dogmatic) tend to consider many sides to an argument, and to have a relatively objective assessment of a situation.

People in power tend to be more decisive because they don't consider "all sides" as much. They frequently believe they have the answer before the "consideration."

Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

02 Oct 2015, 7:42 pm

Aniihya wrote:

A degree, even a doctorate, does not make one smart or even knowledgeable-- it's merely a paper that says you've jumped through institutional hoops. Granted the majority of people with those degrees are smart people, but not all of them.

Fnord wrote:

It seems that people want popular people in charge. Not necessarily people who know how to lead, but people who know how to pander to the masses.

No arguments from me on that front, I agree wholeheartedly.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,147
Location: temperate zone

02 Oct 2015, 8:47 pm

Someone like Morely Safer, said on a TV piece about the presidency that "America has never had a 'philosopher king'". I disagree. We had atleast one conspicuous 'philosopher king' -that being Thomas Jefferson. Laying out most of the philosophical foundation of American democracy (Jefferson is secular "American scripture" in the words of Gore Vidal) qualifies you as being a "philosopher" IMHO. And he did serve as chief executive at one point. Trouble was that he was far more outstanding as philosopher than he was as a 'king'. He was a mediocre president at best.

Being brainy doesnt necessarily make you a good leader, or a good chief executive.

Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

02 Oct 2015, 9:11 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

I've never viewed Jefferson as an intellect-- I had to read portions of his correspondence with Madison in college and Madison was a heavy weight thinker, Jefferson was a reactionary with a silver tongue but not near as bright as he's made out to be. Our smartest president was probably Wilson, but again he's a mixed bag. Smart people will never do well in democratic institutions, there's too much backlash to logical solutions. Both those presidents weren't necessarily bad but were fairly hamstrung by lack of large popular support.

Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

03 Oct 2015, 6:04 am

Fnord wrote:

There's an old joke that goes something like ...

Quote:

Q: Why wouldn't Jesus be born today?

A: Because it's impossible these days to find three wise men and a virgin.

All kidding aside, why would a truly wise person want to rule?

Douglas Adams' take on this, while humorous, probably has more than a little truth to it; anyone with desire to govern others should probably be seen as unfit to do so.

_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

03 Oct 2015, 9:39 am

I would say Madison was the type to make many things into account when formulating a theory. He wanted to "prove" something before he believed in it.

Jefferson was the type that had a impulsive notion, stuck to it, then set out to prove it through argument.

Madison was much more sensible in many ways than Jefferson.

Jefferson was much more of an aesthete--and had the debt to prove it.

Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

03 Oct 2015, 9:50 am

kraftiekortie wrote:

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

03 Oct 2015, 10:10 am

Wolfram87 wrote:

Douglas Adams' take on this, while humorous, probably has more than a little truth to it; anyone with desire to govern others should probably be seen as unfit to do so.

Adams used the term rule, not govern. Big difference.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

03 Oct 2015, 10:19 am

I tend to view "govern" in a more positive light than "rule."

To "govern" involves using virtue; to "rule" involves using brute force.

Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

03 Oct 2015, 10:40 am

Humanaut wrote:

Wolfram87 wrote:

Douglas Adams' take on this, while humorous, probably has more than a little truth to it; anyone with desire to govern others should probably be seen as unfit to do so.

Adams used the term rule, not govern. Big difference.

My bad, thank you.

_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.

Page 1 of 1 [ 15 posts ]

Jump to:

Noocracy Post Reply New Topic

Noocracy