On Gwydion, the grounds of the House of Philosophers include picnic grounds and a carousel because it is good for philosophers to have contact with children and also because the children might acquire some "'...respect for knowledge...'" (p. 627)
Should there be professional philosophers? If things had gone differently at an earlier stage and also if I had been ambitious in that direction, I would have become a full-time academic philosopher but would that have been a good move in terms of personal development or of anything else? The idea of sitting in an office and discussing not practical matters but conceptual questions strikes me as bizarre. There is too big a social chasm between between manual and intellectual work, as I know from having done both.
I suggest that anyone who thinks that he will want to philosophize should study an introduction to that subject but should also train for some other kind of work and not necessarily just teaching. Philosophical reflection needs to be grounded in practical experience. Any gathering of philosophers needs to include individuals with knowledge of the sciences, industry, social professions, literature etc. A House of Philosophers should be a place where many people go at different times, not an ivory tower for an intellectual elite - what CS Lewis identified as "the intelligentsia."
2 comments:
Socrates was a stonemason...
Kaor, Paul!
I would warn however that very few philosophers were ever effective men of practical affairs as political leaders. I also recall how Flandry mentioned in THE PLAGUE OF MASTERS that the scientific mentality was not well suited for coping with things as messy and chaotic as politics. Which brings me to mentioning that, in both actual history and Stirling's TO TURN THE TIDE, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius was one of the very few philosophers who were also able leaders.
I am very skeptical of Plato's notions about philosopher kings! And politicians who adopt bad philosophies were often catastrophes.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment