Do philosophers have something unique to offer in response to, or during the presidency of, Donald Trump?
Trump’s election to the highest office of our country has taken me by surprise. It isn’t that I doubted that this was a real possibility. It isn’t that I was complacent and unafraid, though surely I could have done more. It isn’t that I failed to see the serious flaws in the Democratic candidate, the risks involved in her nomination. But deep down, I guess I believed we would do the right thing. But we did not. And I can see on the horizon possibilities that range from dreadful to apocalyptic.
I have been thinking of what I might be able to do as a philosopher, to be more of a part of positive change. The question may seem absurd, on its face. What do the abstruse discussions of philosophers have to do with our current crises of race, class, culture, politics, economics, environmental disaster, social disorder? But the things that we, of all the disciplines, focus on most centrally, are precisely the tools that are most needed at present: critical thinking and inquiry into values.
“Critical thinking” of course has been co-opted into the meaningless jargon of academic managerialism; nary a set of course objectives is drafted without critical thinking in the mix. But in philosophy, there is something we practice that deserves the name of “critical thinking,” a relentless critical interrogation of premises, beliefs, practices, institutions, modes of reasoning and arguing, even ways of doing philosophy itself. Of course, every discourse and inquiry has its limits, but this kind of criticism is a core regulative ideal of philosophy. The counsel here is not denialism but anti-dogmatism, not heterodoxy for heterodoxy’s sake, but heterodoxy for the sake of understanding and truth. Learning the difference is an important part of philosophical education.
“Critical thinking” is thus not the apolitical, marketable skill that we tend to sell it as. Republicans know this, and in places like Texas, they make removal of “critical thinking” from the curriculum part of their platform. Critical thinking is an acid, a solvent that washes away habit, complacency, dogmatism, and unearned authority. Critical thinking is politically dangerous, especially for the reactionary and the exploitative. How would this election have been different if prejudice, lies, bullshit, and narrow thinking had been regularly critically assessed by the media, public figures, and voters?
Philosophy is also, I would argue, the only discipline that takes values seriously as an object of inquiry. Many areas in the psychological and social sciences study beliefs about and uses of values. Literature and the arts often express values, and the study of those expressions also adds something important to our understanding of human and cultural values. But philosophy evaluates values, wrestles with conflicts of values, argues about difficult questions of values. I happen to think we don’t do it as well as we should, most of us, because of some bad trends in methodology and metaphilosophy. But at least we do it, and in some cases we do it pretty well. Our politics is in a crisis of values, and we our experience, knowledge, and skills here are much needed.
Our public sphere today seems values-phobic. We do not debate values, or talk about how to make compromises about them. We treat them as signs of team membership: I’m on team Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, team Marriage Equality or Traditional Marriage, etc. Hillary Clinton, who in the final debate gave the most straightforward and passionate defense of abortion rights of any major political candidate in history, did not make use of any of the sophisticated arguments philosophers have made in defense of abortions, arguments that undercut mistaken premises and seek common ground with the basic values of anti-abortion arguments. Often, we fight proxy wars over supposed scientific uncertainty, when the real issue is about values.
We have skills, knowledge, and experience that offer something valuable to society. We need not only to say so, but to find ways through teaching, research, and especially public engagement to really do it. In future posts, I hope to talk about two of my philosophical heroes who have really made such contributions, and to talk about, specifically, philosophers of science should do in the time of Trump.
For more on what philosophers have to say about Donald Trump and the 2016 Election, I recommend these remarks at the Daily Nous.
This is raw speculation but sometimes I feel that one of the biggest problems in the country right now is a lack of philosophy amongst the elite and business leaders. If you went back to the enlightenment you’d see that those at the top were usually guided by a pretty strict code of ethics, something that I think many on the top today have thrown away in trade for a more hedonistic lifestyle. I think that this is draining our society and that philosophers have a job to do in that they need to instill a greater sense of responsibility in those who run the show.
I personally don’t agree with the representative democracy system and am drawn towards direct democracy and anarcho syndicalism but feel that if we want to make our current system work we can’t have a bunch of selfish assholes milking us dry. on that note I think that critical theory is immensely important in showing the people that there are better ways of doing things. Books like deschooling society and one dimensional man have empowered me in ways that no news organization or Facebook post ever could.
I feel though that philosophy is more important now than ever before and that if there is any new world order or all encompassing conspiracy theory going on it’s to keep philosophy relegated to academia rather than being heard by the public.
-James Roderer
PS excuse my grammar and spelling I’m sure I could of done a better job there
Thanks for the comments Alex! I have a little more hope for representative democracy, though that hope is becoming all the more abstract all the time. Hope all is well with you
The scariest part of all this though is that Donald Trump lacks even the most basic knowledge of philosophy and ethics. He’s been quoted saying he doesn’t like reading books and would prefer to watch TV…this is very scary because even bush and Regan were varacious readers. I’m inclined to believe that Trump doesn’t even know who John Locke is or how he coined the “pursuit of happiness” phrase, something that almost any high school student knows. I’m very nervous because this means he doesn’t have the understanding needed to respect our basic rights as we’ve already started to see. He also grew up during the heat of the cold war and red feaver so I’d imagine he believes in Nixon’s early years in California and all the McCarthy stuff and FBI overreach that characterized that era and left us with many of the problems we face today. I’m super super nervous but also excited because I think people are going to be forced to either bend over and take it or rise up and change the system once and for all. Given how smart most millennials are I’d imagine it’s going to be the latter over the former.