Rob Carr wrote: ↑November 12th, 2023, 5:06 am For me my first point is on page 12 "This is not a political book."
Philosophy is inherently political. We all have inbuilt political biases that influence our principles. If we genuinely want to reach across political divides to unite behind a common aim we cannot ignore the natural biases that sit beneath our thoughts. If we ignore them and simply try to focus on higher principles we will unintentionally reflect our personal biases in the principles we espouse. This makes it harder to achieve unanimity.
While I don't agree (at least not yet), I am very intrigued by the claim that "philosophy is inherently political".
So I ask all readers of these forums, what do you think? Is philosophy inherently political?
Is it possible for a book, even just one book in the entire world, to be both philosophical and non-political, or is it true that it's completely 100% impossible for a philosophical book to not also be political?
What if the philosophy book was written by a non-human alien living alone another planet all by himself who never interacted with another person ever? Perhaps that alien lives, writes his book, and dies all before we stumble upon his book. Is the book political? Necessarily so?
With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.