A paper I wrote from the spring semester. Pretty elementary but I thought I would post anyway.

Why study philosophy? An academic might respond, “for the sake of philosophy itself.” But their voice reaches few and their ideas hardly resonate. Intrinsic value alone can rarely convince one of something’s worth. If I believe studying philosophy has instrumental value -which I do- I must then seek to find the application of studying philosophy in a context which matters to me. My decision in this essay to focus on applying philosophy towards contemporary politics is partly due to the ongoing American presidential election cycle and the general disaffection of the current candidates. But aside from the 2024 Republican and Democratic presumptive nominees, our processes have other problems. We discourage careful deliberation and critical thinking in favor of ideological certainty. No time is left for doubting one’s convictions because all energy must be devoted toward securing their fruition. There is little room for philosophy, the act of rationally analyzing and criticizing our beliefs about why we act the way we do.

My aim is to enquire into the role of philosophy in contemporary politics, specifically democracies. I do not wish to expound on the virtues of philosophy in the context of authoritarianism, communism, anarchism and so on. And this is not a political philosophy essay because I’m not engaging deeply with any philosophical strand or theory. I contemplate four different reasons for why studying philosophy might be able improve our political climate. Then I briefly consider the example of Kamala Harris, Vice President on the 2024 Democratic ticket.

One possible reason for studying philosophy is that it can enable individuals to argue their positions more effectively. This rationale is aligned with sophist teachers of ancient Greece who emphasized argumentative skills to persuade others of their beliefs. Their logic assumes that the more convincing one is, the more capable they are of advancing the interests of society. Yet this isn’t always the case. Protagoras proclaimed that he could teach pupils to “make the weaker argument the stronger” by skillfully constructing language to one’s advantage. Argumentative skills can be wielded to advance the interests of bad actors just as easily as good ones. Teaching how weaker logic can win the day is obstructive in the pursuit of bettering contemporary politics, so this cannot be a suitable reason for studying philosophy.

A second logic for involving philosophy in politics posits that philosophy can bring objectivity about what is real and actual to an otherwise muddy and unclear world. In this sense, studying philosophy provides an avenue to exit the genre of opinion and enter the domain of real knowledge. Plato, in agreement, postulates that only philosophers are qualified to govern because only they have knowledge concerning the absolute truth of reality. Such perspectives assume that philosophers will use their knowledge of the absolute for the good of society, but it also presupposes that an absolute truth exists. This presupposition is problematic because our modern conception of philosophers includes many who do not believe in the existence of an objective truth. Indeed, the entire sub-genre of post-modernism is dedicated to disproving the idea that an objective truth exists and that we can know anything with certainty. As the current domain of philosophy includes believers and non-believers of objective truth, studying philosophy does not guarantee dispelling subjective dispositions- perhaps the opposite. Accordingly, studying philosophy as a grounds for objectivity cannot be why we incorporate philosophy in contemporary politics.

A third argument proposes that studying philosophy can provide an ethical framework in politics for how we should or should not act. Perhaps the strongest argument thus far, the purpose of philosophy is conceived here as the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of the good. The entire branch of moral philosophy is the attempt to discover what is right and wrong. This practice seems like a perfectly fine use for improving contemporary politics, but there are problems here too. Different ethical schools of thought reach different conclusions about what’s right and wrong, at times diametrically opposed. Consequentialists care about consequences, deontologists care about motives, and virtue ethicists care about character. There is no clear consensus among these perspectives, in society or academia. To complicate things further, some philosophers like Nietzche believe that ethics do not exist in the first place. What one person sees as noble; another might find despicable. A discipline encompassing such a wide range of perspectives on how one ought to act is not able to ensure that what one learns will improve anything, let alone politics. Introducing morality to politics, then, is not a sufficient cause for why one should study philosophy.

The final -and enduring- instrument of studying philosophy is one gaining a learned hesitancy about expressing certainty over their beliefs. The work of studying philosophy is repeatedly questioning prior beliefs and reassessing ideas that are not compatible with new information. This process fosters humility in our convictions because they are constantly being revised. A sincere student of philosophy cannot be certain about their beliefs because there is always the possibility of new information being uncovered, or a stronger argument being made. Even if one is supremely confident in their positions, they would still grant the possibility of being incorrect. This humility is the lasting virtue of studying philosophy in contemporary politics; it makes individuals more amicable to changing their mind.

Undoubtedly, most notable philosophers themselves are not a humble bunch. They make huge claims and attempt to forge social movements. Karl Marx is a paradigmatic example of this, saying “philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” Seeking to make an imprint on the world is okay, but –for democracies- it must be done within the parameters of democratic norms. Here lies an important distinction between the hubris of great philosophers and humility of studying philosophy. Studying philosophy increases the space for the coexistence of differing perspectives, making ideas more dynamic when confronted with new information. In this sense, our current leaders are not students of philosophy. This is likely due to the types of behavior our political ecosystem rewards and punishes.

In one moment while giving a speech at the White House, Kamala Harris quotes her mother. “I don’t know what’s wrong with you young people. You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you.” A harmless remark, likely even useful to getting her point across, but the opposition pounced. The clip went viral across social media platforms as an example of Harris being out of touch with regular Americans and babbling on about epistemology. Overnight she became a meme.

Why was our society aversive to what she said? Harris is a black woman who likely faces sexism and racism daily, which clearly plays a role. But separately, her words created an awkwardness that elicited a nervous laughter from viewers. We do not like to be confronted with our reality, and this is the essence of philosophy. When Kamala Harris quoted her mother, listeners were forced to reckon with their place in the universe and their underlying fragility. The internet used humor as a defense mechanism. Republican pundits tagged her as moronic and superfluous, not giving a second to consider her actual idea. Harris made an attempt at philosophizing and was immediately crushed by all sides.

In the scheme of things, Kamala Harris and her viral quote are largely insignificant. I use it to point to the larger trend of America’s political climate which has entirely discarded the use of studying philosophy. Our leaders are now a dogmatic bunch, a far cry from the dynamism of our founding fathers’ generations ago. We have exchanged the humility of studying philosophy for the hubris of being great philosophers, yet none of us are the next Kant or Aristotle. Deliberation has given way to talking points. Benevolence has been exchanged with virtue signaling. Critical analysis has been exchanged with performative activism. There is a vacuum of humility in our political arena which needs to be replenished; this is a lasting use for studying philosophy.