William Brafford over at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen remarks that “if you advocate for a political philosophy, taking responsibility means that you ask yourself: ‘what does it look like when this philosophy goes wrong?”’ I’d add that responsibility for one’s political philosophy also means recognizing that it was constructed by people in history and in response to particular political events and problems.
Political philosophers, like all philosophers, are distinguishable by not only the answers they give, but the questions they ask. As much as they responded to each other, Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine, for example, were exploring different questions and responding to different issues; they were not just giving their own answers to the same timeless questions or the unique questions of the age.
No political philosophy is the True Political Philosophy. None can be applied in all times, places, and circumstances. Even the best possible political philosophy will fail in its application. Even if pure, committed adherents to it get exactly what they want and the philosophy “goes right,” the philosophy will fall short, will exclude, will reach its limits, and will in some ways fail.
Responsibility here means taking responsibility — appropriately responding to — the limitations and consequences of one’s philosophy. Irresponsibility, then, means acting as though one’s political philosophy, if only applied rightly and by the right people, would be free of failure, limitations, or negative consequences.
I almost want to argue that political philosophy is something you do, not something you believe. This writer seems to conflate philosophy with ideology. Political philosophy seeks true knowledge about politics and political life – which is not something that is constructed in history, nor does it vary with time and place; rather political philosophy proper is ahistorical and eternal like any other realm of truth. The political philosopher critiques politics from above; the political ideologue attempts to project his ideas onto reality (this is all modern political philosophers – who are not really philosophers but rather those who repudiate the need for philosophy – an ideologue has all the answers).
And for what it’s worth I would agree that every political arrangement falls short of being perfect because every political arrangement is human and will eventually break. This is a great piece of political philosophy!
This is why Political Philosophy (and all philosophy, for that matter) must be held accountable to theology, which is impossible, I think. So, what about when one’s political philosophy is theological?
Zach,
I agree that political philosophy is something one does, but then political philosophy, being a human action, cannot be outside or above history. The political philosopher, like any philosopher, is situated in time and place. He may seek eternal things like justice, but his search for and cognition of such things is mediated by things temporal. He cannot critique politics from above because he cannot fly above the political. For one thing, he cannot cast aside the political terminology he uses to formulate his ideas about eternal things like justice.
Sam,
I don’t see that a political philosophy being theological or accountable to theology frees it from its fundamental limitations and its “situatedness” in history: the theologian thinks about God, but his thoughts, however well formulated, remain ideas rooted it time, albeit ones (we hope) reaching toward the heavens.
Zach,
You’ve got me. I don’t have a great definition for “ideology” within my own way of thinking, so I try not to use the word. But, yes, in that post you could probably substitute “ideology” wherever I said “political philosophy” without messing up what I was trying to say. I’ll concede the point about political philosophy as a pursuit in itself being rather different than “political philosophies” as they exist in the world of punditry and poli-sci.
For what it’s worth, the author of the post I was trying to explicate does describe conservatism, liberalism, etc. as ideologies.
Kyle,
Thanks for linking and commenting — I like your take on things here.
-wrb
“He cannot critique politics from above because he cannot fly above the political.”
I do not think this is true, and I think this idea is rooted in a crippling skepticism. To the extent that a philosophical critique incorporates true knowledge of politics his critique is “above” politics. I do not think this is an impossibility – I think to say it is is to deny the possibility of philosophy, or to reduce philosophy to epistemology – which is pretty boring.
(I do not mean to say that a philosopher is not conditioned and influenced by his circumstances; this is obviously true. )
My pleasure, William. Thank you.
Zach,
1. What do you mean by “true knowledge of politics”?
2. A philosopher can, I believe, reach beyond the temporal and touch the eternal, but not by fully rising above the temporal to where the temporal is left behind or left below. Put another way, he can know the eternal, but only in a temporal way.
Kyle,
If this is simply to make the point about fundamental limitations of knowledge, then, I am perplexed as to what makes it a particular observation about political philosophy.
Zach,
Philosophy is impossible. Which, for me, makes it almost anti-epistemological and focuses on the problem of being and ontology.
Kyle,
I agree with this: “Put another way, he can know the eternal, but only in a temporal way.”
Thank you for the interesting conversation.
Sam,
Political philosophy was the original context, but not the only object of my analysis.