+
/ Re: Can Philosophy be of Any Value to Big Business? [#2] /
/ Newsgroups: alt.philosophy, alt.religion.apologetics /
.
"Now come the rich ones weeping and howling over the miseries
that come upon them. Your wealth has rotted, and your clothes
have become moth-eaten rags. Your gold and silver has corroded;
and the corrosion of them will be testimony to you, and will
eat your flesh as fire. Yet you stored up treasure for the last
days. Behold: the pay of the workers who mowed your fields,
which you withheld from them, cries out; and the cries of those
having reaped for you has entered into the ears of the Lord of
Hosts. You live in luxury and indulgence upon the earth. You
nourished your heart's desires as in a day of slaughter."
-- from the Book of the prophet Jacob (Jm 5:1-5)
.
>> On 21Sept02 textman wrote:
>> Can Philosophy be of Any Value to Big Business? <snip>
.
> grey ([email protected]) replied: I'm very tired of the idea
> that big business is the only paradigm for life and that it
> should be applied in every area, from relationships to
> dealing with your kids.
.
On Sept22 textman sayeth: Hi grey. Me too. I tend to think
that this particular paradigm is rather overdone. But for that
that very reason it must be acknowledged; even by philosophers
and theologians.
.
> Here's my question:
> Can Big Business be of Any Value to Philosophy?
.
Of course. It is BB that is the target of university education
anyway. Thus the poor quality of philosophy in most academic
institutions is largely because BB considers the arts and
humanities to be essentially irrelevant to the global economic
process that is the primary (and therefore the only real)
element in the collective life of the nations. More adequate
funding from the corporations could easily improve the quality
of institutionalized philosophy, and might even generate some
real interest in philosophy among the ignorant masses.
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<
+
>> grey asks: Can Big Business be of Any Value to Philosophy?
.
> GeneIn ([email protected]) answers: philosophy is not
> an entity, it is a way of thinking, big and small business
> have developed their own brand of philosophy, which works
> for them and by association those who are dependent on big
> business, which translates into most of us here.....
> this dependency does not demand that one not think and
> philosophize on one's personal time however and in ones
> personal preference.......in a free society there are
> many paradigms.... g.
.
textman replies: Hi GeneIn. I think you missed the point (or
rather one of them) of the epistle. I can maybe agree that BB
has its own "brand of philosophy", as you call it, but it's
pretty clear that it does NOT work for them always and every-
where. I think most would agree that the 'philosophy of BB' is
much better at being short-sighted than long-sighted; as the
testimony of friend Jonathan demonstrates. In other words, BB
is functionally inadequate to cope with reality as it actually
is, and this is ultimately a weakness that only serves to
undermine the basic meaning and practical value of the self-
enclosed and self-sufficient corporate entity.
.
Also, while it is true that there are many paradigms in a free
society, it should never be forgotten that not all paradigms
are created equal. Some are good, others are not so good. If
some paradigms and philosophies turn out to be destructive
to people (and/or the planet itself) then they must either
change or be damned. The world economy is not independent of
other areas of life, and must be held accountable for the
consequences of their collective greed and blindness.
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<
+
>> GeneIn wrote: philosophy is not an entity, it is a way of
>> thinking, big and small business have developed their
>> own brand of philosophy
.
> grey replied: Technically admissible, but in fact, business-
> thinking can very rarely be classified as philosophy. To call
> any approach to anything "a philosophy" waters the idea of
> philosophy, down intolerably IMO.
.
textman sayeth: Roger that, grey. Any form of thinking
that claims to be philosophical in any sense must at least
demonstrate some basic level of rational consistency and
critical awareness; and these things are hardly characteristic
of "business-thinking" or the corporate mentality in general.
.
> For me philosophy involves an overview, a willingness to
> get perspective, a meta-view, and is very different from an
> approach driven simply by monetary gain. In fact, it's nearly
> antithetical, because the business approach is based on the
> unquestionable idea that relative advantage over others is
> "the goal."
.
Unlimited greed and blind ambition are about as contrary
and antithetical to philosophy as the burning of heretics!
.
> (I didn't mean to imply, by the way, that the original poster
> was saying that the big business approach is the only way to
> approach life)
.
Roger that, grey. No harm done.
Alas, the world economy cannot say likewise.
.
- one who criticizes the powers that be - textman ;>
.
P.S. "Rationality is the mean between skepticism and credulity
... the virtue which determines the mean in matters of
belief." -- from 'Faith and Reason' by Anthony Kenny
x
Here be Dragons!
.
/ Re: Can Philosophy be of Any Value to Big Business? [#3] /
/ Newsgroups: alt.philosophy, alt.religion.apologetics /
.
> On 22Sept02 Mike Dubbeld wrote: <snip> Also big companies
> hire psychologists along with or as media consultants.
> Power in the Bush Administration is the philosophies of his
> Cabinate/Press Secretary/Intelligence agencies to name a few.
.
On 23Sept textman replies: These facts are of great
significance, it seems to me. Note that corporations are well
able to employ lawyers, psychologists, and other experts, in
the pursuit of their self-made and self-defined goals and
objectives (eg. yummy dividends for the shareholders). But
they do not employ philosophers. None of the occupations
mentioned above are held by men who are philosophers. They may
have a philosophy in the general sense that everyone acts from
out of their own beliefs and knowledge, but these people do
not know philosophy the way a philosopher does. There is a
world of difference between philosophers and psychologists,
and no amount of tinkering is going to bridge that gulf!
.
Clearly then, the reason that corporations do not employ
philosophers is twofold: (1) Philosophy is deemed to be
"useless", and therefore worthless as regards the corporations'
primary concerns. And (2) the corporations have no liking for
the results of critical awareness when the object analyzed is
the corporation itself. Readers should also be aware that
these two "reasons", arising as they do from out of the innate
philosophy of the big-business mentality, are contradictory in
a very profound way.
.
But since the corporate philosophy never moves beyond the
narrow confines of a materialistic pragmatism they are
incapable of appreciating the significance of these fundamental
contradictions in their thinking (and by implication in their
being as well). The only solution to this obvious short-coming
is clear: the governments and corporations of this world must
rid themselves of the biased judgment that philosophy and
philosophers are useless in the realms of politics and
economics. And the best way to do that is to shove Socrates
down their throats (if necessary)!
.
> Philosophy is merely intellectual knowledge with
> ego distortion. <snip>
.
This statement explains much of what you say, and also
makes it extremely difficult to take you seriously.
.
> We are still in Plato's cave of shadows playing
> politics of the cave. <snip remainder>
.
You are quite right, Mr Dubbeld. Most people are still very
much trapped in the web of Maya, as you say, mistaking the
shadows for reality. But you are also very pessimistic;
especially in your failure to appreciate that it is largely
the efforts of the philosophers that have allowed us to escape
from these webs (however fleetingly) by building this great
computerized global-village whose citizens we all are. There
is a great danger facing anyone who is about to embark upon
any study of philosophy (at whatever level of depth), and
this danger is that nine out of every ten philosophers are
pessimists!
.
And it may well be *this* fact of ubiquitous pessimism that
turns people off the most, and forces them to give up on
philosophy entirely. That is most unfortunate indeed, because
there is nothing inherent in the nature of philosophy to
predispose anyone to pessimistic conclusions and world-views.
Pessimism is something that the philosopher (and the student,
of course) brings with him as he first sets foot upon
philosophical shores. Sartre's philosophy cannot be considered
an objective and dispassionate account of human being and human
realities (for it is actually the manifestation of his inner
attitudes), but 'Being and Nothingness' does everything humanly
possible to make us believe that this is so. Therefore the
first word out of any philosophy-teacher's mouth must always
be 'BEWARE! Here be Dragons!"
.
- one who wrestles with Maya - textman ;;>
.
P.S. "Teach me to seek thee, and unveil thyself to me, when I
seek thee, for I cannot seek thee, except thou teach me, nor
find thee, except thou reveal thyself. I will seek thee in
yearning, and yearn for thee in my seeking." -- Anselm
x
More Can Philosophy be of Any Value to BB?
textman
*