Occupy Philosophy

A new blog, Occupy Philosophy, describes itself thusly:

Occupy Philosophy is meant for serious (and if necessary, technical) discussion addressing the moral and political questions that have risen in light of the rotten situation we’re in. Philosophers are uniquely suited to this work. We created this website because we’ve been inspired and at times perplexed by the 99% Movement—and because we’ve been appalled by efforts to exculpate the criminal, immoral behavior of the recidivist 1%.

Brian Leiter writes about occupying the plutocracy:

We are now in the fourth year of the worst economic catastrophe in the capitalist world since the Great Depression, and the “Occupy” movement is a visceral expression of the human suffering this catastrophe has wrought. As a student of philosophy, of law, and of history, it seems to me there are a few points that might be worth emphasizing.

First: at historical moments pregnant with the potential for significant social and economic change, the choice of language sometimes matters. Just as “we are the 99%” has been a powerfully galvanizing slogan to reflect the current state of American society, so, too, we should dispense with one of the central legitimizing illusions of contemporary life in America, namely, that this country is still a “democracy.” Whatever the defects of democratic processes in the decades after World War II—including the vicious exclusion of non-whites from the ballot–over the past generation the United States has become a quite brazen plutocracy, a country where the rich rule, and dictate the terms on which the rest of us live. The United States is the most powerful “plutocracy” in the world. It is no longer a democracy.

Plutocracies have been the norm, in one form or another, throughout the history of the world, even in many apparently “democratic” societies. Those with money and power, unsurprisingly, prefer not to have the majority interfere with their privileges. To be sure, plutocracies, like ours, have the façade of elections, in which the wealthiest candidates are allowed to compete (almost all our elected officials at the national level are millionaires!), half the population quite reasonably declines to participate, and the media controlled by the rich—the “well-intentioned” rich like those who run the New York Times and the sociopathic rich that control the Wall Street Journal and Fox News—either heap abuse upon or simply ignore any candidate who deviates from the party line. Although most of the U.S. population (like most of the population in every society) supports health care for all, higher taxes on the plutocrats, and an end to wars of aggression in which the plutocrats’ children never fight, their concerns do not count. The only thing that counts is what is “good for business,” that is, good for the plutocrats.

Read more.

Your thoughts?

About Daniel Fincke

Dr. Daniel Fincke  has his PhD in philosophy from Fordham University and spent 11 years teaching in college classrooms. He wrote his dissertation on Ethics and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. On Camels With Hammers, the careful philosophy blog he writes for a popular audience, Dan argues for atheism and develops a humanistic ethical theory he calls “Empowerment Ethics”. Dan also teaches affordable, non-matriculated, video-conferencing philosophy classes on ethics, Nietzsche, historical philosophy, and philosophy for atheists that anyone around the world can sign up for. (You can learn more about Dan’s online classes here.) Dan is an APPA  (American Philosophical Practitioners Association) certified philosophical counselor who offers philosophical advice services to help people work through the philosophical aspects of their practical problems or to work out their views on philosophical issues. (You can read examples of Dan’s advice here.) Through his blogging, his online teaching, and his philosophical advice services each, Dan specializes in helping people who have recently left a religious tradition work out their constructive answers to questions of ethics, metaphysics, the meaning of life, etc. as part of their process of radical worldview change.

  • Theodore R. Frimet

    This is not a visceral response. I came across a Temple University student, quite awhile ago. He was so proud of his music performance at the Federal Reserve Bank at Philadelphia. Then I explained how he, his children, and his grandchildren would be living a life in a social democracy, forced upon them, by the systematic devaluation of currency, by the central bank, since 1890.

    Needless to say, he was pissed. And decided to motivate others. My only advice to him, at the time, as we parted company, was to remind him of his right to revolution by peaceful means.

    I believe we are accomplishing that, now.

    There you have it. Social Networking at work. Nothing philosophical about it. People have been aware for the longest time that something has been amiss. They simply could not put their finger on it.

    No doubt, the majority, until recently, have been puzzled by our fiscal policy, and the arrangement between our Congress and the central bank. Through a few well written books, some historical references to our first few Presidents inability to comprehend a desire to maintain a central bank relationship; the dire state of affairs we are finding outselves in is proving out.

    Ours is a republican form of democracy that established majority rule, and naturally suppressed faction. It would seem that it was necessary, for a short time, that faction should provide the source of motivation behind our movement.

    The fiscal relationship between our government and central bank has been unnaturally fueling a majority repression. Sadly, the balance of powers, between our Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, did not do us justice, when we needed them the most. In light of the constitutional position we find ourselves mired in, I openly call upon the President to use supra-constitutional rule, and “end the fed”.