If we consider capitalism as philosophical framework, which is what I think it is, the answer is "yes", as long as the philosopher agrees with the tenets of capitalism.
But is this the right question? Maybe we should ask, if humanity can be a happy capitalist.
I agree that the flourishing of humanity writ large is the ultimate issue. But within that question is the ongoing challenge for philosophers, teachers, and artists whose work serves that goal to find an economically sustainable way to use those talents for the greater good.
In today's world, where we all have to be a capitalist to live, there shouldn't be a conflict between being a philosopher and a capitalist. In that context, we all have to value our work and capialize on our capabilities.
It's also valuable work to think of other ways of living. My expectation of a "capitalist philosopher" is that they are ethical capitalist, regarless if I agree with their ethical framework, and that they contribute to creating enriching human realities.
This is a difficult question and I am unsure myself given the weight of capital in modernity. Is there a way in which the 'iron cage' affairs of production and consumption can be opened up, can be transformed in a manner salutary to a humane future? I felt that it was my job to at least give it a try, as we all are walking forward into the unknown after all.
Now I'm wondering about how many philosophers were historically "free" of capital. Was it that most of them just had enough not to worry about it? The old aristocratic bias in liberal arts education? I wonder how much of the ingrained antipathy toward commercial discourse among intellectuals has its root in gentility. If so, then it is at least better to be honest about the systems that we inhabit.
Well, we are part of a 2500 year old discourse so by definition, only about 10 percent of that has taken place within the Bourgeois relations. No doubt there was some inertia involved as well. Who is the first truly 'modern' thinker? For me, it would be William James, so that's pretty recent.
Maybe. On the other hand, capitalism is an ideology, we create it, so we can make of capitalism whatever we want. I wrote a post about this topic just a few weeks ago. Maybe giving it a read can clarify a bit what I mean about the idea of an "ethical capitalist". I'd love to hear your thoughts:
I'd love to hear more about this. And perhaps Greg will chime in when he gets a chance. I have my own thoughts about how complicit we must be in externalities and other systemic sources of inequity. But perhaps you have something else in mind, Jason?
So here is the most complex guided level (3) of episode 2 of our streaming series, the one about Anxiety. See what you think of it and keep in mind it builds from 2 lower levels. We have set the guide up more like a gaming experience in this sense:
It is certainly a departure for me to have become an entrepreneur. But sales is not so different from teaching; one seeks to convince others to consider the points being presented. We do not of course 'sell' ideas directly in the sense that they are merely a commodity, but ideas do lend their status to those who hold them, or wield them. Discourse is the ultimate source of historical authority, so our question at IEC was: how do we help humanity gain better access to its own ideas? I do believe that literacy in all senses of the term is suffering in our times, so our project resists this trend, and in the most serious manner we could muster. At another level, our digital media is simply a more accessible version of what I have been writing in traditional media for years now. My business partner tells me that this work needs to be heard but that young people, especially, must hear it in their own terms and contexts. IEC is working toward a more humane self-consciousness, an existential augment to our species-being, and a way of 'being-ahead' that begins to once again believe in a human future. Philosophy is the compass for any such future, thinking its action in the world.
Greg, your point about how your nonfiction writing had grown clearer as a result of your fiction writing was an interesting one. And there has been some hunger from many quarters for more public intellectuals and less impenetrable academic discourse. While there are some delightfully complex original texts and enjoyed the hard work of puzzling over some theorists, like Foucault, I don't think that level of discursive fluency, as you put it, is necessary for average people to experience some good from critical thinking. So I'll be eager to follow your progress. We need critical thinking in our lives. If we don't get it through education, then how else might we access it? It sounds like your guide is one of those new forms.
That's definitely the idea! I will find a level of one guided episode and share it with everyone here this week so you can get a sense of what we're constructing. I wonder if digital could be understood as a 'enactmental complex' of a sort, since you mention Foucault for instance, in that it could place into 'worlding' action an aspect of discourse. That said, there's no point speaking about in such a way in a guide!
Well, my many years of doctoral specialization in ethics and phenomenology have served me well as a capitalist....
As has been said elsewhere, PhDs are so used to being around other PhDs that they forget how rare and extreme their typical skillset is (unless they're one of those hyper-specialists we all make fun of).
So nice to hear from you, Ted! I remember you telling me once how hard it was to get mother nature to give up her secrets. I was thinking of you today for other reasons while describing our medicine course. Glad this conversation resonated.
Can a philosopher be a happy capitalist?
If we consider capitalism as philosophical framework, which is what I think it is, the answer is "yes", as long as the philosopher agrees with the tenets of capitalism.
But is this the right question? Maybe we should ask, if humanity can be a happy capitalist.
I agree that the flourishing of humanity writ large is the ultimate issue. But within that question is the ongoing challenge for philosophers, teachers, and artists whose work serves that goal to find an economically sustainable way to use those talents for the greater good.
In today's world, where we all have to be a capitalist to live, there shouldn't be a conflict between being a philosopher and a capitalist. In that context, we all have to value our work and capialize on our capabilities.
It's also valuable work to think of other ways of living. My expectation of a "capitalist philosopher" is that they are ethical capitalist, regarless if I agree with their ethical framework, and that they contribute to creating enriching human realities.
I'm not convinced that one can be an "ethical capitalist" per what "capitalism" entails, especially in the modern economy.
This is a difficult question and I am unsure myself given the weight of capital in modernity. Is there a way in which the 'iron cage' affairs of production and consumption can be opened up, can be transformed in a manner salutary to a humane future? I felt that it was my job to at least give it a try, as we all are walking forward into the unknown after all.
Now I'm wondering about how many philosophers were historically "free" of capital. Was it that most of them just had enough not to worry about it? The old aristocratic bias in liberal arts education? I wonder how much of the ingrained antipathy toward commercial discourse among intellectuals has its root in gentility. If so, then it is at least better to be honest about the systems that we inhabit.
Well, we are part of a 2500 year old discourse so by definition, only about 10 percent of that has taken place within the Bourgeois relations. No doubt there was some inertia involved as well. Who is the first truly 'modern' thinker? For me, it would be William James, so that's pretty recent.
Maybe. On the other hand, capitalism is an ideology, we create it, so we can make of capitalism whatever we want. I wrote a post about this topic just a few weeks ago. Maybe giving it a read can clarify a bit what I mean about the idea of an "ethical capitalist". I'd love to hear your thoughts:
https://writerbytechnicality.substack.com/p/everything-but-the-economy-stupid?r=3anz55
I'd love to hear more about this. And perhaps Greg will chime in when he gets a chance. I have my own thoughts about how complicit we must be in externalities and other systemic sources of inequity. But perhaps you have something else in mind, Jason?
So here is the most complex guided level (3) of episode 2 of our streaming series, the one about Anxiety. See what you think of it and keep in mind it builds from 2 lower levels. We have set the guide up more like a gaming experience in this sense:
https://drgvloewen.substack.com/p/iec-2-3-pragmatism-as-the-good-anxiety
Thanks for sharing this!
It is certainly a departure for me to have become an entrepreneur. But sales is not so different from teaching; one seeks to convince others to consider the points being presented. We do not of course 'sell' ideas directly in the sense that they are merely a commodity, but ideas do lend their status to those who hold them, or wield them. Discourse is the ultimate source of historical authority, so our question at IEC was: how do we help humanity gain better access to its own ideas? I do believe that literacy in all senses of the term is suffering in our times, so our project resists this trend, and in the most serious manner we could muster. At another level, our digital media is simply a more accessible version of what I have been writing in traditional media for years now. My business partner tells me that this work needs to be heard but that young people, especially, must hear it in their own terms and contexts. IEC is working toward a more humane self-consciousness, an existential augment to our species-being, and a way of 'being-ahead' that begins to once again believe in a human future. Philosophy is the compass for any such future, thinking its action in the world.
Greg, your point about how your nonfiction writing had grown clearer as a result of your fiction writing was an interesting one. And there has been some hunger from many quarters for more public intellectuals and less impenetrable academic discourse. While there are some delightfully complex original texts and enjoyed the hard work of puzzling over some theorists, like Foucault, I don't think that level of discursive fluency, as you put it, is necessary for average people to experience some good from critical thinking. So I'll be eager to follow your progress. We need critical thinking in our lives. If we don't get it through education, then how else might we access it? It sounds like your guide is one of those new forms.
That's definitely the idea! I will find a level of one guided episode and share it with everyone here this week so you can get a sense of what we're constructing. I wonder if digital could be understood as a 'enactmental complex' of a sort, since you mention Foucault for instance, in that it could place into 'worlding' action an aspect of discourse. That said, there's no point speaking about in such a way in a guide!
Well, my many years of doctoral specialization in ethics and phenomenology have served me well as a capitalist....
As has been said elsewhere, PhDs are so used to being around other PhDs that they forget how rare and extreme their typical skillset is (unless they're one of those hyper-specialists we all make fun of).
Thanks, Jason. I'm still hoping to share your story as part of this series!
Let's wait a few months, because then the story will be ready.
This was a very interesting and informative exchange for me. In biology (the old fashioned kind) mother nature is the final arbiter.
So nice to hear from you, Ted! I remember you telling me once how hard it was to get mother nature to give up her secrets. I was thinking of you today for other reasons while describing our medicine course. Glad this conversation resonated.