With the Presidential election a mere twelve-and-a-half months away, it’s never too early to begin thinking about who will be our ruler for the following four years (or longer).
I know the term “ruler” has a rough edge in this age of democracy and soft vocabulary, but it’s a term philosophers used for generations when thinking about politics, and given that this blog will be dedicated to approaching the upcoming election from the vantage point of critical thought, it seems right that we start by using a vocabulary that best describes what we’re talking about.
Why critical thinking? Well I’ve been learning about and teaching about the subject for a number of years, yet never found the right example to study publically that would resonate with the widest number of people. What decision, after all, do we all share that requires critical thought to reach a conclusion?
The answer materialized as the preliminary bouts of next year’s election began taking up more news ink and television airtime, an event in which every US citizen will take part and most other people of the world will take notice: the Presidential elections.
Recently, the New York Times began running weekly online columns applying philosophical principles to the news of the day. And thinking back (way back) it’s no surprise that the greatest philosophers of antiquity made room for politics among the metaphysics and other subjects they pondered, debated and discussed. For while the origins of the universe and the nature of truth are worthwhile topics of consideration, it is politics that makes the difference with regard to whether or not our lives (including the lives of the philosophers) will get better or worse here on earth (just as Socrates).
And so this blog begins a slightly-more-than-a-year-long journey to see if critical thought provides enough oomph to help us make the best decision for ourselves and for the nation.
Care to join me?
No comments:
Post a Comment