Why philosophers are bad politicians
Or should I think like this? Most Americans seem to vote on whether they like somebody or "with the gut" (a la Stephen Colbert's truthiness). Obama appeals to the gut. Therefore, Obama appeals to voters and can win the election and move everyone forward through the mysterious power of inspiration. Is this a good argument? Are the premises true? Do they support the conclusion?
Another thought: Being an empiricist-leaning philosopher in the tradition of Hume and Quine, I like to be able to see and touch things before I claim to know them. Clinton offers small seeable, touchable changes. Obama offers some mysterious ineffable thing called "inspiration," which may be more in line with philosophical views of rationalism, wherein knowledge ultimately comes from firm ideas, or even in line with some kind of vitalism or Nietzschean will to power or Heideggerian authentic historicality. Are my epistemological views deciding who I vote for?
This is the problem with being a philosopher during election season.
Another thought: Being an empiricist-leaning philosopher in the tradition of Hume and Quine, I like to be able to see and touch things before I claim to know them. Clinton offers small seeable, touchable changes. Obama offers some mysterious ineffable thing called "inspiration," which may be more in line with philosophical views of rationalism, wherein knowledge ultimately comes from firm ideas, or even in line with some kind of vitalism or Nietzschean will to power or Heideggerian authentic historicality. Are my epistemological views deciding who I vote for?
This is the problem with being a philosopher during election season.