The fundamental question of political philosophy, one that precedes questions about how the state should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all. Why not have anarchy?
Robert NozickRead
The history of philosophy is actually full of people who argue for rather wild and incredible views, and their reputations are based on the skill of arguing for them.
Interpretation
Philosophers often propose extreme ideas, and their influence comes from their ability to defend those ideas effectively.
Robert Nozick highlights that philosophy has a rich history filled with thinkers advocating for unconventional and extraordinary ideas. The significance of these philosophers often lies not necessarily in the truth of their views, but in their persuasive abilities to argue and defend those ideas, illustrating the subjective nature of philosophical debate and the value placed on rhetorical skill.
In practice
During a lecture on philosophical methods, one might cite this quote to emphasize the importance of argumentation skills.
The fundamental question of political philosophy, one that precedes questions about how the state should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all. Why not have anarchy?
Given the complexity of interpersonal relationships and institutions and the complexity of co-ordination of the actions of many people, it is enormously unlikely that, even if there were one ideal pattern for society, it could be arrived at in an a priori fashion. And even supposing that some great genius did come along with a blueprint, who could have the confidence that it could work
There are only individual people, different individual people, with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more. What happens is that something is done to him for the sake of others. Talk of an overall social good covers this up.
And although it might be best of all to be Socrates satisfied, having both happiness and depth, we would give up some happiness in order to gain the depth.
I think philosophers can do things akin to theoretical scientists, in that, having read about empirical data, they too can think of what hypotheses and theories might account for that data. So there's a continuity between philosophy and science in that way.
What else can matter to us, other than how our lives feel from the inside?
The world is his who has money to go over it.
The willingness to be self-critical in England is much greater than the willingness to be self-critical in America.
Still shaking, in the pew, I understood that it isn't the dead we cry for. We cry for ourselves, and I didn't deserve my own pity.
Only on the edge of the grave can man conclude anything.
The only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not.
When the horrors of anarchy force us to set up laws that forbid us to fight and torture one another for sport, we still snatch at every excuse for declaring individuals outside the protection of law and torturing them to our hearts content.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.