I Have a Question - Background for Episodes Concerning Ancient Greek Culture and Philosophers

Premise is - those who seek to establish their dominance over other sectors of a population look to sources they feel are unimpeachable within the society they exist in order to establish their claims. Religion and philosophy are two such powerful tools that can be misused in this manner. We will look at how rightwingers (particularly white male rightwingers) who seek to establish legitimacy to their claim of inherited natural supremacy have turned to ancient Greek culture, its philosophers and philosophy itself as validation for their claims, from using the crudest element of philosophy to "win debates" and "sound intellectual" to misappropriating the ideas of philosophers/ philosophy to declare that philosophy and its greatest figures collaborate in their claims of supposed superiority in intelligence.

These Episodes will cover the following topics:

1) Philosophy used as a tool of dominance

2) Far right and Nietzsche

3) The Misappropriation of Western Religion and Philosophy by Racists

4) The Far Right's Attraction to Ancient Philosophy

They will air once we have covered Socrates, Plato and Aristotle in the Lyceum sessions and will continue every other week as we move on to world philosophers - preIslamic philosophers and Averroes, etc - running weekly until we conclude all four topics.

------------------------------

Greek philosophers and right-wingers - how do they identify with each other

Why were Aristotle and Islamic philosophers arrogant about their right to rule?

One of the questions we want to consider is why are conservatives & right-wingers throughout the ages, whether they are atheists, agnostic or evangelical (of any faith) drawn to the ancient Greeks - whether the physical strength component of Sparta or the intellectual premise of Athens? What element(s) of ancient Greece do they find compelling & aligned with their worldview? Why do so many of them rally around Aristotle (and to a lesser degree, Socrates and Plato) ,in particular?

------------------------------------

Just as Religion is Often Used as a Tool of Dominance against Those Sectors of a Population the Dominant Sector Want to Maintain its Position Against - the lower classes (anti-democratic) and the non-dominant sectors of society (racist/mysogynistic).

The key is that those who want to establish / maintain a position of dominance in society are utilizing very powerful tools that are presented (and accepted by society) as “truth” outside the mundane world (established by a higher authority), that just so happens, mouths their own agenda and prejudices that they (and the group they identify with or are adjacent to) should be held innately superior and supreme and can dictate the rules to make it so permanently by any means necessary.

“Its not personal - I didn’t say it from a personal agenda - God said it / Logic and Reason (philosophy) said it / The Law said it / The Constitution said it / the Bible said it / Science said it / The DATA said it / Mathematics said it - and this unimpeachable source just happens to agree with me! Isn’t that right, Hand Puppet?” It doesn’t make any of those sources “bad” or “wrong”, it just means they are powerful tools that those who seek dominance that can not be disputed use these sources as tools against those who might challenge their agenda. For good intent or evil, it is in the intent, in the agenda that you have to decide whether it is being used for good or ill consequences.

———————————————

Our Issues

1) separating the people behind a process or invention from the process or invention itself - not creating an icon of a person, thing or idea as sacred that can not be intruded upon

2) equating skill in one area as superior to all others and equating that skill as making a person superior

3) Utilizing a “power that exists outside of our capacity to affect” - divine given / inherited - that carries weight that is “truth” and can not be disputed to make a person’s bias for placing themselves (or the group they belong to) above everyone else and unimpeachable

4) The establishment / dominant population/ sector utilizing these arguments to maintain their position of dominance - either against the common man or against a particular sector of the population - all who are in a more vulnerable, less protected position and therefore easy prey.

————————————————

We see this in both Socrates and Averroes, declaring that philosopher - kings should really be in charge because they are such able thinkers than ordinary men. We also see this the utilizing of some automatically assuming that anyone declaring they have “thought deeply” on a topic equating to their outcome of thought as being correct or at least having greater merit than ideas from someone not as “learned”.

Which leads us to white supremacists attempting to cloak themselves in the mantle of philosophical thought.

Secondly, how do we both elevate and encourage the process of deep thinking and critical analysis of the accepted without indulging in supremacy by those who have studied the tools of rhetoric and debate, without throwing away the core elements of philosophy, separate from those who have authorized those very processes?

The process/ elements of questioning, etc utilized by Socrates, Plato, Skeptics, Aristotle is a good practice, even while they might have reached the wrong conclusions using those methods or even if they, or others don’t use the method for good or are not necessarily all that good themselves. How did veneration of Aristotle prevent us from moving forward in the very study of nature that he was traveling on? He and his crowd were very mysogenistic, Greek culture, ancient culture was very mysogenistic. They were part of the establishment - they were all for dismantling the obstacles of the previous establishment in their way, but once they attained their own status they were very much against any disruption, including democracy of the common man. But does that take away from their ideas of pursuing a deeper process of questioning and thinking?

In many ways, this echoes how small minded people use religion to support their point of view that certain groups are preordained to be subjugated or subordinated or destroyed as evil.

Gays and women - all those “others” - ( Muslims are pretty much also always on this list, but depending upon which Western conservative group they belong to, Jews and/or Catholics are often included as some inherently “nefarious” group that seeks domination over Western culture)

Is it the same reaching for “ultimate weight” of opinion that people will utilize ancient philosophy or culture to cite “neutral process” claiming its not personal, its just a logical, rational conclusion that gives philosophy that powerful force outside the prejudices and boundaries of mortals that we must all bow down to its inflatable truth?

Utilizing these sources as a wedge and cudgel against the less powerful to gain admittance to the Power Club whose goal is sub ordinance of any group that might challenge that supremacy can damage (sometimes permanently) the credibility of a source. That is fine for those who use it as a tool to subordinate all but the core dominant group, but what about those within less powerful groups who have themselves been targeted, who thought to use it as their own path to empowerment? Did their gamble work?

----------------------------------

Racism in philosophy (particularly in the US, against Blacks) / mysogyny in philosophy / anti-democratic trend amongst those who are also racist and / or mysogynists to keep the lower classes in their place = maintaining the status quo of the dominant population

----------------------------------------------

Philosophy has been said to be the study of how to think about the big questions of life and who we are. It has also been utilized by those who engage in (or simply utilize the label of) philosophy as a weapon against those they want to view as lower in intelligence / humanity.

How do we take the good from the various schools of philosophical study without incorporating the negative or giving validation to those who use the discipline for nefarious purposes?