Speaking in Ghana, President Obama recently called for the abolition of the American form of government:
No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or if police can be bought off by drug traffickers.
No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the Port Authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery.
That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there, and now is the time for that style of governance to end.
Oh, wait. Sorry, I’ve just been informed that the president intended his remarks to apply solely to Africa ….
the president intended his remarks to apply solely to Africa…
Didn’t Wittgenstein say something in the Investigations about how you can think that you intend something, while your action was actually aimed at something(s) else?
For instance, A can believe himself to be X-ing for the sake of play-acting. But it could be that A is mistaken about whether X was a play-act or a real act.
I’m looking for the passage now. I have no idea where it is. And I could be 100% misinterpreting.
Try the Blue Book around page 42.
Hmmm… then let me put it this way:
Obama says, “No country is going to create wealth if…”
He says, “No business wants to invest in a place where…”
When Robert Gibbs (FWIW: born in Auburn) or whoever, says, “well, Obama is only talking about Africa,” then you kinda have to wonder if the spokesman is not just playing politics.
No country and no business–followed by whatever predicate–is at least an attempt at uttering a universal principle (whether a spokesman says otherwise or not).
Oh, I agree that what Obama said has logical implications for the u.s. In fact that was the point of my post.
But so what? As Socrates pointed out, most of the things people say logically imply a whole host of commitments dramatically at variance with what they actually do. Socrates even describes these commitments as people’s true or genuine beliefs (see, e.g., Gorgias 473e-474c); and I have no problem with that way of talking, so long as it’s not misinterpreted.
Roderick, it seems like an easy way around that is to just deny that the same words are being used in the same way by the different actors. E.g. if Obama declares he supports justice and you declare that you support justice and Obama says his idea of justice is universal health care then it seems like the Socratic point is moot.
Roderick, you don’t think speech acts count as doing something?
Anon73,
if Obama declares he supports justice and you declare that you support justice and Obama says his idea of justice is universal health care then it seems like the Socratic point is moot.
But for Socrates the question is not what Obama says his conception of justice is, but what conception of justice he’s ultimately committed to. After all, most of the Socratic dialogues begin with Socrates’ interlocutor offering a definition or articulation of some moral concept, but under Socrates’ questioning it soon transpires that this definition/articulation doesn’t actually reflect the interlocutor’s implicit understanding of the concept. (And in its essentials that’s how philosophical argumentation proceeds generally.)
MBH,
Roderick, you don’t think speech acts count as doing something?
Okay, change “at variance with what they actually do” with “at variance with the rest of what they actually do.”
I love those passages from Gorgias. And if the implication is that Obama is avoiding punishing injustice–thereby doing damage to his soul and the escapists’ soul–then yeah, he is engaged in the worst kind of evil. My hope is that he sees his role as chief educator–teaching the art of self-policing and thereby controlling this evil.
Punish injustice in one instance, better a man’s soul for a day. Teach a man to recognize and correct his own injustice, better a man’s soul for a lifetime.
Obama is such a substanceless tool…
Isn’t that the role of the president? He’s even called himself “the object in chief.”
If he’s substanceless then let put cool substance in him.
Good luck with that.
I’m not suggesting that political activity is the only way it can be done. It’s one of many. Alternative institutions and education accomplish the same end.
JOR, you think that’s all hopeless?
If by “all” you mean influencing Obama in meaningfully and usefully positive directions, then yeah.