4 ms·
"Let me add that the foundational-axiomatic position tends to imply that political rule should be by something like a philosopher-king, while I think the anti-f
by js8 11y ago
"Let me add that the foundational-axiomatic position tends to imply that political rule should be by something like a philosopher-king, while I think the anti-foundational one implies liberal democracy."
Really? That's a very strong statement which I would like to see to be backed up with some axioms. :-) (Because both analytic philosophy and democracy seem more preferable to me.)
- woodandsteel 11y agoA foundational-axiomatic view implies a philosopher king because the vast majority of citizens lack the intellectual ability, much less motivation, to understand it and apply it to political decisions. Anti-foundationalists, in contrast, think that reality is far too complicated for a single person to figure out, and so we need extended democratic discussion. They also tend to believe that average citizens have a considerable degree of rationality and good motivation, and so can be trusted to be responsible voters. This is, of course, imperfect, but as Churchill famously said, it is better than all the alternatives. As far as analytic philosophy goes, the classic version is foundationalist-axiomatic, but later versions, such as Strawson, are anti-foundationalist. Later Wittgenstein I think is a mixed case.