Let’s consider these words by Winston Churchill:

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

I would not extend this to the economic systems of capitalism and socialism, but still, it holds a certain truth:

Something that is too often ignored is the value of wealth inequalities within human societies, at least at some point in their histories. It does cause certain problems that we should most definitely be aware of, but it also offers certain advantages that could not be gained without it and progress — by any definition I am aware of — would never have been possible without relying on wealth inequalities.

For example, we can consider Socrates, who is often used as the symbol of Western philosophy. We are told that he was an eccentric man who would walk around Athens and ask men difficult questions that might otherwise seem simple. We are all familiar with the concept of “justice”, for example, but if someone came to you, asking what “justice” was, could you really explain it in an intelligible manner?

Now, the reason that Socrates could spend his free time doing such things was precisely due to wealth inequalities. Athens was only a great place to live for the minority of its population — the rest were slaves. We can speak of equality all we want, but the choice we must make here is between a society where everyone is forced to spend all their free time working to survive or a society where these people share the burden of supporting a minority class of people, who, for mostly arbitrary reasons (such as the achievements of their ancestors), do not need to work much to ensure their survival. Most of this class, like most humans, are trivial creatures dedicated to no more than the pursuit of worldly pleasures. However, in this class, again like in the rest of humanity, there will be, by chance, some who will have the potential to innovate in the realm of art and philosophy. Thanks to wealth inequalities, these people will have been taught to write and read, they will have access to books and they will have plenty of free time, all of which can simply not be offered to every individual within a society with little technology.

Today, thanks to technological advances, we can afford to provide this opportunity to everyone. We still need to work, but it is not a burden so heavy that we have no time to educate ourselves or refine our art. However, these technological advances were in large part brought to us by men who benefited from wealth inequalities, especially once we look further back in our history.

It no longer makes sense for us to have a system of entrenched wealth inequalities, but in the past it did and this is something that we should keep in mind when looking at history as well as our modern world.

Such ideas might seem blasphemous, like spit upon the idealism that unites both liberal and socialist, but, ultimately, what must reign is what must work. Ideologies are useful tools in forming a coherent society, but attempts to define a single true ideology that is effective and moral for all cultures through all periods of time is, at best, an achievement that we are no closer to than the theory of everything in physics. The truth seems to be that such despicable things (to us, Westerners) as child labour and entrenched wealth inequalities do have a perfectly valid functions in certain contexts, which also happen to be the contexts where they arise. As for when they are no longer needed, well: it is there that the fight must begin, and, hopefully, end.

- Dussault

It could be said that philosophy is about rational, systematic thought; intellectual creativity; defining our existence; resolving ethical and political challenges; etc. However it is defined, it essentially boil down to something that can benefit each individual, both in terms of contributing to his happiness and in terms of contributing to the well-being of the organizations he holds a place within. This is, I expect, the reason why, in Quebec, college (CEGEP) students are expected to take three philosophy as a perquisite for their diploma.

However, this leads to certain complications. How can we teach philosophy to students who have no genuine interest in the matter? Because these courses are mandatory, the reality of things is that many students attend them solely for their degree and have no passion for what is thought in the classroom; they merely want to get it over with. This is something that is obviously taken into account, as the courses seem designed to introduce students to certain concepts, rather than to elaborate upon them. Still, we do not know how to best teach anything to students, let alone something as subtle as the art of reason.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text