In a Republican debate leading up to the 2000 presidential nomination, George W. Bush was asked of his favorite thinker. He famously answered, "Jesus Christ." This weekend, on the road to capturing the Libertarian Party nomination, Bob Barr was asked during the LP presidential debate of the philosopher whose views most closely resembled his own. Barr answered, "Ayn Rand." You learn a lot about the differences between Republicans and Libertarians from these two too "correct" answers.

The trouble with the President's answer was that he conflated 'philosopher' (an example of which he was asked to name) with 'teacher' or 'prophet'; there is also the curio that a politician running for office named a figure who's concerns were generally otherworldly. (Jesus was quite emphatic about the indissolubility of marriage, but it is difficult to imagine a politician in our time having the stones to bring that up).

The problem with Mr. Barr's answer is the content of the social thought of She to whom he owes his intellectual debt (not to mention her wretched literary aesthetic).

I don't know. I think the lesson you learned about George was that he doesn't know any political philosophers, and so 'Jesus' has as good a non-answer as he could muster. I think it's a different lesson (though not that different) with Bob. He's obviously pandering, but really, how many options do you think he has? Socrates? Plato? Maybe somebody like Mill (which, though still a bad answer, would have been a heck of alot better than Rand; and he still would have got to pander)? In other words, I'm betting that if you asked him to name five philosophers, he'd strike out on number four.

I think you Art and Ralph have been too harsh on GWB on this point. Is Jesus not a philosopher? (I think he is a much deeper thinker than, hmmm, Bertrand Russell, or Ayn Rand, for example.) And why is it so uncouth to name him as one's favorite thinker? Only because today's intellectuals are not comfortable with the prospect of God's existence or with those who believe in God. This makes them much more _closed_ to wisdom than pretty much all great philosophers in the past, from Plato and Aristotle, to Thomas and Scotus, to Descartes, Hume, Kant and Husserl. And if Jesus is right, i.e., if Christianity is true, then it will have some light to shed on politics, although not as directly as many other religions and pseudoreligions do.

I was not assessing the depth of Jesus thought vis-a-vis Bertrand Russell or anyone else. The teachings of Jesus are not conveyed in a philosophic discourse, nor are they conveyed in epic poetry, nor are they conveyed in the manner of contemporary journalism. Referring to Jesus as a 'philosopher', 'poet', or 'reporter' would be non sequitur.

If I understand correctly, the President's avocational reading tends to history and biography. Nevertheless, he has had an adequate quantum quantum of liberal education (at rather rigorous institutions) and I would wager that John Locke and Jeremy Bentham are familiar names to him.

Tippe,

First, putting Russell's name next to Rand's is absurd. Second, there's no doubt that Jesus was the wisest human being to ever live; he was God, after all. But a philosopher? There are a handful of statements by Jesus in the Gospels that could be read as having an argumentative structure. In my opinion, argument is a necessary feature for philosophical discourse. But it's not sufficient. In my opinion, articles of faith cannot be proper premises in a philosophical argument. If the premises are articles of faith, then the argument is theological (so, for example, much of the Summa, while brilliantly argued, is not philosophical; Thomas, of course, would and does agree).

Ralph and Art: Do I think "philosophy" as a practice of mortals (as opposed to "wisdom traditions") require use of discursive (argumentative) reason? Sure. That is a mark of our finitude, that we can only love wisdom, while not possessing it entire, but the goal of true philosophy is to possess that wisdom, thus to remain open to it, to search for those glipses we may be given -- not to get lost in the _means_, which is what argumentative reason is (and all philosophy does in the heads of people not open to the world-transcendent, like Russell).

But all that means is that Jesus, if he is what he says he is, is not only the model of philosopher, but also the only true human sophos. He isn't just a teacher or a guru, but one who loves wisdom, and is given wisdom by the Father, and who shares it with us. This is all quite traditional. You could ask yourself about the god(s) in Socrates or Aristotle and wonder if they are philosophical, and the answer will be similar to the one I have given. So we shouldn't respond to GWB's comment with rolled eyes, but with a humble reminder of the inadequacy of philo-sophy (and lament that today's philosophy often utterly lacks any eros toward wisdom).

It seems to me that philosophy is an act in which a human being engages his faculty of reason in a search for truth. This is not precisely what Christ did. While Christ's teachings were all reasonable of course, he was the Living God, giving truth to men in revelation. This is not quite the same thing as philosophy.

George Bush's reference to Jesus as his favorite philosopher was just a pathetic attempt to appeal to the evangelical base. Exactly what is Jesus' philosophy?

I remember seeing Bob Barr several years ago giving a talk discussing the USA PATRIOT ACT and at the end of his speech he began to quote extensively from Ayn Rand. So I don't think he invoked Ayn Rand just to win votes. I think he takes her ideas seriously.

Bush is gone and Barr is a blip on the political radar screen so who cares?

I don't care, but it is an interesting cultural fact that the president and a presidential candidate are completely ignorant of the philosophical tradition.

I'm thinking about writing Dan's name onto my ballot, but first I'd like to know who his favorite philosopher is.... it better not be Pete Townshend.

Well, if it is true what Eric said, that he heard Bob extensively quote Ms. Rand in a speech, then it may be unfair to say that Mr. Barr is ignorant of the philosophical tradition.

You can still get him for being a devotee of a horrible philosopher though. She was basically a dollar store knock off of Aristotle.

Just for the record, I believe Jesus is more worthy of worship than Ayn Rand.

That said, George Bush invaded Iraq, gave us No Child Left Behind, and signed every spending bill that came his way.

President Barr would have done none of those things.

Sure, Ben T, I agree. But I guess my point is two things (1) Jesus is not just another guru or teacher or wise man; he is not beneath philosophy but above it; and (2) if a Dem answers, in response to such a question, Confucius or Buddha or the Dalai Lama, no one would roll their eyes because these men aren't "philosophers." These people are antireligious snobs, who, like Russell, see the peak of philosophy as closing up and raising one's nose at the fear of God, which is the beginning of human wisdom.

BArr basically lost my vote with his answer.

Philosophy is "love of wisdom". Philosophers have not been simply ana-lytic, but also expressive. Putting too much emphasis on the methodologically heavy personalities like Kant and Hegel locks some truly deep philosophers like Kierkegaard, and many other aphoristic existentialists.

Socrates had a rough methodology as "gad-fly-ing". But where he was more assertive and less skeptical (remembered truths, for example) he is also much less methodical, and more suggestive. The method broke down pre-conceived answers, exposed their weaknesses and allowed him to introduce his novel, humble conclusions for consideration. The "Socratic Method" almost resembles what we call "deconstruction".

Kierkegaard wrote dialogues that so obscured the identity as a single author--by arguing from opposing pseudo-personalities, that makes comparison to methodologicians like Kant, difficult. Yet, his satirical swipes at the weaknesses of Hegel's system are evaluated as quite on target, but intuitive.

One of the persistent illusions/delusions/conclusions that I have had is the the words of Jesus provide valid predictions on human nature. Interestingly enough it is through meditation on Jesus words that my injection into your space can equally be an illusion, delusion, despite to me it is a persistent conclusion.

Is delusion possible? Yes. I am a human being. Is illusion possible? Yes. Because I'm at least using an induction, which can mislead by coincidence and trend, as well as a psychological affinity (close to delusion, but less pointed). Why is conclusion possible? Because I realize the above. If it has any meaning, it is on the basis of my ability to assess and evaluate appearances as a barrier to understanding.

Jesus has a prescription for this process: "walk a mile in another's shoes". That suggests that it takes work, it takes time, it takes care, discomfort. It's not as easy as admitting "My opponent might be right BUT...."

I admit that Jesus' principles are more evocative and illustrative than they are explicit. But had Jesus believed in methodology as a solution, there's a question of whether he would have done so much to upset the apple cart (which again, is debatable.)

Art Deco first point cannot stand--especially, in regard to Jesus. Jesus sounds like he opposed all divorce, but regarded that God had made an allowance for the "hardened hearts" of man. This was not something he campaigned about, but answered when asked.

The Law made allowances. And, thus as God did not just impose his standard on people--even while suggesting they were in the wrong--it is not simple from Jesus that one should be any more hard-lined--toward other people--about divorce.

"Exactly what is Jesus' philosophy?"

What I call proto-existentialism. However, Solomon seems almost European in that realm, though, almost a contemporary of de Montaigne or Pascal, in Ecclesiastes.

Aside from that, there is a very rational-based perspectivism in most of his work. I say "rational-based" because unlike current perspectivism (Nietzsche) it never degrades into nihilism or hyper-relativism.

Admittedly Nietzsche's work is aimed against what he calls "nihilism", but it is essentially nihilism, because at base the value system he imposes on nature exhorts Master Morality which demonstrates a breakdown in the concept of morality via relativism and an embrace of subjectivity, as well as the trump card of Science as final arbiter.

Jesus perspectivism is partly what Nietzsche sees as nihilism, the idea that truth is unreachable for man. Nietzsche's perspectivism is essentially what any follower of the Bible would label "nihilism". "Error" is Nietzsche's taboo.

And even though in Ecce Homo, Nietzsche invites a fundamental skepticism on "Error", it's a light autobiography and he moves past it quickly. EH, Nietzsche admits, is primarily an introduction of the himself to history as the philosopher that "split history in two". I guess he's trying to display his agility there, despite having wielded any appearance of "Error" as the big hammer in almost every conclusion in previous books.

I recognize only two seminal sources on perspectivism--that refuses resolve itself as paradoxical relativism: Jesus and Nietzsche. One claims the truth lies in an extra-personal God, the other one claims it lies in us doing exactly what we want and not resenting the wills of others, because there is only what we want and what we are made to do as a guide in actions.

Perspecivism as a practice is very fruitful. It makes me aware that even as I write, you are not indebted to me to find Jesus a philosopher, but I am not indebted to you to believe that what I wrote is invalid.

That Jesus- as-philosopher might be still on the table, would mean that our assessment on a person naming Jesus as their most inspirational "philosopher" is not necessarily pandering or dodging or illustrative of ignorance of philosophers. That imposes the idea of a positive state (the act of pandering, e.g.) as the only default conclusion of a disbelief: That Jesus can be considered a philosopher.

It is easily reasonable to ask what "school" of philosophy Jesus comes from--unless of course he were God Incarnate, where a "school" is a little pointless--depending on (again) perspective. But I'm not indebted to find dishonesty or ignorance in a case that I find credence in by suggestion. (It doesn't mean I'm right, but capitulation is not a strategy to wisdom either.)

I hope we understand that 1) I find credence in Mr. Bush's statement, even if somewhat naive. and 2) you make a positive claim about Bush's intention or mental state based on something you believe, which again, bringing it back out to argumentation is not without opposition.

Eric wrote:
"George Bush's reference to Jesus as his favorite philosopher was just a pathetic attempt to appeal to the evangelical base. Exactly what is Jesus' philosophy?"

OR he was being honest. Bush derangement is a palpable part of the political reality. How sad. I would count Jesus as a philosopher, and a wise one at that!

If I remember correctly, Bush was asked a follow up question about why Jesus was his favorite philosopher, and he said,"because he changed my heart." This is a personal and subjective relationship Bush has with Jesus and not one that can be defined. Perhaps it can be argued that Jesus was a philosopher, but Bush wasn't citing him as a philosopher, but as someone who "changed his heart," in a personal way that others could not understand.

Also, I don't have the data, but I'm sure that Aquinas referred to Aristotle and St. Augustine more than he did to Jesus in Summa Theologica.

Of course, I think we're all over ana-lyzing this. Bush mentioned Jesus to get votes and cement his reputation among the evangelicals.

I'm voting for who claims Joseph de Maistre as his favorite philosopher.

Protestants aren't particularly concerned with what Saint Aquinas had to say. If they read him, they'd be Catholics.

Eric,

I am you. I would vote twice for anyone who respects Maistre.

The ana-lysis is of interest but the politics are pretty simple. What voters could Bush have persuaded to support him by directly answering that question? None. It was a great opportunity to turn a question into his favor so that he could make an appeal to the audience that he wanted to address. This isn't even pandering all that much in my view.

Correction Eric,

I am "with" you. I am not you. Wasn't making a strange existential claim there.

Bruce, I wish these comments also had an edit option. I often fire off a comment only to realize later that I left out words, made a bunch of typos etc.

Quote:
"This is a personal and subjective relationship Bush has with Jesus and not one that can be defined."

It appears to me you just did define that relationship.