I would say that this is a failure of philosophy in political leadership. Not that philosophy was ever paramount in politics, but it was at least expected in the highest classes.
Everything devolves into tribalism without philosophy. It looks like people are discoursing, but they are really just signalling.
> It looks like people are discoursing, but they are really just signalling.
I was looking to put words on my feeling about this, and you did it perfectly.
I was wondering why suddenly so many people voiced the same engaged opinion, while I know for having discussed with them in private settings that they don't think deeply about society.
Now I realize that's because they want to look like they belong to a certain kind of people. It's not about ideas. It's about tribes.
wonder what percentage of our likelihood to survive depend on ensuring we still are part of the tribe (e.g. signalling)? I think all communication other than the functional coordination of mundane things (can you pick the kids up today? how much for X etc) would fall into that category. Why otherwise bother with any of it at all?
It seems there is perhaps a relation between the amount of tribalism and uncertainty in life people face? It's easier to take risks and care about art and talk about very complex topics in a distanced way with people from opposing views when we're not in the thick of it?
In my more pessimistic moments I find myself moving towards the same conclusion. The vast majority of communication between people seems, at its root, to simply be sorting of in-group from out-group
My brother is an artist and the stories he tells about the art world are hilarious.
He's gay with brown skin and votes left so I consider him reasonably unbiased. Hardly a reactionary.
Radicalisation on the left spectrum of the horseshoe.
Politics in English-speaking countries, particularly the US, seems to have partly become entertainment. Some of the "fans" appear more fervent than even the politicians themselves.
I'm an outsider and even I've been drawn into US politics, because it is entertaining. Sometimes it's more entertaining than a fictional story. But I doubt that this makes for sensible governing.
Their election cycles happen every 2 years and I think there's no time limit for electoral advertising. So they're always promoting candidates, almost all year round.
To top that off, they have only two parties and party affiliation is almost like supporting a sports club.
For neutrality's sake I'll say there's Team Green, and Team Yellow. When Green is in power, Yellow supporters might scream about a topic, like debt. Then Team Yellow comes into power. Spending goes crazy, Team Green supporters point out previous Team Yellow statements about debt, and their current conduct. What does the average Team Yellow supporter do? They don't listen, they don't try to analyze the stuff themselves, they listen to their own news media.
The problem is when political polarization becomes so strong that they become two separate ethnicities. The USA would probably have already fallen apart if it wasn't a federal country ?
"Not that philosophy was ever paramount in politics, but it was at least expected in the highest classes."
Well some of it has been influential, works by Aristotle and Plato for instance. In another post here I've mentioned Plato's Republic (now well over 200 years old). Its arguments about justice are still the cornerstone of our justice system these days—or at least they're supposed to be.
"Everything devolves into tribalism without philosophy."
Unfortunately, that's true. It's not gone unnoticed that in recent decades many universities have closed down their liberal arts and often this includes their schools of philosophy. It's pretty terrible really.
Duh, how did miss that glaring typo? Of course that should read 2000 years. While I'm at it, the best figure we have for the Republic is ≈375 BC which makes it ≈2396 years old.
What makes you think that tribalism isn't in philosophy? It is no pancaea or vaccine and has a history of basis of tribalism - the Great Schism for one. If there is a lack of tribalism in niche philosophies well, it isn't important enough to have a tribe.
Everything devolves into tribalism without philosophy. It looks like people are discoursing, but they are really just signalling.