Just to clarify... The following quotes appear in Muna's response:
"philosophers would probably waste time trying to be open-minded"
and
"A leader should be able to make the best decision for everyone that they lead."
Is it possible for someone to make the best decision for everyone, without as much open-mindedness as possible? (Where open mindedness means taking into consideration as many perspectives, benefits and possible consequences as possible?)

Further clarification, Maymoon:

"A leader needs to be a person who is firm with decisions they make for the people under them whether it goes against their beliefs, emotions or desires."
What should leaders base their decisions on?

"Also a good leader needs to distinguish between what is right or wrong and what is good or bad but in philosophy their are no standards for right or wrong and good or bad. All options are subject to perception."
Does Aristotle believe there is no right or wrong?

[Just a quick note. Every philosopher through ancient greek or medieval times were clergy men who believed in the sacraments of their religion as the foundation for their philosophical writing. After the scientific revolution philosophy derived the two major moral theories (utilitarianism by J.S. Mill and deontology by I. Kant) that are used to this day as moral guidelines for our jurisprudential system and ethics taught in schools for example].

My view on the issue

Firstly i would like to comment on the whole philosophy and leadership issue.
Personally i think philosophers don't make good leaders because in order to be even a LEADER forgot a good one, one needs to be a well grounded person who can make concrete decisions on how to manage his people. Meaning they need to be able to make firm decisions and not test drive decisions. A leader needs to be a person who is firm with decisions they make for the people under them whether it goes against their beliefs, emotions or desires. And this in itself goes against the whole concept of philosophy since philosophy is based on uncertainty. A philosopher is never satisfied with one answer but is always looking for different ways and different answers, and is content with that "lost freedom". Certainty and structure are their mortal enemies and certainty and structure are the stepping stones to good leadership so you see the dilemma. Also a good leader needs to distinguish between what is right or wrong and what is good or bad but in philosophy their are no standards for right or wrong and good or bad. All options are subject to perception.

That does not mean philosophers are useless though. I think Philosophers would make good resources to use or helpers (call them whatever you want) because they meet the leadership criteria halfway. They can come up with many different options and ways to choose from, they just lack the desire to choose one pathway or option and a good leader can make good use of that by following the best option a philosopher presents.

Secondly, i think decision making is an important process in life that one can't avoid. Except in the situation where others make decisions for you. Whether you like it or not you are always going to be presented with two or more options in a certain situation, and you are always going to have to make a decision on which one is best for you. This is what makes humans different from animals we were given the privilege of having a choice, and whatever use we put this choice to - good or bad- is our decision. Even in situations where you choose not to choose or decide not to decide you are still making a choice or decision - which is not to choose or decide.( i hope that didn't confuse you)

That's all i have to say for now lool!

My take on the topic [part 1]

This is in response to the first post (even though this is a little late, sorry people you're just going to have to accept it and READ IT!).

Personally, I don't think there is any way that anyone can escape decision-making. It's a mandatory part of life. We breathe, we eat,we sleep etc. Yes, many of you may say those are natural processes but I believe decision-making is a natural process for our brain. Whether its from choosing which flavour of ice cream you want or who you want on your team for a dodge ball game, you have options and you make a choice. Some of you may want to counter that by saying sometimes we don't always have options and so we really didn't make a decision because there was nothing to choose from. I would just classify the things we do because we have to as things that don't require a decision so just throw them to the back of your head for now. Decisions are things we have to do.

Now, would a philosopher make a good leader?

..............................................................

NO!

My perception of philosophy generally focuses on how broad philosophy is so there wouldn't be any concision. If philosophers aren't concise (feel free to disagree as this is only my take on the issue)they would never be able to narrow down anything. Decisions usually require you looking at one thing or the other and hopefully you should be able to choose the best one. Philosophers would probably waste time trying to be open-minded and giving each option a chance and assessing everything and so on. Leaders have to make decisions even if they're hated for it. Philosophers aren't up to that in my eyes. In the article, philosophers are said to maybe have a different set of criteria by which they make decisions. Sure, that maybe how they make decisions but would it be accepted by those whom you've just made the decision for? A leader should be able to make the best decision for everyone that they lead.Additionally, I think a philosopher's neutrality would ultimately serve as a double-edged sword. Neutrality would serve as a good thing because even if you were to have a stance on an issue, you wouldn't cater to the want/needs of the people with whom you're on the same side because you're neutral. It would also serve as a bad thing where neutrality might appear to masquerade as indifference. Since you're not on any one side of the issue, you would be seen as not caring about it at all. I believe that's only one aspect of the criteria a philospher would use and even when trying to imagine out the different possibilities, I still feel that philosophers aren't suited to be elected into positions of power. They should be included when discussions turn to other topics and used as resources but other than that, no, keep them out of the decision making processes.

[I hope I was able to get my point across the way I intended it to be understood.]

~Muna

Aristotle on Virtue

First, is possible to be a living breathing human being and avoid all decision-making? Is it possible that part of being human necessarily includes - to a certain degree - the process of decision making? This may simply be a matter of different ways of thinking, or process, when ultimately coming to a decision. It may be then, that the philosopher makes his or her decisions based on a uniquely distinctive set of criteria; taking into consideration only those variables that pass the test of the golden mean, neutrality or universal truth, for example.

Second, perhaps we could relate this discussion to the Aristotle piece, since he defines the virtuous man as being the one most capable of making proper or wise decisions.

It is hard work to be excellent, since in each case it is hard work to find what is intermediate. To do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy; wherefore goodness is both rare and laudable and noble.
(Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics: Book II)

If we look at the virtuous man (or the one who has wisdom to know how to act) as the "philosopher", then perhaps we may want to reconsider the philosopher as a good leader.

I Kinda Disagree

I read 1984 over the summer actually, its a good book (only two hundred and sumthing pages). It proposes the idea of how trying to attain a utopia creates a dysfunctional dystopia. I found the idea very thought provoking and its entertaining because it's so unbelievable. There's these law enforcement in the book called thought police (interesting eh?) It's main message is similar to that of Lois Lowry's The Giver.
But I don't think a philosopher can be a leader because philosophy is basically about searching for all possible avenues without declaring one to be coorect or even choosing one. It's a concept of uncertainty, and a vital charachteristic of any leader is decisiveness.

Google Books

Take a look at http://books.google.com/ if you have time and if you do not already know. You can have access to many great books like Plato's Republic or George Orwell's 1984. I thought it was neat and wanted to share it with you all.

Philosophy and Leadership

Ok here it goes, my first Blog ever :)

The concept of Philosophy and Leadership did not really sink into my brain. I mean what we talked about in the discussion did not really satisfy me. I think I agreed that a philosopher can be a leader however he/she needs to be able to separate the two roles distinctively. Now that in mind, I was watching the movie Gladiator. In one of the scenes Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor who is killed by his son, reveals that he is a philosopher. So after hearing that I did a quick research on Marcus Aurelius to see how historically correct the movie was and i found out that he was a real Emperor. On Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius , it says that "He was the last of the 'Five Good Emperors', and is also considered one of the most important Stoic philosophers."(Stoicism is school of thought if I am not mistaken). My point being that this man was a philosopher and a good ruler/leader. I can't really prove it from my own knowledge but philosophy and leadership can go hand to hand according to his example.

Greetings! Our blog is finally up and running. First, my apologies for canceling this week's meeting. I would much rather be spending the lunch hour with you folks, believe me! We will still discuss the Aristotle piece next week, but in the mean time if you have any thoughts on it, please post below!