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