Unveiling Concealed Biases: Reflections on Philosophy and Political Philosophy

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHYPOLITICS OF PRACTICALITY

Simone Mao

9/2/20212 min read

In the field of political philosophy, there is a tendency to wrap personal biases in intellectual rhetoric. The correspondence between personal beliefs and theories can be understood, and motivations can be analyzed through the lens of sociology or psychology, and even the formation process of such evaluative systems can be seen as a political phenomenon. However, tracking this phenomenon in philosophy is more challenging. This is not because philosophy is “purer”, possessing an independent space, or more “rational” and “universal”, and thus more open to diverse ideas and conceptual innovations (I believe that statements like these often express more of a “should be” than an “is”, placing faith in the “potential” for human nature to progress toward goodness rather than the current “reality”). On the contrary, the real challenge lies in the fact that in philosophy, individual biases are more concealed and less easily detected than in disciplines with a stronger political overtone.

Political biases based on identity markers such as ethnicity, class, gender, merit, etc., are always explicit. But here, the concealment of individual biases is not due to the inherent nature of philosophy but is rather a result of biases that lurk in the substratum or foundations of worldviews, based on factors such as aesthetic preferences, upbringing, personality, religious habits, physiological foundations, and individual experiences, which often go unexamined.

The term “substratum” refers to a stable, less penetrable, or not easily intervened area of consciousness. These aspects, inherited from others and passed down through past conceptual revolutions, shape our thinking. Thus, philosophy demands that we become aware of ourselves, engage in a dialogue with the primal biases of individuals or collectives, and examine the foundations of consciousness and self-awareness. After all, everything we have is inherited from others and the past. Concepts within self-awareness, like external concepts supposedly independent of the subject, have their prerequisites. Philosophy involves discovering and understanding these prerequisites. Among all the activities of forging concepts, falsifying self-awareness is just one. Attempting to replace one bias with another in self-awareness is not an opportunity to reveal true knowledge.

The desire to affirm self-awareness and assert established positions is so strong in human nature that detached neutrality often devolves into a mere slogan. What is needed is not self-doubt, nor is it to sway with the wind on the wall. Instead, it is about acting and thinking with rational honesty. For this reason, I would prefer to stand between A and B. Although I may not achieve it now, I am willing to heed caution (cavte), and henceforth, strive to study human phenomena with an impartial and calm heart.

In conclusion, I want to quote a passage from Tacitus: “Consilium mihi […] tradere, […] sine ira et studio, quorum causas procul habeo,” (Tacitus, Annales, I, 1) which translates to “What I intend is to lay before you […] without anger or partiality, from the motives of which I stand sufficiently removed.”

* The desire to delve into the concept of “justice for plebeians” had been brewing in me (Do the plebeians really have justice? What kind of justice do they have?) since 2019, and in 2021, I had the opportunity to delve deeper into Greek tyranny and democracy, as well as Roman history and institution, giving birth to this passage.