Donate

Influences

Preamblism is obviously influenced by the Founders and great leaders of this nation. Preamblism is also influenced by several other political thinkers, philosophers, books and podcasts. On this page we identify many of these.

Before we do this, it is important to note that Preamblism accepts diverse views and rejects extremism. One of the philosophers we discuss below, Isaiah Berlin, espouses Pluralism (source). Preamblists are also Pluralist in the sense that we believe that there are different ways to achieve the Preamblist Values and there are different yet valid balances to be struck between these values. But just as Isaiah Berlin states that Pluralism is not relativism, the same applies to Preamblism. Preamblism is not relativism in that we outright reject racism, sexism, homophobia, and any other type of discrimination. We also have some very strongly held beliefs such as “all men (meaning all people) are created equal.” Even after rejecting discrimination and even alongside our strongly held beliefs, there is much room for diversity of views.

Another important theme of Preamblism is that we accept that many problems and their potential solutions are complex and that we must embrace this complexity. The optimum combination of the Preamblist values as it applies to some issues can and must be complex. We love simplicity as much as anyone, but sometimes complexity is necessary and therefore, we must embrace it. As a philosopher we discuss below, Simone de Beauvoir, wrote “Man must not attempt to dispel the ambiguity of his being but, on the contrary, accept the task of realizing it.” (source).

It is in this spirit of Pluralism and complexity, that we lay out some of the philosophers and political thinkers that influence our thinking. These philosopher’s ideas are sometimes in conflict, but we believe there is some truth in all of them. In this vein, we are inspired by the quote: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”- F. Scott Fitzgerald. Likewise, we do not agree with everything each of these philosophers did or said. In fact, just like some of the Founders of this nation, some of them did and said some awful things. But again, to completely reject everything they said, would be deprive ourselves of valuable insight.

Note: Much of below is sourced from the excellent Podcast: Philosophize This by Stephen West (this is how I learned about some of these philosophers and their concepts, for I am not an expert on philosophy myself). I will call out the episode numbers of Philosophize This that I find most relevant- I also call out the titles of the episodes when they are different than the name of the philosopher or topic.

Yin-Yang; “The earliest Chinese characters for yin and yang are found…at least as early as the 14th century B.C.E. (source)”

Yin-Yang, which emerged in China, is one of the most ancient philosophical concepts and it remains highly influential today. It “describes opposite but interconnected forces. (source)” The concept includes a “fruitful paradox of simultaneous unity and duality. Yin and yang can be thought of as complementary (rather than opposing) forces that interact to form a dynamic system in which the whole is greater than the assembled parts.[7] According to this philosophy, everything has both yin and yang aspects (for instance, shadow cannot exist without light). Either of the two major aspects may manifest more strongly in a particular object, depending on the criterion of the observation. The yin and yang symbol (or taijitu) shows a balance between two opposites with a portion of the opposite element in each section. (source)” Likewise, certain Preamblist values are sometimes in opposition to each other (e.g. liberty and safety) so that they can sometimes be considered opposites (like a yin and a yang) but yet they are simultaneously part of each other in that, for example, one cannot truly have liberty without safety and vice versa (one cannot have liberty if constantly under likely threat of being violently attacked and one cannot have safety if you don’t have the liberty to escape or defend oneself- think of a slave who is constantly unsafe because they have no liberty to legally defend themselves or family). Taking one Preamblist value too far jeopardizes the other value or values. So the values must be in balance with each other. That does not mean that each value must be perfectly even with the other. At certain times, circumstances, and places, there can be more of one than the other- like how if you look near the top of the yin-yang symbol above and move your eyes horizontally, you will see more white than black, but there is still a bit of black.

Socrates; c. 470-399 B.C. (Philosophize This episode #003, “Socrates and the Sophists”)

Socrates never wrote down his teachings and there is debate as to what he actually taught, but, there is still much to learn from what Socrates supposedly said. What can a Preamblist learn from a guy who lived about 2,500 years ago?

One learning is the virtue of being open-minded. Socrates apparently said ““I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know.” (source) Preamblists have strong opinions about principles such as equality and democracy. But, like Socrates, Preamblists recognize that there is plenty we don’t know. Therefore we are open-minded to new and different ideas as long as they seem to advance the Preamblist Values in balance with each other. For example, when it comes to economics- a Preamblist is open to capitalist and socialist-leaning solutions- the Preamblist recognizes that either or a combination could work best in different circumstances. This is the opposite of a political extremist. A political extremist, using Socrates words, “thinks he know somethings when he does not”- the extremist thinks they know that their ideology is the best course all the time in all situations.

Another learning is the importance of knowledge and its connection to morality (Socrates talked a lot of virtue). Socrates apparently said, “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” (source). Likewise, at the heart of Preamblism is the desire to make government morally better by gaining and applying knowledge.

Socrates apparently also said, “the unexamined life is not worth living.”(source). Likewise, at the heart of Preamblism, is the intentionally examination of our collective selves (usually as they come together in government) to find the best way forward. This is the opposite of how today’s political parties seem to operate- instead of studying a topic in depth, they seem to develop an immediate response through the lens of their ideology, then issue talking points to their politicians who repeat those over and over again. I wish that Socrates were around to question them using the Socratic Method- this would demonstrate the inconsistencies and contradictions in their ideologies.

Socrates also apparently said “I believe that I'm one of a few Athenians—so as not to say I'm the only one, but the only one among our contemporaries—to take up the true political craft and practice the true politics. This is because the speeches I make on each occasion do not aim at gratification but at what's best."[160] (source). Likewise, a Preamblist does not act for “gratification” but for “what’s best.”

Socrates also apparently stated, "One ought never act unjustly, even to repay a wrong that has been done to oneself."[167] (source). Socrates seems to have acted consistently with this statement- he apparently refused to carry out an order of a ruler to arrest a fellow citizen for execution despite the risk to himself. In this case he refused because he deemed the order unjust, but Socrates was apparently obedient to the government when he thought their orders were not unjust. For example, he served his military duty to Athens with distinction. Likewise a Preamblist is obedient to the democratically elected government but does not carry out unjust acts.

To be clear, Socrates is not a perfect model for Preamblism- he may not have favored democracy.

Socrates was sentenced to death by a majority vote of a jury of hundreds of Athenian citizens for “corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens, and for asebeia (impiety), i.e. worshipping false gods and failing to worship the gods of Athens. (source)” He was sentenced by “consent of the governed”- one of our Preamblist Values- which is a rather inconvenient fact for us that we must recognize because it is a fact that has influenced the thinking of many. His execution almost certainly painted democracy in a negative light for many to come including the next philosopher we will talk about, Plato. What should a Preamblist make of this? Preamblism believes in democracy, but democracy is not perfect, and there should be limits on majority votes (this was recognized by our Founding Fathers). In particular we recognize that there is a risk that the pure majority vote on a specific issues can result in too extreme an outcome. Take the vote on Brexit for example. Preamblism is skeptical that a yes or no vote on Brexit should ever have taken place because it was far too complex an issue for a simple yea or nay. Preamblism believes in the people electing representatives so those representatives can study issues in depth and come up with appropriately nuanced answers rather than a simple yes or no, because a simple yes or no is often not the best outcome. Additionally, Preamblism believes that there are human rights which cannot be violated even by a democratic vote- many of these such as freedom of speech are captured in our Bill of Rights, which would have protected Socrates from his execution had it been in place at the time. In fact we believe that a government ruled by majority vote is not really a democracy unless there are protections in place for freedom of speech and religion and other essential rights.

Plato; 428/427 or 424/423 – 348 BC; (Philosophize This, episodes #04)

I almost skipped writing about Plato on this page because the government he lays out in The Republic is terrifying (at least in many ways). But I decided I had to write about Plato because he is so influential on the rest of political philosophy including reactions against his ideas (at least one reaction against it is later on this page by Karl Popper). Additionally, “in 2021, a survey showed that The Republic is the most studied book in the top universities in the United States (source)” so it is still highly influential in modern times. And in writing this, I realized The Republic has some positive content in addition to terrifying and we will cover both. Plato wrote that there are five possible types of government described here from best to worst:

The first, and again, to him, the best, is an aristocracy in which philosopher kings would govern a city with reason and driven by the pursuit of knowledge but without ego nor their own property (they remind me of Jedi Knights). To Plato’s credit, this would not be an inherited aristocracy but a selected one as we will discuss soon. Plato is really trying to ensure that the best in society are the rulers, which has some merit.

If one or more of these kings became more driven by their own honor and glory, maybe because they were poorly selected, then they might turn the government into the next type of government, a timocracy, in which the rulers are allowed to own property which they acquire primarily through military aggression.
If the rulers later became motivated by money, then the timocracy might devolve into an oligarchy in which the rich control the government and likely oppress the poor.
If the poor successfully rebel against the oligarchical government, they may set up a democracy. Plato ranks this as the second worst form of government because he does not trust the masses to rule well. He thinks a democracy will likely devolve into chaos without law.
To restore law and order, a tyrant establishes the worst form of government: a tyranny.

Obviously we disagree with Plato on democracy- we believe it is the best form of government and can be wisely designed so that it maintains order and peace and does not need to devolve into a tyranny. But we should not take his warning about democracy lightly- it can devolve into a tyranny run by a dictator if we are not careful.

To continue with Plato, he thought aristocracy as he defined it was the best but, in my opinion, he essentially admits that it has a fundamental problem that is very hard to overcome and his solution proves why his aristocracy is unworkable. The problem is the existence of his type of aristocracy depends on really smart and non-egotistically, community-minded rulers- in other words saintly rulers called philosopher kings. And I think he knew this was a problem because his utopian society goes to great and sometimes terrifying lengths to find and train these types of ruler. In his utopian city, there would be different classes: rulers, guardians, auxiliaries, and producers. Rulers would be selected from the guardian class who would be like officers in an army. Guardians would be selected from children; and children not selected to be guardians would be auxiliaries (soldiers) or producers (workers). In other words, children would be divided into members of the guardian, auxiliary, or the producer class based on their behavior and traits so far in life (and as we will see, the qualities of their parents as interpreted by the rulers). The classes would stay in their lane- producers would not perform the role of auxiliaries or guardians, and vice versa. Preamblists of course do not believe that you should divide people into classes from an early age- Preamblists believe that people have the freedom to choose their own destiny at whatever age. To Plato’s credit, a determining factor was not the sex of the children- men and women could be in any of the three classes. Additionally, he advocates that within the classes, each person should perform the occupation they want.

This utopia is scary so far- the breaking up into classes from an early age, the lack of democracy. And it just gets scarier. The Republic states that the city would work best if the citizens believe the “parable of the metals” which Plato acknowledges is a myth or “Noble lie.” This myth states that all children are born with a certain nature or type of metal inside them that deems the class to which they are destined: those born with gold would be guardians/rulers, silver would be auxiliaries, and bronze or iron would be producers. This myth would unite the citizens. I find it particularly bizarre that Plato advocates for this lie, considering he is famous for the “allegory of the cave” in which he basically states that most people experience a false world (the shadows on the cave wall) instead of the real world that is casting the shadows near the source of light behind them. The philosophers escape the cave to see the real world and then return to the cave to educate the people on the truth. So kind of strange that the philosophers then build a city government on a known lie. Instead, Preamblism believes that a government should govern based on the truth as it is best known at that time- through science and the best research.

And then Plato’s Republic gets even more terrifying. Those selected as guardians would be specially educated for their future role- this would be a censured education in which the guardians-in-training would only be allowed to read books deemed suitable. Moreover, guardians would share all their property- they would not own any private property themselves so that they would be fully committed to the city. Additionally wives and children would be shared. Parents would not know who their children were so that they looked after all children as if they were there own and likewise children would not who their biological parents would be so that they would all be siblings. The rulers would decide which adults would breed together to cultivate desirable characteristics. The traditional family would be dismantled to instead encourage people to feel that the whole city is their family. These are the great lengths that Plato would go to to ensure that the philosopher kings- the key to his cherished aristocracy- would be good rulers which, in my opinion, proves that his aristocracy is unrealistic and unsustainable and points out why democracy is a better, more natural way of achieving good government. To this Preamblist, a democracy based on the “consent of the governed” is much more reasonable and achievable than the elaborate reorganization of family, eugenics, “noble lie,” and censorship that Plato believes is necessary to put in place good, unselfish philosopher kings.

Niccolo Machiavelli; May 3, 1469- June 21, 1527; (Philosophize This, episodes #023)

Machiavelli believes a major reason of government is order and stability even if it means cruelty: “A prince, therefore, must not mind incurring the charge of cruelty for the purpose of keeping his subjects united and confident; for, with a very few examples, he will be more merciful than those who, from excess of tenderness, allow disorders to arise, from whence spring murders and rapine; for these as a rule injure the whole community, while the executions carried out by the prince injure only one individual.” (source) Of course, I believe that Machiavelli goes too far, but he does have an important point- one of the main reasons for government is to provide order in which its citizens can have security and safety. And although the term Machiavellian has become linked with immorality, there is a good moral intent behind the order he seeks: protecting most of the people in society. Additionally, Machiavelli believes that establishing order is essential before moving on to more inclusive forms of government such as the one he favored, a Republican government. How does this relate to Preamblism? There are multiple Preamblist values on this topic: “Safety,” “domestic Tranquility (peace),” “common defense,” and “future security.” And his point that more inclusive governments cannot exist without order is a good one and reminds us of the question- how long would our democracy survive if there were massive disorder and violence in our society? So often we think of the preambles as being about high-flying values such as liberty and equality. But the preambles are also about the nuts and bolts basics of what we need from a government such as security and safety.

Thomas Hobbes; April 1588- December 1679; (Philosophize This, episodes #026)

Somewhat similar to Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes thought security was the main reason for government: “LEVIATHAN called a COMMONWEALTH, or STATE (in Latin, CIVITAS), which is but an artificial man, though of greater stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defence it was intended.” (source) Hobbes believed that the people gave up their rights to an all-powerful sovereign whose job was to enforce order even if it meant tyranny which was better than a state of nature which was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (source). Of course, I believe that Hobbes, like Machievelli, goes too far, but they do have an important point- one of the main reasons for government is to provide security and safety to it’s citizens. And there is a good intent behind this: security and safety are morally right because they are about protecting people. Additionally, they are a cornerstone of any effective society. Without them, most members of these societies can’t focus on anything else productive. I know that if my family’s safety is at great risk, I won’t do anything else productive until they are safer. Additionally, members of unsafe societies have less reason to try to build a better future because why bother- it could get you killed, or what you build today will likely get destroyed tomorrow. Therefore it is no accident that there multiple Preamblist values on this topic: “Safety,” “domestic Tranquility (peace),” “common defense,” and “future security.” So often we think of the preambles as being about high-flying values such as liberty and equality. But the preambles are also about the nuts and bolts basics of what we need from a government such as security and safety.

Hobbes differs from Machiavelli in that he does not believe in inclusive government because he believes it creates instability and therefore a threat to security and order. Therefore, he believes that the government should always be monarchical with full power in the hands of the sovereign (source). We of course, reject this view. We believe that too much power in the hands of one-person leads, for many individuals, to the very problems that Hobbes is trying to resolve. As we have seen for many individuals under an all-powerful sovereign, their life became “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (source).

Voltaire; November 21, 1694-May 30, 1778

Voltaire stated, "Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one" (source). To the Preamblist, the extremist is full of certainty in their positions. Then to apply the logic of this Voltaire quote, that means the extremist is absurd. I will write more on Voltaire later.

John Locke; August 29, 1632- October 28, 1704; (Philosophize This, episodes #35 and #36 “The Blank Slate”)

Preamblism aligns with most of Locke’s main points. After all, his ideas influenced the Preamble to the Declaration. What are these ideas? Why recreate the wheel, I will just directly quote from the Philosophize This page on Locke: “Natural rights: Locke believed that people have certain natural rights, including the right to life, liberty, and property. He argued that governments exist to protect these rights and that if a government fails to do so, the people have the right to overthrow it…Limited government: Locke believed that governments should be limited in their power and that they should exist only to protect the natural rights of their citizens. He argued that governments that exceed their authority are tyrannical and should be overthrown…Religious tolerance: Locke was a strong advocate for religious tolerance and believed that people should be free to worship as they please. He argued that the state should not have the power to dictate religious beliefs or practices…Social contract theory: Locke's social contract theory argues that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. He believed that individuals voluntarily give up some of their natural rights in exchange for the protection provided by the government. He also believed that if a government fails to fulfill its obligations to its citizens, the people have the right to dissolve the social contract and establish a new government.”

Locke stated, “We are born free, as we are born rational.” And he believed government should be based on reason.

Importantly, by right to property, Locke meant right to the fruits of one’s labors or right to what you work for.

If you are thinking that Locke sounded like a naive idealist, think again. As stated Locke believed that government existed to protect life, liberty, and property (by which he meant right to what you work for). Protect from who? Protect from those who want to take them away from you (partly because it may be easier to take property than work for it). Why can’t you just protect yourself? Because sometimes those who want to take them from you are powerful and attack in large groups. So you need a powerful, organized group to protect you. To Locke, this is the reason for government. What happens when government no longer protects you or even becomes the aggressor?- then its time to overthrow it.

As Philosophize This! #36 points out, Locke is inspirational. He started off as a monarchist but because he kept challenging himself to learn his whole life, he came up with the ideas above which were radical at the time because they stated that a monarch should be overthrown if it fails in its duty to protect the people. Locke put himself at great risk for releasing these ideas and “spent most of his life on the run and scared.” (https://www.philosophizethis.org/transcript/john-locke-pt-1). I agree with Philosophize This!- Locke is inspirational especially to us Preamblists who are constantly learning and trying to improve the nation and therefore, the world.

Locke was also a big believer in the power of education. He stated, ““I think I may say that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education.” And he stated the importance of making the education fun, useful, and interesting for the person and not just in classroom sitting at a desk education but also the arts like dancing. He stated, ““Great care is to be taken, that it never be made as a business to him, nor he look on it as a task. We naturally, as I said, even from our cradles, love liberty, and have therefore an aversion to many things for no other reason but because they are enjoined us. I have always had a fancy that learning might be made a play and recreation to children: that they might be brought to desire to be taught, maybe if it were proposed to them as a thing of honour, credit, delight, and recreation, maybe as a reward for doing something else; and if they were never chid or corrected for the neglect of it.” (source).

Voltaire; November 21, 1694-May 30, 1778

Jean-Jacques Rousseau; June 28, 1712- July 2, 1778; (Philosophize This, episodes #45 “Government”, #46 “Democracy, Aristocracy or Monarchy”, and #47 “The General Will”)

Rousseau was an original and nuanced thinker. Therefore much of his philosophy is, in my opinion, fascinating, but somewhat hard to explain. He believed that the original state of nature of humans was essentially good and free. At the same, he seems to believe that we are incapable of living in this state of nature for long or at least that we can’t and should not try to return to it. He believes that what has replaced the state of nature, including private property, civilization, and government, can be corrupting and enslaving. But, to some extent, he seems to believe they are inevitable or at least, we can’t get rid of them. So to him, it’s important to figure out the best way to live within them. How to do that when it comes to government? He believes that government is based on a social contract in which all citizens choose to live under a government to gain its benefits. Therefore, a government must provide benefits to the citizens to fulfill this social contract. By providing these benefits, governments honor the citizens choice to limit their own freedom. He wrote, “Every man having been born free and master of himself, no one else may under any pretext whatever subject him without his consent. To assert that the son of a slave is born a slave is to assert that he is not born a man.” (source). Therefore Rousseau believes the role of government is to benefit its citizens as a whole and he calls this the general will and common good. He writes, “As long as several men assembled together consider themselves as a single body, they have only one will which is directed towards their common preservation and general well-being. Then, all the animating forces of the state are vigorous and simple, and its principles are clear and luminous; it has no incompatible or conflicting interests; the common good makes itself so manifestly evident that only common sense is needed to discern it. Peace, unity and equality are the enemies of political sophistication. Upright and simple men are difficult to deceive precisely because of their simplicity; stratagems and clever arguments do not prevail upon them, they are not indeed subtle enough to be dupes. When we see among the happiest people in the world bands of peasants regulating the affairs of state under an oak tree, and always acting wisely, can we help feeling a certain contempt for the refinements of other nations, which employ so much skill and effort to make themselves at once illustrious and wretched?…A state thus governed needs very few laws [...][16]…However, when the social tie begins to slacken and the state to weaken, when particular interests begin to make themselves felt and sectional societies begin to exert an influence over the greater society, the common interest then becomes corrupted and meets opposition, voting is no longer unanimous; the general will is no longer the will of all; contradictions and disputes arise, and even the best opinion is not allowed to prevail unchallenged."[17] (source). What is the general will that Rousseau is talking about? Stephen West interprets it as, “the consensus among the people about what we should do when it comes to our political, economic, and social systems.” The type of government that Rousseau thinks is most likely to achieve the general will in large countries is an “elective aristocracy” which, as I understand it, is what we today call a representative democracy in which leaders are elected by the citizens. Rousseau is not a fan of direct democracy, in which the citizens themselves vote on specific matters- he prefers citizens voting for leaders who will then vote on specific matters. This is partly because he does not believe most citizens want to spend their time learning about the issues in detail and then voting on them constantly. He also believes that direct democracy won’t last because the power hungry will figure out a way to consolidate the power anyway. At the same time he is anti-monarchy partly because it’s unlikely that the best rulers will come from a particular birth lineage. So a representative democracy is a happy balance between the two.

So what does Rousseau have to do with Preamblism? He was read by many of the Founding Fathers and influenced their thinking including Thomas Jefferson but was considered radical (source1, source 2). I see that there is much to discuss about Rousseau and several of the Preamblist Values especially:

“consent of the governed,”- Rousseau’s exploration of direct v. representative democracy is relevant to this value.
“We the People,” “a more perfect union,” “domestic tranquility,” and “general welfare”- Rousseau’s discussion of the general will and common good are relevant to all these values. I think it is also relevant to the optimum balance between all the Preamblist Values that we strive for.
“Liberty”- Rousseau talked passionately about individual liberty in both the state of nature and also, more relevant to us, in civilization and under a government. He believed that both the achievement of the “general will” and individual liberty were goals. He wrote, “The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.” (source).

David Hume; May 7, 1711- August 25, 1776; (Philosophize This, episodes #52 “Design” and #53 “Custom”)

What we like about David Hume is summarized in his famous quote, “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence” (source). Preamblists believe that government should base it’s policies on the best evidence available. But how do we do this? We first need to recognize, like Hume reminded us, that there are a lot of ideas that are supported by very little evidence. This doesn’t mean they are wrong, but, again, they have little strong evidence supporting them. Then there are ideas supported by more and better evidence- we also don’t know that these ideas are necessarily 100% correct either- but the key point is that they are more likely to be correct than the ones supported by less strong evidence. Therefore Preamblists believe that government should base it’s policies on the ideas that have the most and best supporting evidence. As with a lot of my points, you may be thinking this is blatantly obvious. But, government often does not do this. Think about climate change. For years, most scientists have said that actions by humans (such as burning fossil fuels) are the main contributor to climate change. These scientists have a lot of very strong evidence and have had for a long time. Sure there are scientists who say that human activity is not causing climate change and scientists that say that climate change is not happening. But there are many more scientists who look at the evidence, and say that human activities are the main contributors to climate change. Yet, despite this, our government has failed to take action large enough until maybe the 2022 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to meaningfully reduce the human activities that are most likely causing climate change. In fact, two Presidents, George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump, in the face of this evidence, took action to stop the United States from entering into or remaining part of the major worldwide agreements designed to fight climate change. Therefore, our government has decidedly not “proportioned its belief to the evidence” on climate change and we argue there are many more examples of this.

Ralph Waldo Emerson; May 25, 1803- April 27, 1882; (Philosophize This, episode #164- “Self Reliance”)

A Preamblist likely appreciates Emerson’s emphasis on the individual determining their own opinions and thinks there is validity in his statements, “To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.” (source). “The greatest difficulty is that men do not think enough of themselves, do not consider what it is that they are sacrificing when they follow in a herd, or when they cater for their establishment.” (source)

A Preamblist likely agrees with his concern about citizens rigidly aligning themselves with political parties. He writes, “A sect or party is an elegant incognito devised to save a man from the vexation of thinking.” (source). “We might as easily reprove the east wind, or the frost, as a political party, whose members, for the most part, could give no account of their position, but stand for the defense of those interests in which they find themselves.” (source). Instead, he believes citizens should decide their own point of view on issues and not be overly concerned with consistency. He writes, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” (source). One reason not to be overly concerned with consistency is that the world is not so simple: “It is the last lesson of modern science, that the highest simplicity of structure is produced, not by few elements, but by the highest complexity.” (source) This recognition of complexity reminds me of about some of the views of Simone de Beauvoir, Isaiah Berlin, and Giles Deleuze discussed on this page. Relatedly, Emerson was also a believer in action over theory: “And ounce of action is worth a ton of theory. Don’t be too timid and squeamish about your actions. (source).” I think this quote is useful to politics and governance: action to solve a problem is more important than tryinng to fulfill or come up with a theory that attempts to explain or promises so much such as rigid capitalism or communism. And if the action fails, then try a different approach- this speaks to the incrementalism of Popper discussed on this page. Of course the actions need to respect the Preamblist Values but the beauty of these values is that there is plenty of room for action within them.

Friedrich Nietzsche; October 15, 1844- August 25, 1900; (Philosophize This, episodes #158 “The Creation of Meaning- Nietzsch- The Ascetic Ideal” and episode #159 “The Creation of Meaning- Nietzsch- Amor Fati”)

Nietzsche asserts that to achieve morality, we must not subordinate one human value (like justice) to another value (such as honesty) because all values are important and play a key role at different times. The use of the best combination of interconnected values at the right time is the key to morality- and different combinations can be better at different times. Therefore, we should not try to say one value is superior to another- we should honor all of them and use the most appropriate combination of values best on the situation.

Another important point that Nietzsche makes about morality is that we must not lower our standards to that of our enemies. He said “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.” source and “Let us rather raise ourselves that much higher. Let us color our own example ever more brilliantly. Let our brilliance make them look dark. No, let us not become darker ourselves on their account.” source

F. Scott Fitzgerald; September 24, 1896 – December 21, 1940

A great American writer who has some great quotes that I think are applicable to Preamblism: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” (source)

“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy – they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made. (source)” I credit Bethany McLean on the podcast Capitalisn’t episode: “The Capitalisn't Of The U.S. COVID Response (source)” As I was looking up this quote, I stumbled upon This article which captures the meaning to me of the quote well from modern times perspective.

Erich Fromm; March 23, 1900- March 18, 1980; (Philosophize This, episodes #151 “The Frankfurt School- Erich Fromm on Freedom”)

Preamblists may find it useful to remember Fromm’s hypothesis in Escape From Freedom that not all people value freedom and in fact some are downright scared of the uncertainty of it and would prefer to live in a more authoritarian world. Fromm found in his research that about 10% of people had authoritarian leanings, 15% strongly preferred democracy, and 75% were somewhere in the middle. The 15% does not always offset the 10% especially if most of the 75% does not come to their aid or joins the authoritarians. Preamblists may want to consider that the freedoms of our nation can disappear, possibly more easily than we think, unless we continue to persuade the 75% that freedom is in their interest.

Karl Popper; July 28,1902- September 17, 1994; (Philosophize This, episode #161 “Karl Popper - The Open Society and Its Enemies”)

This section is long because Preamblism finds very fertile ground in Karl Popper’s ideas especially from his work “The Open Society and Its Enemies.” Like Fromm, Popper also reminds us that fascism and totalitarianism are not so far away from us and in fact have deep roots in human thinking, including in the Western thought. Like Fromm, he reminds us that freedom can be difficult for some because you have to make your own choices, you have to be informed, and you have to be willing to doubt that your way is the best way so that you can continuously improve yourself and society- this is “the strain of civilization.” Whereas, in a totalitarian society, an individual just has to do what they are told and accept that this is the best way- for some, this is an appealing way to live.

To Popper, a strain of thinking that leads to totalitarianism is the idea that the collective progress of the state is more important than each of the individuals in the state so its fine that some people suffer to move the state forward- like the “you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs” saying. Popper also believes that there is another related root to totalitarianism- the belief that we have been, are, and should be heading towards a certain destiny or utopia like a communist society. This belief causes some to advocate for fascist leaders to be empowered with great powers to drive us toward this destiny even if it means hurting many individuals in the process. Popper reminds us that individual people are what make up society and, similar to Simone de Beauvoir and Isaiah Berlin, Popper believes that people are complicated and therefore, it’s very unlikely we are simply heading towards a uniform destiny or utopia. As Popper states, “Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell.” and “We have become makers of our fate when we have ceased to pose as its prophets.” (source)

Preamblists can also learn from Popper’s application of the scientific method to government, particularly Popper’s view of science as: “…science is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected. This is why we can say that, in science, we often learn from our mistakes, and why we can speak clearly and sensibly about making progress there.” (source). Like in science, there will always be failures and problems in governing, and, like in science, we need to learn from those failures and problems, which is why the peaceful transfer of power from one administration or political party that failed in some aspects to another that hopefully learns from those failures is so important. That ability to criticize those in power and then decide on whether to replace them only happens in open, democratic societies. Furthermore Popper believes that government and its voting citizens can use this scientific method of failure and learning to gradually, bit-by-bit, improve in the fight against specific problems like poverty- Popper called this “Piecemeal Social Engineering” which Popper said is “the only method of improving matters which has so far been really successful, at any time, and in any place” as opposed to “Utopian Social Engineering” which “wherever it has been tried, has led only to the use of violence in place of reason, and if not to its own abandonment, at any rate to that of its original blueprint.” (source)

In line with piecemeal attacking of specific problems, Popper believed that “Instead of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, one should demand, more modestly, the least amount of avoidable suffering for all; and further, that unavoidable suffering—such as hunger in times of an unavoidable shortage of food—should be distributed as equally as possible.” (source) This later became known as “negative utilitarianism.” (source) He again contrasts this concept with “Utopian Social Engineering” which chases maximum happiness for the greatest number and, ironically, ends up causing untold suffering to many. Instead we must have an open, democratic society in which individuals decide what makes themselves happy and its probably going to be different things make different people happy. But there is one thing that an open society should not be open to- intolerance:

“…the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.” (source)

This last quote remind us of Preamblism’s complete rejection of anything that goes against “All men are created equal.”

Simone de Beauvoir; January 9, 1908- April 14, 1986; (Philosophize This episodes #106 “The Ethics of Ambiguity,” #107 “Responsibility,” and Episode #157 “The Creation of Meaning- Beauvoir”)

Simone De Beauvoir is quoted earlier on this page with “Man must not attempt to dispel the ambiguity of his being but, on the contrary, accept the task of realizing it.” (source). Preamblism reflects De Beauvoir’s in that we believe many topics are complicated and cannot be simplified and, in fact, to simplify them ruins our ability to consider them. Furthermore, some of the best potential solutions may involve striking a somewhat uncomfortable balance between the Preamblist Values. A great example of where we find this to be the case is abortion- neither strict “pro-choice” nor “pro-life” is acceptable to Preamblism.- the solution likely exists somewhere in between these two poles.

Isaiah Berlin; June 6, 1909- November 5, 1997; (Philosophize This episodes #140 “Pluralism” and #141 “Pluralism and Culture”).

We already mentioned Isaiah Berlin in the first paragraph of this page. We embrace Berlin’s “Pluralism” as he defines it (source). Similar to our section on Simone de Beauvoir above, we agree with Berlin’s direction that some topics are complicated and some solutions involve uncomfortable tradeoffs. “True pluralism, as Berlin understands it, is much more tough-minded and intellectually bold: it rejects the view that all conflicts of values can be finally resolved by synthesis and that all desirable goals may be reconciled. It recognizes that human nature generates values which, though equally sacred, equally ultimate, exclude one another, without there being any possibility of establishing an objective hierarchical relation among them. Moral conduct may therefore involve making agonizing choices, without the help of universal criteria, between incompatible but equally desirable values.”- Isaiah Berlin (source).

We like Berlin’s Pluralism in the sense that there can be many different but yet still positive solutions to the same problems but at the same time clearly recognizing that some solutions are unacceptable (as we discuss soon): ‘I came to the conclusion that there is a plurality of ideals, as there is a plurality of cultures and of temperaments. I am not a relativist; I do not say "I like my coffee with milk and you like it without; I am in favor of kindness and you prefer concentration camps" -- each of us with his own values, which cannot be overcome or integrated. This I believe to be false. But I do believe that there is a plurality of values which men can and do seek, and that these values differ. There is not an infinity of them: the number of human values, of values that I can pursue while maintaining my human semblance, my human character, is finite…If pluralism is a valid view, and respect between systems of values which are not necessarily hostile to each other is possible, then toleration and liberal consequences follow…” (source).

We also resonate with Berlin’s criticism of monism, which aligns with our rejection of political extremism. He defines monism as stating “only one set of values is true, all the others are false.” (source). He notes how monism leads to terrible consquences. “The enemy of pluralism is monism -- the ancient belief that there is a single harmony of truths into which everything, if it is genuine, in the end must fit. The consequence of this belief (which is something different from, but akin to, what Karl Popper called essentialism -- to him the root of all evil) is that those who know should command those who do not. Those who know the answers to some of the great problems of mankind must be obeyed, for they alone know how society should be organized, how individual lives should be lived, how culture should be developed. This is the old Platonic belief in the philosopher-kings, who were entitled to give orders to others. There have always been thinkers who hold that if only scientists, or scientifically trained persons, could be put in charge of things, the world would be vastly improved. To this I have to say that no better excuse, or even reason, has ever been propounded for unlimited despotism on the part of an elite which robs the majority of its essential liberties. Someone once remarked that in the old days men and women were brought as sacrifices to a variety of gods; for these, the modern age has substituted the new idols: isms. To cause pain, to kill, to torture are in general rightly condemned; but if these things are done not for my personal benefit but for an ism -- socialism, nationalism, fascism, communism, fanatically held religious belief, or progress, or the fulfillment of the laws of history -- then they are in order. Most revolutionaries believe, covertly or overtly, that in order to create the ideal world eggs must be broken, otherwise one cannot obtain an omelette. Eggs are certainly broken -- never more violently than in our times -- but the omelette is far to seek, it recedes into an infinite distance. That is one of the corollaries of unbridled monism, as I call it -- some call it fanaticism, but monism is at the root of every extremism.” - Isaiah Berlin, (source). “Single-minded monists, ruthless fanatics, men possessed by an all-embracing coherent vision do not know the doubts and agonies of those who cannot wholly blind themselves to reality.”- Isaiah Berlin, (source).

As alluded to earlier, Berlin also rejects relativism which he defines as “my values are mine, yours are yours, and if we clash, too bad, neither of us can claim to be right.” (source). Preamblism also rejects relativism as there are some solutions and actions that are completely immoral and there are other solutions, such as democracy, that are morally correct.

Giles Deleuze; January 18, 1925- November 4, 1995; (Philosophize This, episode #127 Anti-Oedipus and #128 “Flows”)

Preamblists keep in mind Deleuze’s concept of “flows” and the “rhizome” as a helpful, very different, flexible, and non-dogmatic way to look at many aspects of society. The “rhizome” concept reminds us that much of the world operates on complex, hard to trace networks, connections, and relationships. The “flows” concept reminds us that its important to pay attention to how aspects of society move: for example: finances, trade, and immigration.

Susan Sontag; January 16, 1933- December 28, 2004; (Philosophize This, episodes #177 “Do You Speak the Language of Pictures and Videos?”)

Sontag wrote “Compassion is an unstable emotion. It needs to be translated into action, or it withers. The question of what to do with the feelings that have been aroused, the knowledge that has been communicated.” The Preamblist Movement Inc. is an attempt to take action against the problems we see in today’s politics and government and society in America. Don’t be passive. If you feel similar to how we feel (see other pages of this website), then join us with action.

Adam Smith (Philosophize This, episodes #48 “Specialization” and #49 “The Tip of the Iceberg of Wealth”)

Edmund Burke (Philosophize This, episodes #50 “Are You Left or Right”)

Thomas Paine (Philosophize This, episodes #50 “Are You Left or Right”)

Karl Marx (Philosophize This, episodes #81 “Capitalism vs. Communism”)

Henry David Thoreau (Philosophize This, episode #83)

Ayn Rand (Philosophize This, episode #96 “Is Ayn Rand a Philosopher”)

Thomas Dewey ((Philosophize This, episode #130 “Dewey and Lippman on Democracy”)

Hannah Arendt (Philosophize This, episodes #136 “The Banality of Evil”)

John Rawls (Philosophize This, episodes #137 “A Theory of Justice”)

Robert Nozick (Philosophize This, episodes #138 “The Minimal State”)

Friedrich Von Hayek (Philosophize This, episodes #139 “The Road to Serfdom”)

Philip Goff (Philosophize This, episodes #180- “ What if Everything is Conciousness”)

This may be where some of you think that the writer of this is going a little off the deep end. But bear with me because this is about a real philosophical theory that I think is quite beautiful and aligns well with Preamblism. There is this philosophical concept called Panpsychism that believes, in the words of Philip Goff on the show, that “conciousness is at the root of everything that matters. From deep emotions, complex thoughts, beautiful sensory experiences. Without conciousness nothing would really have any importance.” I think this quote also from Philip Goff on the show adds further explanation: “I think Panpsychism has the potential to radically change our relationship with the environment and the natural world for the better. If you're a materialist and a tree is you think a tree is just a mechanism, then its value is only indirect. It only really has significance in terms of what it can do for us, either looking pretty or sustaining our existence. But if you think a tree is a conscious organism albeit of a very alien kind, then a tree has moral significance in its own right. You know, chopping down a tree that is an act of moral significance. And I think, for example, when we see these terrible images of forest fires in Brazil of late few years ago now, if you see that as the burning of conscious organisms, that really does add a whole different moral dimension.” What does this have to do with Preamblism? I think it aligns with it nicely. As we have stated there are Preamblist values which refer to “future security” and “our posterity” and the health of the environment is fundamental to these. If we saw all living organisms as special because of “conciousness” its one more reason to treat the environment better. The connection is not just an environmental one. “Conciousness” is something that is shared by all people and therefore by this theory, all people have value as reflected in the preamble to the Declaration. Additionally one of the reasons that we should execute against the values of the preambles, is because we want all people to have the greatest experience of conciousness possible as describer by Philip Goff above as “deep emotions, complex thoughts, beautiful sensory experiences.”

Donate