The Philosopher's Two Archetypes -- The Politician and the Madman -- Understanding The Value of Public Opinion

(Philosocom's Directory on Politics)

Ms. Tamara Moskal's Synopsis

Philosophers can be classified as two archetypes: politicians or madmen. The Politician Philosopher seeks respect and recognition from their audience. The Madman Philosopher embraces eccentricity and intellectual freedom, risking rejection from society.

However, how the content is received depends greatly on its marketing. Also, a philosopher must be prepared to endure public criticism. Public opinion's positive impact can initiate social change, help build strong communities, and motivate content creators. The negative impact includes anti-philosophical self-censorship, misinformation, bias, and stressful pressure on public figures.

A Politician or Philosopher can gain more influence, but their content is less authentic. On the contrary, the Madman Philosopher presents unfiltered ideas, but their impact is often limited and may stay unrecognized.

As a philosopher, the author explored both approaches throughout the years. In his earlier years, he embraced the strategy of the Madman Philosopher. Later, he transitioned toward the Politician Philosopher to gain more relevance by building a good reputation and avoiding burnout.

Both archetypes can sometimes be combined into a charismatic persona that appeals to the public because of intrigue, originality, conviction, and humoristic quirks.

A change of opinion requires a change in identity. -- Mark Bloom

(Background music)

The Public Philosopher's Dilemma: Politician or Madman?

When beginning to publish your work as a philosopher, you face a crucial question: how much do I care what others think of me? This seemingly simple question is capable of shaping one's entire experience in society, as long as they feel the need to belong, and/or fear the possibility of rejection.

Some philosophers, like politicians, crave a good reputation and strive for seriousness. Others, like madmen (though perfectly sane!), enjoy their intellectual freedom, unconcerned with public opinion and the social risks that involve philosophership in an anti-intellectualist society.

This question of this regard towards society, reveals two distinct philosophical archetypes:

• The Politician Philosopher: They seek respect and recognition, carefully crafting arguments and presentations to resonate with their audience.
  

• The Madman Philosopher: They embrace intellectual freedom, challenging and lambasting convention and societal norms, even if it means appearing eccentric or rejected by society. Due to their eccentric nature some might use the strawman's fallacy to discard them and to minimize the value of their contributions to philosophy.
  

Here's the harsh reality: your work won't always receive the respect you feel or think it deserves. Much of how content is received today depends on its marketing. Critics, not just internet trolls, may despise your ideas, as well as yourself, as in the contemporary case of Slovenian philosopher, Slavoj Zizek.

To navigate this the issue of reception, which I wrote about before, you must confront your sensitivity to public opinion, or in other words, reduce your sensitivity to it, and even treat content with far less excitement, like a seasoned butcher would. This self-awareness, and the willingness to work on yourself in a content driven world, lays the groundwork for a smoother, and more sufferable, philosophical journey.

You might be surprised that being a content creator can negatively affect your mental health. And of course, a philosopher is neccessarily a content creator, or "Formulators of Ideas", as directly translated from Hebrew. You can use this article to better understand what it means to be a contemporary philosopher, and navigate such a life in accordance to your improved understanding.

The Duality's Example

• The Madman Path: Diogenes, a cynic philosopher, famously mocked societal norms, even scolding his dog by calling it a human. Schopenhauer, a misanthrope, wasn't afraid to express his pessimistic views. Despite their social deviations, both controversial figures contributed greatly to philosophy.
  

• The Politician Path: Gandhi, through strategic communication and targeted messaging, inspired mass movements for social change. Similarly, prophets of old, although eccentric themselves, carefully tailored their messages to resonate with their audience.

The Value of Public Opinion

The value of public opinion is a double-edged sword. It can be a powerful tool for positive change and validation, but it can also be a burden and a source of pressure. Due to the value of looking both ways, here's a breakdown of both sides of the issue:

The Positive Impact

• Social Change: Public opinion can be a driving force behind social movements. When enough people voice their concerns, it can lead to policy changes, increased awareness, and progress on important issues.
  

• Validation and Recognition: Positive public opinion can be a great motivator. It shows that your ideas resonate with others and validates your work. This can be especially important for philosophers and other creative thinkers, who seek both respect and relevance.
  

• Building a Community: Shared opinions can form the foundation of strong communities, especially in dire times where social cohesion is required, in theory and in practice. Public discourse allows people to connect, learn from each other, and build a sense of belonging in a world filled with alienation, with unfairness, and with loneliness.
  

The Negative Impact

• Conformity and Censorship: The desire for public approval can lead to self-censorship and a reluctance to challenge the status quo, things that are anti-philosophical at their core. Like in oppressive regimes, This can hinder creativity and prevent the exploration of unpopular but important ideas.
  

• Misinformation and Bias: Public opinion can be easily swayed by misinformation and manipulation. This can lead to the spread of harmful ideas and make it difficult to have constructive and peaceful discussions and relations with other truth-seekers.
  

• Fatigue and Stress: The constant pressure to maintain a positive public image can be draining. It can lead to anxiety, burnout, and a disconnect between one's true self and their public persona.
  

The Politician Philosopher: The Power of Persuasion

The "politician" philosopher prioritizes public appeal. They meticulously craft arguments and presentations, seeking respect and recognition from an audience. This approach offers a clear benefit: increased influence. This influence can even allow them to build a powerbase, despite the immoral temptations of having one. By carefully tailoring their message, the politician philosopher can inspire movements, and spark meaningful change in their chosen area of expertise.

This is present in Zizek's attempt to run for Slovenian presidency, and in philosophers establishing their own political parties. As you can clearly see, being a "politician" and a "madman" are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as I gave Zizek's example in both archetypes. But I digress.

The Politician's path comes at a cost – reduced authenticity. The need to be taken seriously often necessitates censoring or compromising one's true voice, or the reduction of the virtue of honesty. This can create a disconnect between the philosopher's inner thoughts and their outward presentation, as political behavior requires you to pretend.

Allow me to let you know that politics exists outside of statesmanship as well. It could even be present in workplace settings.

The Madman Philosopher: Embracing Intellectual Freedom

The "madman" philosopher prioritizes intellectual freedom. They derive their "kicks" in challenging convention and societal norms, despite the social risks involved. This approach offers a distinct advantage "pure politicians" lack: unfiltered expression. Unburdened by public opinion, the "madman" philosopher can explore ideas without restriction, potentially leading to ground-breaking discoveries.

However, this path also has a drawback – limited impact. By alienating mainstream audiences, the madman philosopher may struggle to gain attention for their ideas, and people who can become his or her potential ideas might think twice before entertaining these ideas in their thoughts. That is despite the fact that inclusion of diverse voices is imperative in philosophy. Nevertheless, Their work may be dismissed as irrelevant or nonsensical, even if it holds great merit.

The Public Philosopher's Tightrope Walk

So, where am I placed on this spectrum? I'm neither a cunning politician nor a filterless eccentric. I've been studying both archetypes, presented in fiction and in reality, from Walter White to people known as "lolcows" by internet subcultures. Per this renovation I've also covered the content of two of these lolcows, as I believe in the importance of learning from anyone and anything. To quote humorist Bill Nye:

“Everyone that you'll ever meet will know someone that you won't”

As a writer exploring ideas, I've navigated both sides of the "politician vs. madman" spectrum throughout my years as a philosopher.

Early on, I embraced the "madman" – the unfiltered thinker unburdened by mainstream approval. This led to some wild explorations, but limited reach and increased social anxiety. As my audience grew, I transitioned towards the "politician," prioritizing clarity, persuasion, maintaining a respectable image, and building trust. That is despite my aversion towards deception, which serves as one of the reasons I prefer to be reclusive.

This shift wasn't about blind popularity. Two key factors played a role for my ongoing plan for greater relevance:

• Reputation Management: Building a good reputation allows for more constructive conversations and fosters brand loyalty. I wish to make Philosocom one of the best philosophy blogs online, per my vision.
  

• Avoiding Burnout: Constant online battles drain energy and distract from deeper exploration of philosophy. I have no desire to aimlessly engage with people in petty conflicts. I've a site to build, and a legacy to develop. I wish to live in serenity, as serenity allows greater clarity of thought, as taught by stoic philosophy.

However, being a "politician" can be a "tightrope walk". Every word needs careful consideration, and the pressure to maintain a decent image can stagnate my efforts. I choose to do so nevertheless in order to accommodate you, the readership. It is unnecessarily difficult to nurture one otherwise.

Philosophy thrives on dialogue, on sharing ideas with the world, and on creating new ideas based on peaceful and productive exchanges. Yet, the world often demands conformity, despite the fact conformity kills innovation. This creates a conflict of interests. To be heard, you must sometimes play by society's rules, even if those rules contradict the very essence of free inquiry.

The "politician" archetype doesn't necessarily need to be about total surrender to external validation. The archetype, like actual politicians, don't have to be these metaphorical puppet-on-strings who advocate the words people around them want to hear. Philosophers in general mustn't be people-pleasers as people-pleasing drives one away from the truth.

Bonus: Tom Waits and How the Archetypes are Best Combined

There's a misconception that "madness" is synonymous with repulsion. However, the unconventional thinker often possesses a captivating charm, and unconventional creativity is associated with humor, which is vital in romance. Take Tom Waits, the American singer-songwriter. His music and persona are undeniably eccentric, yet his artistic impact is undeniable. Waits exemplifies how one can be both "mad" and deeply appreciated.

Madness, often used interchangeably with eccentricity or unconventionality, doesn't have to be an intimidating force, when it has the power to sway you under its "magic". In fact, there's an undeniable magnetic pull in it, similarly to the Joker's charisma, thus combining the two archetypes of this article. Here's why:

• Intrigue of the Unseen: The unconventional challenges our perception of the world. It piques our curiosity and makes us want to understand this different way of thinking. It's like peering into a hidden world, full of potential discoveries. A good example of that can be seen in the cult-classic movie, "The Room".
  

• Disruption Breeds Creativity:  "Madness" often involves a rejection of the status quo, not necessarily the other way around. This can lead to ground-breaking ideas and artistic expression. We're drawn to the originality and fresh perspectives that unconventional thinkers bring, for they refresh our thinking and spark curiosity.
  

• Confidence in Conviction:  There's a certain magnetism to someone who confidently embraces their individuality, with all their virtues and flaws. It shows a strength of character and a commitment to one's own vision, which can be inspiring.
  

• Charisma of the Quirky:  Sometimes, unconventionality manifests in a playful or humorous way. A touch of "madness" can be endearing and create a charismatic persona. People who can laugh at themselves and embrace their quirks are often quite likable.

Thanks for taking the time to read.

Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback

I definitely relate to the madman and Mr. Tomasio is more objective and a politician. His intent [seems] to shape public opinion. Are you seeing my point? Both are important in their own right.

Instead of making a system of unified personality types all being the same, why not combine both to make a hybrid system?