The Urgent Need for Philosophy in a Polarized World

Every year, on the third Tuesday of November, we celebrate World Philosophy Day. In 2025, this day fell on November 20. Reflecting on the occasion, let us discuss philosophy and its fundamental meaning.

Alain Badiou begins his book 'True Life' with a sensational claim: since the time of Socrates, the task of philosophy has been to corrupt the youth and to extract them from the ideological-political systems exerting overwhelming influence on society.

Our liberal Western society currently needs such 'corruption.' People who consider themselves free and liberated often fail to realize how they are being controlled by the state establishment.

There are many contexts in which people are not free. The most terrifying aspect is experiencing the lack of freedom as liberation. Goethe said two centuries ago, 'None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.'

The question arises: Is a person seeking liberation, who is trying to break the social web necessary for their survival and growth, truly free?

Socrates' style of revolution has two characteristics. First, it was a reaction to the general crisis in Greek social life. For Socrates, this crisis was caused by the Sophists—those who used empty rhetoric to erode the traditions of the city-state (polis).

What do words like equality, freedom, human rights, people, solidarity, and liberation—which we use to establish the legitimacy of our decisions—actually mean to us?

Second, Socrates believed that stopping such erosion could not be achieved by merely returning to glorious traditions. He believed in the path of questioning oneself. The fundamental process of the Socratic method was the endless repetition of a single formula, asking, 'What exactly do you mean by this?' when discussing concepts like virtue, truth, or goodness.

We need to ask such questions today. What do words like equality, freedom, human rights, people, solidarity, and liberation—which we use to establish the legitimacy of our decisions—actually mean to us? Thinking is broad. When we face an environmental crisis, our focus is not just on protecting nature; we must also ask ourselves what nature means today.

With the rise of artificial intelligence, 'machines' can now think. We must go beyond simple questions and ask what the true meaning of human thought is.

Socrates' questioning and Confucius' concept of the 'rectification of names' are opposites. According to Confucius, naming an object should reflect its specific characteristics. If the name fails to represent the essence of the object, that deficiency must be corrected.

Confucius wrote, 'If language is not correct, then expressions and meanings do not align. If there is no correspondence between what is and what is said, necessary work may be neglected. If work is neglected, morality and art decline. Justice is distorted. When justice is distorted, people fall into helpless confusion. Therefore, there must be no gap between words and reality.'

This view of Confucius does not align with the Socratic tradition. In the Socratic tradition, thinking in a language also means thinking about the language itself—and dismantling the ideology embedded within it.

Today, Donald Trump has become a true anti-Platonic Sophist. In the opening pages of 'The Republic,' Plato mentions how populists treat their opponents. In his book, Polemarchus represents a populist like Trump, while Socrates represents the opposition.

'Polemarchus said to me: Socrates, I see you are returning to the city with your friends.'

I said, 'You are not entirely wrong.'

He added, 'Do you know how many we are? You are not stronger than all of us. So, you cannot return to the city. We can stop you.'

I said, 'There might be alternatives! If I can convince you, perhaps I can go!' He replied, 'If we refuse to listen to you, how will you convince us?'

I have experienced this tendency of people refusing to think in my own life as well. Some time ago, I was preparing arguments about our environmental crisis.

Glaucon added, 'If we don't listen, you certainly cannot convince us. So, we are not going to listen.'

The tendency to refuse to listen to a weaker opponent is appearing everywhere. We find this trend repeatedly in high-level politics. This problem has also emerged in philosophy.

This refusal to listen or think does not happen suddenly due to a major decision. It happens continuously in our daily lives. Supporters of Israel easily dismiss the genocide in Gaza, viewing it as anti-Semitic nonsense.

I have experienced this tendency of people refusing to think in my own life as well. Some time ago, I was preparing arguments about our environmental crisis. In the process, I received responses like, 'Even if you are right, we are not going to listen to such arguments.' When I tried to understand why, I heard interpretations that the struggle against global warming is a campaign to destroy the prosperous Western world.

Isn't this pure Trumpian politics? Isn't it like the justice Trump claims to provide to the Midwest or Ukraine? But Trump is certainly not alone in this. On July 3, 2025, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told senior EU diplomats that Russia could not accept defeat in the Ukraine war.

His view was that if Russia loses, America's entire focus would shift toward China. According to an official involved in the discussion, Wang's private view contradicted Beijing's public stance of non-alignment. According to Wang, Beijing wants a long-term war in Ukraine so that America does not get the chance to focus on competition with them.

Some illusions about China have been shattered. There was a belief that despite various problematic characteristics, China wants peace and global cooperation and adheres to the concept of justice to some extent. Wang's statement dismissed all of this. In his statement, China made it clear that it wants a long and destructive war. Peace disrupts its economic interests. This looks like a ruthless argument, exactly like the ones Trump makes.

The essence of all this is that today, we need philosophy more than ever. We need it to maintain our existence as humans. Without a concept of justice that rises above the practical thinking needed to survive, we cannot preserve our existence.

And it is necessary to ponder what that justice means today.

(From The Hankyoreh)