No democracy - FAQS.TIPS

It certainly seems that in the modern era, men are so lacking in the virtues that democracy is of little value to them. The question remains, however, whether any other arrangement is any better. Better the democracy we know... than the dictatorship we may learn to fear.

Consider the current health care crisis in the United States. The whole problem could be resolved in no time at all if people chose to live well. But many would prefer to die rather than to adjust their so-called 'lifestyle.' Woe to the man who knows what 'lifestyle' means. Men ought simply to live, without any such style.

For example, I know a woman whose lifestyle is to eat. Say what you will, she will not think of changing. I fear there is little hope for her.

Would it be better for her to be forced to eat well? I'm not so sure.

"The challenges to democracy - rather, to human democracies of various sorts"

Good heavens, are there other kinds?

We can, I think, compare democracy in its extant form with the Greek models. I'm no geat fan of those models, either ('perfection' is a very strange notion), but Our Haris is keen on 'em.

As for irrationalism, one doesn't need to argue for it - one just does it. It's an approach that's kept Continiental Philosophy going long beyond its sell-by date.

(did no-one hear the clockwork?)

Natasha van Rooyen

As with any other social system, the notion (or perception) of 'democracy' is a reactive one. I mean, it's not as if the thinkers and do-ers of ages past [or present for that matter], had the luxury of pro-active thought: "Mmm let's make an ideal model that does x and says y and means b. Yes, let's do this one."...and then oodles and oodles of people packed up and followed. This 'model' has developed over time in a constant, reactive state and in response to irrationalism, which frustrates the hell outa me when we look at democracy as a political ideal (meaning there's a pro-activeness about it) and make the assumption it is 'something' that 'works'.

Both Socrates and later Aristotle were looking for the perfect (rational) system. Neither of them thought Democracy to be that system.

The closest one could come to a 'perfect' political system would, of course, be some form of autonomous anarchy... the problem with political systems isn't that we don't have the 'right kind of system', but rather that we don't have 'the right kind of people'. Political systems, by their nature, generalise; people are individuals.

This is, of course, what the virtues are all about: wisdom, self-restraint, courage, and sound judgment. As Socrates pointed out they perfect both the individual and the state.

dear Bill, i think Aristotle separated between ideal forms and corrupted forms of the main systems of government, not differentiating between the the ideal forms,though you'll have to not quote me on this. as regards socrates, well, Plato was an aristocrat (as opposed to Aristotle who was a foreigner) bitter about the democrats killing his master, so i think it's mostly Plato hating democracy rather than Socrates (i think Socrates stresses the importance of abiding by the laws). why would an autonomous anarchy be a good thing? are we getting our black flags out?

nice one, not sure where exactly mine is. though being a liverpool supporter, my red stuff is more obvious. that creates confusion in my mind, since i don't like the Red flag. actually, i think i don't like any flags, but that's another issue.

If testimony is evidence, it would therefore appear to be the case that there is at least one Liverpool supporter... the world is indeed stranger than we can impagine.

oh come on, there is also at least one scouser who supports liverpool in this world, no? or is liverpool not part of the world?

HS: "... i think Aristotle separated between ideal forms and corrupted forms of the main systems of government, not differentiating between the the ideal forms,though you'll have to not quote me on this. as regards socrates, well, Plato was an aristocrat (as opposed to Aristotle who was a foreigner) bitter about the democrats killing his master, so i think it's mostly Plato hating democracy rather than Socrates (i think Socrates stresses the importance of abiding by the laws). why would an autonomous anarchy be a good thing? are we getting our black flags out?"

I must confess I've never read Aristotle's *Politics.* I know only what everyone knows. I have read a good bit of Aristotle, but not that one book.

Aristotle was a foreigner in the same sense that Alexander was. He certainly was deeply influenced by a desire to please his master. And no doubt he intended (as did Plato) to avoid Socrates' fate.

As to Socrates (or Plato) ... the image I have is of one whose main interest is in the life of virtue. I am sure that Plato felt some bitterness regarding Socrates' fate. But I can't imagine how one would reduce his thought on virtue to a simple attack on democracy.

As to my image of Aristotle... I think of him as an arrogant genius. He was right on some things, but sadly deluded about many others. So far as I can tell, he never credited anyone else, but attacked everyone in the most cynical terms. In short, I consider him to be a sophist --- indeed The Sophist's Sophist.

So saying, of course, I do credit him with genius. He came close to being a philosopher. He said many things of interest to philosophy. But he fell short of that goal.

Would the existence of the city of Liverpool entail that at least one of its inhabitants supported the Liverpool team?

Anyway, I thought real Scousers supported Everton...

dear Bill, you mention many things that sort of go beyond what i intended. i'll try to answer some of them. Aristotle was a foreigner in Athens, whereas Alexander just didn't bother with Athens. i was referring to Aristotle being a foreigner in Athens (my mistake for not making this more explicit) in the sense that Aristotle didn't participate in Athenian politics.

As to Socrates and Plato, i would differentiate between the two. I think the two also disagreed about virtue. As regards virtue and democracy, i don't recall making any connection between the two, unless you're assuming that abiding by laws is a necessary part of being virtuous. All i said was that probably Plato didn't like (or hated, to be exact) democracy because of what the democrats had done to his master- you'll find traces of this in the Apology where Plato asks what right the cook has to judge Socrates.

As regards your thoughts Aristotle, i'm a bit puzzled by you importing him into the thread (Oct 07) and now claiming that was not a philosopher. the two seem incompatible to me, ie if you thought that this is a thread on philosophy and that all things being equal it's better to cite philosophers than not when discussing philosophy, then how does that square with citing a non-philosopher's authority on a subject?

dear david, i didn't talk about logical entailment, but i would argue that there is an argument that can be produced to the effect that the existence of the city of liverpool is necessary, and probably jointly sufficient with some other premisses about how football goes, to entail the existence of at least one liverpool supporter

HS:

As to Aristotle... I thought you had mentioned him first... He may have been a foreigner and may not have been involved in local politics, but he was more than a mere aristocrat... He was Alexander's mentor.

Was he a philosopher? You tell me. In my kinder moments I would say he was a scientist, primarily a biologist, who also wrote some philosophy. He certainly said many things of philosophical interest. On the other hand, doesn't he fit the role of a Sophist equally well?

As to Socrates and Plato... I am willing to believe that Plato was attempting to represent his views accurately. In a similar way, I accept *** The Timaeus, *** in which Socrates played only a supporting role, as an expression of Timaeus' thoughts. Call it a willing 'suspension of disbelief' if you will. There are dialogues in which Socrates plays no part --- dialogues in which a stranger or a visitor is the protagonist. Those dialogues may represent Plato's own thoughts, I suppose.

What evidence do I have for my belief? None, really. I do believe that Aristotle more or less accepted the dialogues --- please correct me if I am wrong. He wrote a scathing critique of *** The Timaeus *** and though he directed his criticism against Plato, I do not recall that he claimed that Timaeus was Plato's creation. He may have meant that, but I don't think he said it. In any event, given Aristotle's general tendency to criticize anyone who couldn't strike back at him... I think it most reasonable to believe that had Plato been making up Socrates' ideas as he went along --- as has sometimes been claimed --- Aristotle would have said that.

Indeed, did anyone say that until modern times? I don't know; I'm asking. I would love for someone to correct me.

being Alexander's mentor does not imply that one is an aristocrat, same with Socrates being Alcibiades' mentor, i think. as to whether Aristotle was a philosopher, i'd ask you to provide a definition for the term 'philosopher', if you want. as to whether Aristotle was a sophist, i wouldn't think so. the sophist were paid by their students and furthermore they had certain philosophical ideas (maybe relativism was one of them and the use of rhetoric another) that i don't think were supported by Aristotle.

as regards Socrates and Plato, it is my impression that Plato's work is split into three epochs, the socratic, the middle and the platonic works, in which the influence of Socrates is waning progressively (until the Republic which reflects purely Plato's thoughts). I don't remember about the Timaeus, where it falls, but it would be not surprising if it was one of the socratic dialogues. in which case Aristotle not saying that it's Plato speaking wouldn't be surprising. as to your last question, maybe there wasn't much systematic study of the who was speaking when in Plato's dialogues before the modern times, in which case the absence of such a discussion would not be surprising.

Having the man who ruled the world as one's mentor isn't the same as being an aristocrat. I think you will see that I said above that it is probably *** more *** than being an aristocrat. Aristocrats may have looked down on Aristotle. But at the same time they probably were intensely envious of him. He had it made in life!!

The Nicomachean Ethics is certainly an inferior work. It is just a list of virtues with no organizing principle. To me it seems like a book on etiquette. No doubt, many sophists were saying the same sort of things.

The Neoplatonic philosophers tried to return to Socrates' ideas, but they seem never to have recovered from Aristotle's distorted views. As a result, prudence --- which I call sound judgment --- comes first in the list when it should come last as the crowning virtue to which all the other virtues must lead. And sound judgment is replaced by justice, an aspect of self-restraint.

And why is it that justice was thus elevated, taking the place of sound judgment? Clearly Aristotle emphasized it. In doing so he was, no doubt, pleasing Alexander... and pleasing Alexander was more important to him than gold.

Thomas Aquinas borrowed from the Nicomachean Ethics. But he tried to organize it according to a Neoplatonic framework. I doubt it was worth the effort.

The Timaeus is critically important. It was the *** only *** one of the Dialogues known in the West until fairly modern times. Why is that? In my humble opinion, it is largely because Aristotle picked it out as the primary point on which he would attack Plato. Clearly the Timaeus is an odd work. Clearly Aristotle's critique is justified.

But equally clear is the fact that it and the Critias to which it is related are almost unrelated to the rest of the Dialogues. Judging the Dialogues on the sole basis of the Timaeus is totally absurd.

I believe Aristotle understood perfectly well that he could not argue ethics on a par with the Dialogues. That he seems to have essentially equated Plato with the Timaeus reveals the sophistical nature of his thought.

HS: "As regards virtue and democracy, i don't recall making any connection between the two, unless you're assuming that abiding by laws is a necessary part of being virtuous."

DH: "Democracy, in its contemporaryform, is the dictatorship of the lowest common denominator."

Without virtue that is what democracy becomes.

dear bill, do you want to start a particular thread on virtue? or somehow else argue for this assertion, that democracy without virtue becomes whatever david says it becomes?

i think the problem starts with representationalism, not with virtue

You are probably right. Tell me about it... What do you mean by 'representationalism?' We all think in terms of representations. What sort of representation do you see as the problem?

whoops. wrong term. i meant 'representational democracy' ie the notion that the people nominate other people to voice their concerns.

What "virtue", Bill? Have you taken a look at the Leaders of the Free World recently?

I think I'll stick with my initial comment - and add the words "popularism" and "demagogy"

HS: "whoops. wrong term. i meant 'representational democracy' ie the notion that the people nominate other people to voice their concerns."

HS" "ie indirect democracy"

I can't see how direct democracy would be better than the indirect variety. Giving power to the ignorant masses may sound good in theory, but in practice?

How does one protect minorities in such a system? It is difficult enough in representative democracies.

The idea of giving REAL power to the masses is very, very frightening - if that's the alternative, I'd rather stick to seeing 'em fleeced by the likes of le Petit Nicolas...

DH: "What 'virtue', Bill? Have you taken a look at the Leaders of the Free World recently?"

Well, the four virtues, wisdom, self-restraint, courage and sound judgment.

Bill - the only way one could use those terms of Sarko would be to precede them by "Nicolas Sarkozy is the very antithesis of..."

WHICH French revolution? France is an absolutism with occasional revolutionary distractions - et plus ça change, plus c'est le même...

wisdom, self-restraint, courage and avoidance of faded top models... I thought we were talking about Our Glorious Democratic Leaders

I am talking about all of us, the man on the street and in the gutter as well as statesmen. Democracy depends on that man in the gutter.

I am not claiming that virtue is a reality for any of us. But it better become our goal if we are to preserve any sort of civilization.

i'm a bit confused. it seems that Bill in one of the earliest posts doesn't want to give more power to the ignorant bystander, yet in one of the latest ones says that democracy depends on that man in the gutter. what's the difference between a proper a and an inverted one in a circle? surely it depends on where you're standing, no?

Naturally you are confused. I delight in that.

Ignorance is directly opposed to wisdom, first among the virtues.

there's a very witty piece in Aristotle about those who manage to confuse the people with their thought, Aristotle views this as negative and indicative of sophistry. would you accept that charge?

the second quote i don't understand its relevance, could you please make it clear for me the ignorant?

One might as well say that Socrates was a sophist. Frequently one must go through confusion in order to clarify one's thoughts. It is a blessing in disguise.

Truly it would not surprise me to find Aristotle attacking the Socratic method. If you come upon the name of that witty piece please let me know, for I will happily read it.

Wisdom means intelligence and learning. It is directly opposed to ignorance. There, are other meanings frequently applied to wisdom, of course. Frequently men use the word to mean sound judgment. Others use the term to refer to the knowledge of the highest causes. But that definition is based on Aristotle's comments in the ***Metaphysics.*** As I understand the ***Republic,*** Socrates meant simple intelligence and learning of whatever sort.

***Please do correct me if I am wrong!! There is much that I do not understand and I need to go through some confusion from time to time to correct my errors. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.***

Now to go back to your original question, I care little for democracy, ***per se.*** What I care for is virtue. A democratic government without virtue is far worse than an empire with virtue. Many tyrants have come to power through democratic elections. It happens all the time.

It's not as if democracy is bad. But it isn't going to solve man's problems.

Saying that democracy depends on the man in the gutter doesn't contradict the idea that the ignorant can not be expected to make good decisions.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." ~Ralph Waldo Emerson / ***Self-Reliance***

Yet in this case I do not see the inconsistency. You are probably right and I am just not seeing it correctly.

I must say that I find it hard to understand why certain kinds of "philosopher" return again and again to this archaic stuff... and particularly where social and political considerations are concerned. The political, economic and social context is so different as to render the lucubrations of said Greeks uninteresting save to an historical investigation.

You wouldn't cite Ari as an authority on science or metaphysics, surely - so why worry about his views on politics?

wouldn't i cite Ari as an authority in metaphysics? go talk to the powers and dispositions people, see if they wouldn't bless Ari!

as regards the republic, i think it's Plato talking.

Aristotle wasn't attacking Socrates and his method at the witty piece, i think he was against some more 'mainstream' sophist. the sophist's method is different from the socratic method, to the best of my knowledge. anyway.

Powers and dispositions - are we talking about Fara's field of interest? What the hell could Ari have to tell us about emergent properties and microproperties ?

(I am, of course, being a bloody pain in the neck - but it's a moral obligation to give relativists a pain in the neck. It's known as "two can play at THAT game")

David:

I am not sure whom you are addressing. Since I do not see myself as a relativist, I can not imagine that you meant me.

In fact, I applaud your efforts. Someone has to be a pain, from time to time.

Bill - sorry if my off-the-cuffs are sometimes a little obscure: the target was, of course, our relativistic friend Haris (for that matter, in the sociolect of neoclassical analytic philosophers the terms 'relativist' and 'target' are usually treated as synonymous).

"And why is it that justice was thus elevated, taking the place of sound judgment? Clearly Aristotle emphasized it. In doing so he was, no doubt, pleasing Alexander... and pleasing Alexander was more important to him than gold."

Dear Bill, i think you are overestimating the effect of Alexander on Aristotle, they probably didn't spend more than two years together, Aristotle's main business was, to the best of my knowledge, in Athens.

also, apparently Aristotle wrote a lot of dialogues as well, of which unfortunately none survive. furthermore, Aristotle also wrote the Eudemian Ethics, which do survive, though i don't know how much those are on a par with Plato's work on Ethics. As to the sophistical nature of Aristotle's thought, i'm afraid i'm not convinced, but also can't back this up- equating Plato with one of his works doesn't seem to me to necessarily reveal anything about Aristotle's sophistical nature or otherwise. Whoops. sorry, i thought page one was page two and commented on that.

As regards David's post (Oct. 15) i was thinking about Alexander Bird's stuff on dispositions. that is straight out of Aristotle's notebooks :) and i think Aristotle did discuss emergent properties in the context of a proto-chemistry

oh god, another rant from a proto-relativist in the quinean fashion. David, get over it, Quine was a relativist! And also pragmatism comes pretty close too!

HS:

You may be right.

I suppose I should read the***Eudemian Ethics.***

From what I understood Alexander was rather taken with his teacher, sending packages back to him from the farthest parts of the world. But who am I to say? In any event, the relationship may have been one way.

the packages thing is rather anecdotal, but then i wasn't there either, do you may be right after all. it's just that i think Aristotle was more preoccupied with making his name in Athens, which was the intellectual capital of the Greeks, rather than in Macedonia (whose inhabitants were considered as less to not cultured)

true (and the conversation is eagerly awaiting for some new breath. Maybe the Muse could grace us with her Presence?)

Hey, Bill, what have we done to you that you should wish such a horrible punishment on us? Most of us can't even SPELL Nietzsche...

I can't spell Nietzsche!! That's what computers are for.

In any event, thinking Nietzsche is the punishment for one whose ego is bigger than the Eiffel Tower.

(can't remember much - didn't look like REAL philosophy to me: rather weak on the formal analysis, and not a quantifier to be seen)

"In 323 b.c. the reign of Alexander ended with his death, and Aristotle sought refuge at Chalcis."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/The+Stagirite

I didn't know that... I wonder... Some deny the importance of Alexander to Aristotle. So how come he was scared to death after his student died? Surely the people of Athens were good people who would have tried to comfort Aristotle after Alexander's death. So how come he sought refuge elsewhere?

Born in 384 B.C.E. in the Macedonian region of northeastern Greece in the small city of Stagira (whence the moniker ‘the Stagirite’), Aristotle was sent to Athens at about the age of seventeen to study in Plato's Academy, then a pre-eminent place of learning in the Greek world. Once in Athens, Aristotle remained associated with the Academy until Plato's death in 347, at which time he left for Assos, in Asia Minor, on the northwest coast of present-day Turkey. There he continued the philosophical activity he had begun in the Academy, but in all likelihood also began to expand his researches into marine biology. He remained at Assos for approximately three years, when, evidently upon the death of his host Hermeias, a friend and former Academic who had been the ruler of Assos, Aristotle moved to the nearby coastal island of Lesbos. There he continued his philosophical and empirical researches for an additional two years, working in conjunction with Theophrastus, a native of Lesbos who was also reported in antiquity to have been associated with Plato's Academy. While in Lesbos, Aristotle married Pythias, the niece of Hermeias, with whom he had a daughter, also named Pythias.

In 343, upon the request of Philip, the king of Macedon, Aristotle left Lesbos for Pella, the Macedonian capital, in order to tutor the king's thirteen-year-old son, Alexander—the boy who was eventually to become Alexander the Great. Although speculation concerning Aristotle's influence upon the developing Alexander has proven irresistible to historians, in fact little concrete is known about their interaction. On the balance, it seems reasonable to conclude that some tuition took place, but that it lasted only two or three years, when Alexander was aged from thirteen to fifteen. By fifteen, Alexander was apparently already serving as a deputy military commander for his father, a circumstance undermining, if inconclusively, the judgment of those historians who conjecture a longer period of tuition. Be that as it may, some suppose that their association lasted as long as eight years.

It is difficult to rule out that possibility decisively, since little is known about the period of Aristotle's life from 341–335. He evidently remained a further five years in Stagira or Macedon before returning to Athens for the second and final time, in 335. In Athens, Aristotle set up his own school in a public exercise area dedicated to the god Apollo Lykeios, whence its name, the Lyceum. Those affiliated with Aristotle's school later came to be called Peripatetics, probably because of the existence of an ambulatory (peripatos) on the school's property adjacent to the exercise ground. Members of the Lyceum conducted research into a wide range of subjects, all of which were of interest to Aristotle himself: botany, biology, logic, music, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, cosmology, physics, the history of philosophy, metaphysics, psychology, ethics, theology, rhetoric, political history, government and political theory, rhetoric, and the arts. In all these areas, the Lyceum collected manuscripts, thereby, according to some ancient accounts, assembling the first great library of antiquity.

During this period, Aristotle's wife Pythias died and he developed a new relationship with Herpyllis, perhaps like him a native of Stagira, though her origins are disputed, as is the question of her exact relationship to Aristotle. Some suppose that she was merely his slave, others infer from the provisions of Aristotle's will that she was a freed woman and likely his wife at the time of his death. In any event, they had children together, including a son, Nicomachus, named for Aristotle's father and after whom his Nicomachean Ethics is presumably named.

After thirteen years in Athens, Aristotle once again found cause to retire from the city, in 323. Probably his departure was occasioned by a resurgence of the always-simmering anti-Macedonian sentiment in Athens, which was free to come to the boil after Alexander succumbed to disease in Babylon during that same year. Because of his connections to Macedon, Aristotle reasonably feared for his safety and left Athens, remarking, as an oft-repeated ancient tale would tell it, that he saw no reason to permit Athens to sin twice against philosophy. He withdrew directly to Chalcis, on Euboea, an island off the Attic coast, and died there of natural causes the following year, in 322.[3]

from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/

it seems reasonable that the Athenians didn't like Macedonians in general

I would argue that they are appropriate in any setting. If men lived by them politics would be unnecessary.

But, of course, few do live by them. Thus it is expedient to consider such matters as government.

that's a big statement, that if humans (not just men) lived by the virtues, then politics would be unnecessary.

how do you back that up, would humans just stop having differing opinions about what the proper course of action would be? i'd still vote for underdetermination of single-course opinions even in the face of virtues. what do you think?

I think that if men lived the virtues they would find ways to deal with disagreement. Perhaps that way would be democracy. But perhaps it would not.