Socrates objected to any form of government that did not conform to his ideal of a perfect republic led by philosophers.
Yet, this conflicts with the western desire for democracy, something Socrates did not like.
Philosophically speaking, I myself don't see anything better than what Socrates suggested.
Would you call this facism? It certainly calls into question what freedoms a utopian society can allow its citizens.
Feel free to discuss, leave recs, etc... etc...
All I want is for people to engage this debate.
plato gradually outlines his utopian society in "the republic." of course, this utopia is just a tool to find where justice lay, but the whole book is really about plato's ideas of how people should live. that is the central question in the philosophy of socrates and plato - how ought one to live. the society that is outlined is a pretty restrictive society. plato calls for severe censorship and control and manipulation of the citizenry. the system proposed also has semi-permanent castes for the citizens. one's attributes are evaluated from a young age and then decisions are made as to what you would be suited for. this is probably much like how doctors are picked out in cuba - early aptitude. most of the citizenry is lied to as to why their society is the way it is. these lies are designed to produce certain effects, such as increased sense of brotherhood with the citizenry. also, the people that are suited to lead come from the warrior caste - the highest except for those plucked from it to lead. reproduction and child rearing are all under government control. interestingly, women are treated as more equall in plato's utopia than in athens at the time. all of these traits do bear the mark of facism. a government run in such a way may produce a utopian society after a few generations, but i wouldn't want to live in it - unless i was in charge. however, plato himself says (through socrates, of course) that he doesn't think that it is possible to create such a city. rather, i believe that we are meant to look at his outline of the city as metaphor. remember, the whole reason that he brings the city into it is to compare it ito a man so as to find where justice lay in a man. i believe that his descriptions of how a city should be run is really his description of how we should conduct ourselves.
Originally posted by TetsujinSomehow Popper's idea of democracy -mean of removing those in power without bloodshed- is safe and leaves a pleasant ground of practically avoiding the circus-like, marketing-survey style democracy it has degenerated into.
Socrates objected to any form of government that did not conform to his ideal of a perfect republic led by philosophers.
Yet, this conflicts with the western desire for democracy, something Socrates did not like.
Philosophically speaking, I myself don't see anything better than what Socrates suggested.
Would you call this facism? It certainly calls ...[text shortened]... l free to discuss, leave recs, etc... etc...
All I want is for people to engage this debate.
I wonder if this current state of nature is the natural evolvement of an idea that is bad but better than the others intended so far (Churchill dixit)
But that's just it, you wouldn't want to live in it.
How do we justify wants?
We don't need democracy. A benevolent dictator, in theory, is even better.
How often do people do what they should, irrespective of desire? Or, maybe there is no difference.
How often do people rationalize their beliefs/thoughts/feelings? Almost everyone I know runs through the day on emotions, and snap decisions. People do what they "feel" is best.
It gets tiring trying to convince people to use their brain more than their libido.
Purportedly, such is the role of institutions -to determine behavior of the actors as they have a frame in which predict the conduit of other actors, the incentives, the sanctions, etc. [unless you fancy the 'cultural' approach better]
Anyway, in any political regime there are institutions created by sort of a 'rational choice' logic of societal actors and such, supposedly, ends up determining the shape of State. Unfortunately, the social world and its current state of affairs has proven to be unbalanced -it is no more a choice to let institutions naturally evolve and determine the political regime, since there is too much pressure to uniform.
*sigh*
🙁
right, i wouldn't want to live in it - and maybe that is just because i am too conditioned to hold freedom as the highest of values. however, i think that the reason that i wouldn't want to live in such a city is because i don't trust anyone with that much power over me. arguably, the state demands control so that it can make you better, but who decides what is better? even if a state was run by philosopher-kings as plato describes them, it wouldn't take long before charlatans moved in and took over. i would like to think that the philosopher-kings would be immune to such things, but they couldn't be forever. ultimately what plato is proposing is a system that could lead to enlightened rulers, but such a system requires enlightened rulers to implement it! it is true that a benign dictatorship is what would be best, but who would you trust with such power? and who would be immune to the corruptive nature of such power? maybe the dalai llama? or some chan master like sheng-yen? that would be my best bet. sadly though, in a system that requires so much time and money to get elected, it is very likely that we will continue to elect the people least worthy of public office. i'm betting that arnold shwartzeneggar will be the first foreign born president. he will be so popular as america fades around him that the whole born-in-the-u.s. requirement will be disposed of.
What do you think of democracy as a mediocre mean of 'sharing the blame' -a Cervante's 'Fuenteovejuna' like system in which the pain of mass idioticy is lesser since it's hared?
Another thing I would like to hear your opinion about: What about anarchy the Bakunin way? -not in the depictive connotation of the concept, of course.
Originally posted by Tetsujini believe it had something to do with pumping someone up? or terminating something? watch a documentary called "enron: the smartest guys in the room" if you get a chance. i learned a lot more about california's recall election from that film.
I don't remember a single one of his election promises.
Did he make any?
Originally posted by nomindI'll keep an eye out for it on satellite.
i believe it had something to do with pumping someone up? or terminating something? watch a documentary called "enron: the smartest guys in the room" if you get a chance. i learned a lot more about california's recall election from that film.
Originally posted by TetsujinI was recently discussing with friends how they would feel if a computer made all politcal decisions. This computer would determine the most successful way to instill global satisfaction. It would also be infallible.
Socrates objected to any form of government that did not conform to his ideal of a perfect republic led by philosophers.
Yet, this conflicts with the western desire for democracy, something Socrates did not like.
Philosophically speaking, I myself don't see anything better than what Socrates suggested.
Would you call this facism? It certainly calls ...[text shortened]... l free to discuss, leave recs, etc... etc...
All I want is for people to engage this debate.
Strangely, they all disliked it. Either because it was open to exploitation or because part of their "satisfaction" was the possibility of doing that they want. Thus even though democracy may not be best, most would prefer it. Eutopia is about freedom, a facist government is intrinsically opposed to it.
Having said that, your qualms about democracy are shared in Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World. If it turned out that eugenics would be in the interest of society, should we engage. I don't think we should. And thats why it could not be eutopian.
Originally posted by TetsujinDemocracy as practiced in the world today is a highly inefficient rather undemocratic system. Almost the only reason it can be considered beter than a benevolent dictator is that there is nothing stopping that dictator from ceasing to be benevolent. Also people like to feel free even if they arent really and even if they are worse off in almost every other way.
Socrates objected to any form of government that did not conform to his ideal of a perfect republic led by philosophers.
Yet, this conflicts with the western desire for democracy, something Socrates did not like.
Philosophically speaking, I myself don't see anything better than what Socrates suggested.
Would you call this facism? It certainly calls ...[text shortened]... l free to discuss, leave recs, etc... etc...
All I want is for people to engage this debate.
Personally I think that current democracy focuses far to much on the people and not enough on policies and actual decisions. It would be better to run the government more like a company with board members apointing the managing director and taking many of the day to day decisions and shareholders only being consulted for more key decisions.
Originally posted by Conrau Kthis computer idea only really works for a utilitarian model of ethics. if 'goodness' is not something that can be measured empirically then the computer does us no good. it is fine to stipulate that 'good' and 'happy' are the same thing, but are they? "X might make me happy, but is X good?" this is moore's open ended question argument aimed at showing that goodness is an unatural property. if this is so, then how is a computer to interact with it?
I was recently discussing with friends how they would feel if a computer made all politcal decisions. This computer would determine the most successful way to instill global satisfaction. It would also be infallible.
Strangely, they all disliked it. Either because it was open to exploitation or because part of their "satisfaction" was the possibility of ...[text shortened]... society, should we engage. I don't think we should. And thats why it could not be eutopian.