Philosphy, free will, and the absence of Religious authority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Republic


Republic[edit]
Main article: Republicanism
The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.[130]
The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticised democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy, often without the protection of a constitution enshrining basic rights; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a direct democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.
What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[131] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."[132]
 
evince said:
He didn't like democracy because in his day their was only direct or pure democracy idiot
Click to expand...

He was Ionian (Athenian) dipstick. He was criticizing Athenian Democracy before and after the fall of Athens. Unless you believe he had access to a time machine and was really criticizing us.

Protip: Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure was a movie, not a documentary.
 
evince said:
Direct democracy - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which people decide on policy initiatives directly. This differs from the majority of most currently established democracies,
Click to expand...

I know that, that's why I said he was critical of Athenian Democracy. You know...Athens...where he was born and lived.

My Lord it's like talking to a brick wall.
 
a republic like the founders designed is a DEMOCRACY


with a constition

a new concoction at the time
 
evince said:
a republic like the founders designed is a DEMOCRACY


with a constition

a new concoction at the time
Click to expand...

I really don't want to mess up the OP's thread ( may be too late for that) but you madam are an unmitigated fuckstick. The Founders are irrelevant as far as Socrates is concerned. I've said it for the last time. Put the crack pipe down.
 
Guille said:
In the case of Socrates it was straight up political, he was a well-known critic of Democracy and justly or not he was thought to have helped the Sparta backed government imposed on Athens after the war. Once the Democrats regained power in Athens...payback was a bitch.
Click to expand...

Food for thought.
I am going to have to consult experts, because nobody really knows what Socrates did, we do not have a single word he ever wrote himself. We only know about him through Plato's dialogues. So we only know Socrates in the Platonic dialogue sense.

Plato's Republic is obviously very much against the idea of the rule of direct democracy. The philosopher king was Plato's gig. Though modern liberal western democracy is a form of representative democracy that has no direct parallel in ancient Greece to my knowlege.

Socrates by all accounts was loyal to Athens, having long served as a solider in the defense of Athens.

The charges brought against Socrates I realize were trumped up. But I am going to have to research what scholars know about him, any connection to Sparta, and the circumstances surrounding his trial.
 
Guille said:
I really don't want to mess up the OP's thread ( may be too late for that) but you madam are an unmitigated fuckstick. The Founders are irrelevant as far as Socrates is concerned. I've said it for the last time. Put the crack pipe down.
Click to expand...


my comments are right on track here and Backed by facts


you just got caught being a dick so like trump you get all mad and call names like the idiot you are
 
Cypress said:
The premise: A philosophical approach arises when religious authority is not regarded as all-powerful.


The reason philosophical critical inquiry, and epistemological thought arose in ancient Greece is because there was no powerful state religion that inhibited reason and free will.
Click to expand...

and democracy and republics and capitalism


is all in line with this discussion
 
Cypress said:
Food for thought.
I am going to have to consult experts, because nobody really knows what Socrates did, we do not have a single word he ever wrote himself. We only know about him through Plato's dialogues. So we only know Socrates in the Platonic dialogue sense.

Plato's Republic is obviously very much against the idea of the rule of direct democracy. The philosopher king was Plato's gig. Though modern liberal western democracy is a form of representative democracy that has no direct parallel in ancient Greece to my knowlege.

Socrates by all accounts was loyal to Athens, having long served as a solider in the defense of Athens.

The charges brought against Socrates I realize were trumped up. But I am going to have to research what scholars know about him, any connection to Sparta, and the circumstances surrounding his trial.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying he had a connection to Sparta, I'm saying he was perceived to have had one with the tyrants placed in charge in Athens after the end of the war and I'm sure that's why he was put on trial.

Interesting time period to study, there's a lot to learn there that could easily be applied to today. The Athenian Democracy is very interesting and relevant but so is the period immediately preceding the democratic age. The other parts of Greece are interesting too even though they weren't like Athens.
 
Guille said:
I'm not saying he had a connection to Sparta, I'm saying he was perceived to have had one with the tyrants placed in charge in Athens after the end of the war and I'm sure that's why he was put on trial.

Interesting time period to study, there's a lot to learn there that could easily be applied to today. The Athenian Democracy is very interesting and relevant but so is the period immediately preceding the democratic age. The other parts of Greece are interesting too even though they weren't like Athens.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the intel. Lots out there to learn.

Based on what I have learned over the years, I have never considered Plato to be a proponent of representative democracy or constitutional monarchies. We don't actually know with certainty what Socrates thought, we only know the words Plato put in Socrates mouth in the Platonic dialogues.

I think you will find few in the world these days who advocate for direct democratic rule by citizens at the scale of a nation-state. Nations obviously need learned women and men capable of administration and decision making, who work with the consent of the governed. Plato's ideal of benign philosopher-kings seems a little self-serving to me.

That aside, the contribution of Socrates and Plato to the liberal, western tradition is to pass down a method of skeptical inquiry, to create the framework by which we can consider ethics, metaphysics, virtue, and truth.


edit to add: I have a lecture series on the Peloponnesian Wars reserved at the library, so I am going to have this Socrates-Plato-Sparta thing sorted out!
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Thanks for the intel. Lots out there to learn.

Based on what I have learned over the years, I have never considered Plato to be a proponent of representative democracy or constitutional monarchies. We don't actually know with certainty what Socrates thought, we only know the words Plato put in Socrates mouth in the Platonic dialogues.

I think you will find few in the world these days who advocate for direct democratic rule by citizens at the scale of a nation-state. Nations obviously need learned women and men capable of administration and decision making, who work with the consent of the governed. Plato's ideal of benign philosopher-kings seems a little self-serving to me.

That aside, the contribution of Socrates and Plato to the liberal, western tradition is to pass down a method of skeptical inquiry, to create the framework by which we can consider ethics, metaphysics, virtue, and truth.
Click to expand...

It's too bad that Socrates didn't believe in writing anything down but there are sources other than Plato, the problem with them is they aren't straight historical documents and some interpretation is required.

As for direct democracy I disagree with you a little bit on that. My main problem with progressives is that I think they do actually want to get as close to direct democracy as possible. It won't happen but if we do ever even get close to that a lot of damage will be done.
 
Guille said:
It's too bad that Socrates didn't believe in writing anything down but there are sources other than Plato, the problem with them is they aren't straight historical documents and some interpretation is required.

As for direct democracy I disagree with you a little bit on that. My main problem with progressives is that I think they do actually want to get as close to direct democracy as possible. It won't happen but if we do ever even get close to that a lot of damage will be done.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the civilized decorum of our exchange on this thread.

I do not ever recall meeting a liberal who wanted this nation to have direct democratic rule by citizen participation.

I do think progressives ever seek to make representative democratic government more accountable to the governed (electing senators on the basis of popular vote, removing Jim Crow obstacles to voting, women's suffrage, getting rid of dark money in politics, et al).

Finally, leaving with Socrates, Professor Robinson was very explicit in stating that you cannot view the Socratic dialogues and Plato's writing in a vacuum, outside the context of history. They were living in a time when Athens had suffered a catastrophic defeat at the hands of Sparta, and in that context it was natural for many Athenians to wonder and consider if perhaps Sparta was doing some things better than Athens, and if the best of Sparta should thus be emulated.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
For what it's worth, free will has not been scientifically proven, yet.
It remains unclear whether it even can be.
Click to expand...

Makes sense, and I will take your word for it. I am not going to claim I know the answer.
“We can know only that we know nothing. And that is the highest degree of human wisdom.” -- Leo Tolstoy
Click to expand...

What I am getting out of the great Greek philosophers is that the path to epistemological knowledge is by some combination of intuition, reason, observation - and yes even faith if you want to throw Thomas Aquinas and the Christian philosophers in there.

That panoply of paths to enlightenment seems to me to involve choice and deliberation - which requires some measure of freedom from dogmatic canonical theology of orthodox religious teachings. Whether or not this is akin to free will , I am simply not skilled enough in the lexicon of philosophy and psychology to say.
 
Anne and Margot said:
Corporate Capitalism on the scale we have today,and "Citizens United" ,didn't exist in the time of the Founding Fathers!
Click to expand...

That's right. It was capitalism that created every village, town, and city in the United States. It created the United States you see today. There is no difference between 'corporate' capitalism and the practice of capitalism by any individual.

You just hate corporations. You seem to be a member of the Church of Karl Marx.
 
Cypress said:
That is good intel.

I heard a professor state that whether it was ancient Greece, the Roman empire, or the Islamic caliphate, whenever there was civil or political unrest the first people to get exiled or imprisoned were the philosophers...because they asked too many bloody questions!
Click to expand...

There's a certain amount of truth to that.
 
evince said:
they changed the meaning of the word democracy fool


now we have


democracy


and


pure or direct democracy


the founders made democracy coupled with a republic


all based in capitalism


have you never taken a government history class?
Click to expand...

Nope. The United States is a federated republic, plain and simple. There is NO democracy in the United States. Democracies fail...utterly. They always result in oligarchies and dictatorships, usually pretty quickly.
 
Guille said:
I am far more educated than you madam. Did you know that some of the Founders wanted the federal government to massively invest in large scale industry? But they didn't. The point being that crony capitalism isn't a new thing. Ever heard of the East India Company? What do you think that was? How about Germany at the onset of the industrial revolution and tech boom?

You really do need to stop gargling dicks and start reading history books.
Click to expand...

A history book is not a Universal Truth. Don't treat it like one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top