manner of commodities, whilst, in the meantime, their halves were begging at theirdoors, lean and half-starved with hunger and poverty; and they thought it strangethat these necessitous halves were able to suffer so great an inequality andinjustice, and that they did not take the others by the throats, or set fire to theirhouses.
Foreshadowing. I wonder if these people actually did visit Europe and actually did say this or if it is Montaigne trying to slip in more messaging.
which it may be added, that their language is soft, of a pleasing accent, andsomething bordering upon the Greek termination
The Europeans post-Renaissance were always judging stuff by the Greeks and Romans. Its kind of funny to notice the collective forgetting they have. In the Roman era they were almost all in tribal societies.
but moreover carefully brought up thechildren he had by her, and assisted them in the succession to their father’s crown.
Of course this dude is saying that they are better because they have multiple wives
that they only covet so much as their natural necessitiesrequire: all beyond that is superfluous to them
Classic greedy Europeans
We may then call these people barbarous, inrespect to the rules of reason: but not in respect to ourselves, who in all sorts ofbarbarity exceed them.
Very true
seeing so clearlyinto their faults, we should be so blind to our own. I conceive there is morebarbarity in eating a man alive, than when he is dead; in tearing a body limb fromlimb by racks and torments, that is yet in perfect sense; in roasting it by degrees;in causing it to be bitten and worried by dogs and swine (as we have not only read,but lately seen, not amongst inveterate and mortal enemies, but among neighboursand fellow-citizens, and, which is worse, under colour of piety and religion), thanto roast and eat him after he is dead
This is pretty fair. Europeans committed absolutely horrific acts of violence, whether it be on enemies, conquered peoples, or ordinary prisoners being executed. Is it really worse to quickly kill a man then cook him than to have him pulled apart by horses?
hey thought those people of the other world (as being men who had sown theknowledge of a great many vices amongst their neighbours, and who were muchgreater masters in all sorts of mischief than they) did not exercise this sort ofrevenge without a meaning, and that it must needs be more painful than theirs, theybegan to leave their old way, and to follow this
This part is pretty funny. He's saying that the Portuguese were so mischievous, evil, and brutal that their methods of execution made the natives think that theirs was too weak, and that the Portuguese used this method to exact meaningful revenge.
but as a representation of anextreme revenge
how does he know? Also I like that he's arguing that their cannibalism is okay because they eat their enemies for revenge and not because they like to eat people for nourishment.
but all their ethics are comprised in these two articles, resolution inwar, and affection to their wives
I'm sure that the sailors and traders who could not speak the language were able to get a great grasp on their beliefs and cultural norms
laxative to strangers
fire
no agriculture, no metal, no use of corn or wine;
??????
wherein there is no manner of traffic [trade], no knowledge ofletters, no science of numbers, no name of magistrate or political superiority; nouse of service, riches or poverty, no contracts,
I think the footnote speaks for itself. What is funny to me is that one could certainly have used these new cultures as a way to get perspective on European culture without discrediting them and pretending that they are so simple.
countries abound without art or culture
Just not true.
As, indeed,we have no other level of truth and reason than the example and idea of theopinions and customs of the place wherein we live:
This is literally what you are taught in cultural anthropology. A fish does not know it is in water.
excepting, that every one gives thetitle of barbarism to everything that is not in use in his own country
An early hint towards cultural relativism. Why was it so rare to have perspective?
This man that I had was a plain ignorant fellow, and therefore the more likely totell truth: for your better-bred sort of men are much more curious in theirobservation, ‘tis true, and discover a great deal more; but then they gloss upon it[polish it], and to give the greater weight to what they deliver, and allure yourbelief, they cannot forbear a little to alter the story; they never represent things toyou simply as they are, but rather as they appeared to them, or as they would havethem appear to you,
This is really a criticism of upper class European society.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau later called “the noble savage,”
Its interesting to consider what an effect this concept must have had on the political philosophy at the time. Rousseau's philosophy described how man is entirely free in a state of nature and that he gives up some freedoms to enter into society. Many social contract theorists refer heavily to the man in "the state of nature" but somehow I never made the connection that they were being influenced by the discovery of cultures in the new world.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divineProvidence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
In summary, I can't help but think that the king fumbled the bag. The American revolution is strangely something that I don't think about too often. I think that its omnipresence in American history and in the education of my younger years has made it something that I just take for granted, but now as I rethink about it I can't help but wonder what in the world was the king thinking. The revolution was by no means the glorious struggle for freedom that Americans make it out to be but from a historical and political analysis perspective it is very reasonable and expected that the colonists revolted. The king repeatedly alienated and abused them and responded to their complaints with more abuse. I simply can't imagine that the crown really believed that this would turn out well.
e must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces ourSeparation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
If the British people were unwilling to try to reign in their government then there was nothing to be done except go to war.
Ourrepeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
The kings repeated response of aggravation made conflict unaviodable.
, it is their right, it is their duty,to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
An appeal to the social contract
He has constrained our fellow Citizens takenCaptive on the high Seas to bear Arms againsttheir Country, to become the executioners of theirfriends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by theirHands.26 With the outbreak of war in 1775, Britain permitted the“impressment” of Americans on captured ships, wherebythey were forced to serve in the British navy against thePatriots.
Definitely a valid grievance, although at this point they were already fighting.
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our mostvaluable Laws, and altering fundamentally theForms of our Governments:21 In 1774 Parliament revoked the 1691 charter for thecolonial government of Massachusetts. That unilateralrevocation infuriated the Patriots as a complete central-ization of power in the hands of Parliament.For suspending our own Legislatures, anddeclaring themselves invested with power tolegislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
Abolishing the entire charter for Massachusetts of course was going to be seen as an act of war and it seems that by 1774 the king knew this and was just pushing them around. The same goes for reminding them of his supreme authority "in all cases whatsoever"
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits ofTrial by Jury:18 New colonial courts created in 1768 provided for trials ofaccused smugglers with no jurythe judge alonedelivering the verdictthus removing a right long valuedby British subjects. [The 1789 Bill of Rights guaranteestrial by jury and other due process rights.]For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried forpretended offences
Valid grievances.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
The big one. Definitely a valid reason to be mad.
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, frompunishment for any Murders which theyshould commit on the Inhabitants of theseStates
Just very blatantly allowing his military to be tyrannical and oppressive.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices,and sent hither swarms of Officers toharrass our people, and eat out theirsubstance
Again, this and the above show the king trying to clamp down on the colonies and remove their power. Seems like a valid reason to be upset.
He has kept among us, in times of peace,Standing Armies without the Consent ofour legislatures
Seems like a very hostile act and worthy of offence.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population ofthese States; for that purpose obstructing the Lawsfor Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to passothers to encourage their migrations hither, andraising the conditions of new Appropriations ofLands.
This also seems legitimate. It is funny how views of immigration have changed over time and how Americans today have very wild ideas about the history of immigration. Some people believe it was all Anglo settlers while others believe it was a total open melting pot; the history is much more complicated.
He has refused for a long time, after suchdissolutions, to cause others to be elected; wherebythe Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation,have returned to the People at large for theirexercise; the State remaining in the mean timeexposed to all the dangers of invasion from without,and convulsions within
This and the above all seem like very legitimate grievances. The king was systematically trying to disrupt and impair colonial self-government and removing the ability for the colonists to have representation.
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
Foundational ideas of liberalism
Those interests, Icontend, authorise the subjection of individual spontaneity to externalcontrol, only in respect to those actions of each, which concern the in-terest of other people.
Individuals should be restricted from hurting others. Some would argue that this is the only limit that the government should be allowed to put on citizens.
The practical principle which guides them to theiropinions on the regulation of human conduct, is the feeling in eachperson’s mind that everybody should be required to act as he, and thosewith whom he sympathises, would like them to act.
Reminds me of Arendt. Humans are unwilling to accept differences and wish to make others conform
there needsprotection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling;against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civilpenalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those whodissent from them;
This idea is echoed by Dubois. There must be protection against the Tyranny of the majority.
The will of the people, moreover, practically means the will of the mostnumerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or thosewho succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people,consequently may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precau-tions are as much needed against this as against any other abuse ofpower. The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over indi-viduals loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regu-larly accountable to the community, that is, to the strongest party therein
Very true.
The notion, that the people have no need tolimit their power over themselves, might seem axiomatic, when populargovernment was a thing only dreamed about, or read of as having ex-isted at some distant period of the past.
To give the people total power still means trusting people with power. Dispersing power does not protect it from being misused or abused.
appeared tothem much better that the various magistrates of the State should betheir tenants or delegates, revocable at their pleasure. In that way alone,it seemed, could they have complete security that the powers of govern-ment would never be abused to their disadvantage.
Representative government. On an even more basic level than representation, the ability to elect officials allows the people to make sure that the government serves them - or so you would think
Their power was regarded as necessary, but also as highlydangerous; as a weapon which they would attempt to use against theirsubjects, no less than against external enemies.
Rulers were not viewed as serving the people thus they would be expected to abuse their power.
regarded as a breach of duty in the ruler to infringe, and which if he didinfringe, specific resistance, or general rebellion, was held to be justifi-able. A second, and generally a later expedient, was the establishmentof constitutional checks, by which the consent of the community, or of abody of some sort, supposed to represent its interests, was made a nec-essary condition to some of the more important acts of the governingpower.
This creates liberties for the people and ensures the consent of the governed
By liberty, was meant protection against the tyranny of thepolitical rulers. The rulers were conceived (except in some of the popu-lar governments of Greece) as in a necessarily antagonistic position tothe people whom they ruled. They consisted of a governing One, or agoverning tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance orconquest, who, at all events, did not hold it at the pleasure of the gov-erned
Very good way to describe this. Most societies did not view the governing body as existing for the benefit of the governed. In fact, in most cases it was expected that rulers would exercise their power cruelly and oppressively.
the nature and limits of the powerwhich can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.
This is one of the core issues of liberalism: in what ways can the government or others affect an individual?
Brutal physical revolution can, and usually does, end the tyranny of the few.
True. What ability does the minority have to rectify its situation or to at least push back at the system? Unlike the majority which can always use its size to rearrange and recreate society, the few must be protected by something that they can not back up with power.
At the same time, its greatest accusation against rebels is this same desire to be alike: the suffragette is accused of wanting to be a man, the socialist is accused of envy of the rich, and the black man is accused of wanting to be white. That any one of these should simply want to be himself is to the average worshipper of the majority inconceivable, and yet of all worlds, may the good Lord deliver us from a world where everybody looks like his neighbor and thinks like his neighbor and is like his neighbor.
Very profound. This reminds me of Arendt speaking of the absolute differences of men.
How astounded the future world citizen will be to know that as late as 1918 great and civilized nations were making desperate endeavor to confine the development of ability and individuality to one sex—that is, to one-half of the nation; and he will probably learn that similar effort to confine humanity to one race lasted a hundred years longer.
Statements like this really bring forward the failings we have with modern thought: for some reason we believe that we are the future citizens that he is speaking of. How twisted and discriminatory is our society yet because we have at least expressed that we want equality we think we are there.
Today we are gradually coming to realize that government by temporary coalition of small and diverse groups may easily become the most efficient method of expressing the will of man and of setting the human soul free.
Very interesting idea, I would like to see this in America. Even in countries with coalitions it is often the case that there are a few dominant parties or even one single dominant party.
Instead of the artificial attempts to divide all possible ideas and plans between two great parties, modern legislatures in advanced nations tend to develop smaller and smaller minority groups, while government is carried on by temporary coalitions.
HAHAHAHAHA. I LOVE THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM YIPPPEEEE
Peoples and governments will not in the future assume that because they have the brute power to enforce momentarily dominant ideas, it is best to do so without thoughtful conference with the ideas of smaller groups and individuals.
He is very hopeful here. At this point most ideas are informed through media and politicians rather than originating organically with the people so it almost feels like we've regressed. In terms of representation to minorities we have certainly improved but the entire process of thought creation has diminished.
If the absolute monarchy of majorities is galling and inefficient, is it any more inefficient than the absolute monarchy of individuals or privileged classes have been found to be in the past?
A great critique which highlights a root problem with the very concept of government. Who can you give power to? What group of people with power can not be corrupted, can not misuse their power? A large group where power is dispersed to the many is supposed to be insulated from this yet it is still the case that majorities arise and use their power against others.
Horror in Pink #2
I looked into this artist and this piece because I found it very interesting. The pink man originated as a critique of consumerism but due to the re-election of the former Thai prime minister that urged on the October 6th massacres, Manit repurposed the Pink man to make a statement about the loss of consciousness in the people; he believes that they are taking history too lightly or ignoring it all together. Thus Pink Man, representing the people, joins the crowds and ogles at the violence. He's described as a "soulless man without a conscience to trouble him". His creator marvels at his wickedness: "my he's really getting his rocks off, how he enjoys himself"
dangerous perversion of the real democratic ideal.
Certainly. The ideals behind democracy advocate for the liberty of all, no matter how small or unpopular in a given society.
viz., any minority that cannot become a majority is not worthy of any consideration.
Certainly a major failing of representative government can be that it fails to accurately represent the myriad of people within the country. The system needs to be designed to actually represent all and not just the majority. These ideas have been debated since the inception of American democracy.
Has the minority, even though a small and unpopular and unfashionable minority, no right to respectful consideration?
It is important to consider the nature of a minority from all angles; I think considering the power and social clout of a group is perhaps one of the most important aspects. It is very possible for a group to be small and unpopular yet vey powerful.
the seeming instantaneousness of violence—its ability to quickly deliver a result—foreshortens both strategy and a commitment to democratic transformation over the long term.
Violence delivers us immediate results but it does not prepare the kind of environment which is necessary to make these results fruitful. Furthermore it shortens strategy: by taking this quick path to results one does not have to think and plan carefully.
‘Those who labour withtheir minds govern others, while those who labour with their strength aregoverned by others’
Very similar to Aristotle's slave analogy, although his is meant to represent the structure of institutions as well as the direct relationship of leader and follower
They still didn't support myobjectives, though. It was all too dangerous.
It is very interesting yet understandable how age splits people politically. Older people seem to favor stability and do not look long term. What is interesting is that young people do not necessarily look long term because they will live in that world (though perhaps this is what first causes it), but rather it seems that they are generally concerned with the idea of the future, at least far more than older people. To this end young people will lay down their lives or sacrifice their freedoms.
By the time people realized that they had been fooled, it was toolate to do anything. Ben Ali had built a dense network of domesticspies-and a system of extrajudicial punishments-that kept thecountry in line with fear.
The idea that a country slips into authoritarianism. It often does not just appear and the public allows it to encroach.
Many Tunisians believed that and countless other lies that fol-lowed
The loss of democracy is often willing on the part of the people
Thiswas where all the RCD students lived in relative style, two to aroom and without any elec;tricity cuts, which affected only floorsthree and above.
Typical. The ability to lure people into loyalty is very important to such a regime.
We were instinctively self-censoring froma young age.
This is the end goal of authoritarian governments
Later, I took my criticizing activities to the Web, where I used aproxy-software that broke the censorship on Web sites that criti-cized Ben Ali. I enjoyed venting. But at a certain point I wondered,"Is this how I am going to fight against Ben Ali? Is this how I amgoing to change my country?·" The answer, of course, was "No."
Its interesting how this frustration is relatable even in a much freer society. It can often feel that we are unable to affect the world around us and that to attempt to do so would destroy us.
most of us never dared to imagine another order.
Imagination is so important to the world that we shape. This can be disheartening as it often seems that few people can imagine a world very different from the current one however the world can change unexpectedly and thus imagination can spontaneously make breakthroughs.
From that moment, the questions and doubts I had aboutrevolt-and that many young Tunisians shared-were erased for-ever. The revolution had begun, sweeping from the south to northof the country like a steady, unstoppable wave
Its very interesting how it often takes a moment like this to spark sentiments into coming forth into movements. I think that the barriers which hold humans back from organization, real and perceived, must be studied.
The mindset, however, was self-defeating. Tunisia itself gradually became a big jail
Allowing for such injustice out of fear does not accomplish anything accept allowing one to eek out a living.
Shh! The walls are listening!" My parents taughtme not to talk politics, not to criticize, and not to think.
Totalitarianism aims to kill thinking
between these moments others make the decisions. The potential risk of this arrangement, as has been noted by astute observers since the birth of modern republics, is that citizens might grow distrustful of the people who are actually running government on a daily basis and of the special influences to which they might be subject. It’s worth noting that, among long-established democracies today, there’s a robust correlation whereby countries with larger populations tend to have lower trust in government.
This. Firstly, such a large society means that the members will think of themselves as less responsible or having a smaller impact or whatever form that feeling takes. This makes them worse citizens as they are not constantly exercising their obligation to influence the state. Furthermore, with such a large state the government necessarily can not represent everyone. On top of this, large and advanced societies give reason for their leaders to abuse power. There is much more to be gained from manipulating the power of the United States than of a Greek polis.
of, roughly, only 20,000 individuals.
This is very small, even smaller than the amount of men eligible for civil service in Athens which something like 40,000 out of 250,000 people
The first difference between early democracy and our democracies today is that this earlier form of rule was a small-scale phenomenon
There are so many benefits to this and arguably it is the only way for true democracy. First, it allows for direct representation. Perhaps more importantly, it means that each member of the community is inclined to feel deeply responsible for said community. Furthermore, the scope of such a society does not allow for the kind of pursuits which typically lead to abuses of power, nor could one maintain an unpopular regime in such a community.
In all of these societies there were several defining features that tended to reinforce early democracy: small scale, a need for rulers to depend on the people for knowledge, and finally the ability of members of society to exit to other locales if they were unhappy with a ruler.
We see this in democratic societies but also we see that these features cause political development in non-democratic societies. The ability of Chinese shi to leave and serve a new leader allowed for the pursuit of political knowledge for its own sake to flourish. The Greek polis greatly exemplified all three features and although they were not all democratic they showed a great deal of sophistication and a relationship between ruler and ruled which was less lopsided and aimed to achieve an overall benefit for the society.
But speechis for making clear what is beneficial or harmful, and hence also what isIS just or unjust. For it is peculiar to human beings, in comparison to theother animals, that they alone have perception of what is good or bad,just or unjust, and the rest. And it is community in these that makes ahousehold and a city-state.19
Interesting. He argues that we have the ability to perceive and communicate morals, essentially what facilitates such large and complex communities. I would also argue that speech facilitates the ability create new ideas and organize complex behaviors. Speech allows us to organize and this allows us to turn ideas into reality and shape the world in a way that would otherwise be impossible.
Hence he is the most unrestrained and most savage of ani- 35mals when he lacks virtue, as well as the worst where food and sex areconcerned. But justice is a political matter; for justice is the organizationof a political community, and justice22 decides what is just.
Humans without community and thus without a sense of moral responsibility are evil creatures. Also justice decides what is just is an interesting statement. Using the prior sentence, we can say that justice is the upholding of the community's moral code. Justice is what is necessary to maintain the community.
For as a human being is thebest of the animals when perfected, so when separated from LAW andJUSTICE he is worst of all.
Very interesting and compelling. We have essentially limitless potential. This means potential for both greatness and deep depravity.
It comes to be for the sake of living, but it remains in existence for the sake of living well
The city state arises as a natural occurrence in order to survive, however it can serve to elevate life beyond what was previously possible
The reason all people say that the gods too are ruled by a king isthat they themselves were ruled by kings in the distant past, and somestill are. Human beings model the shapes of the gods on their own, and 25do the same to their way of life as well.
Insightful
But thefirst community constituted out of several households for the sake of 1 Ssatisfying needs other than everyday ones is a village
The household satisfies everyday needs, the village more extraneous needs. I assume that it then follows that the larger community and eventually the state satisfy long term or overarching needs: security, maybe some kind of safety net
That is why the same thing is beneficial for both master and slave.4
The master can not exist without slave and the statesman can not exist without the people. Of course I am wary of the slave analogy but his point stands. A thing such as a state requires multiple dependent parts, some which organize and some which are the purpose of organization. Neither can exist without the other.
appropriate SCIENCE, ruling ISand being ruled in turn, has the position of statesman. But these claimsare not true.
Some argue that being elected or randomly chosen (essentially not being an impervious or unaffected ruler) is the condition necessary to be a statesman. Aristotle says this is not so.
Foras in other cases, a composite has to be analyzed until we reach thingsthat are incomposite, since these are the smallest parts of the whole, so if20 we also examine the parts that make up a city-state, we shall see betterboth how these differ from each other, and whether or not it is possibleto gain some expertise in connection with each of the things we havementioned.3
This is the method of thinking which Socrates advocated. Examine things by taking them to their smallest, indivisible pieces.
The good with the most authority is HAPPINESS, since everything else ispursued in part for its sake, while it is pursued solely for its own sake. Thescience with the most authority, STATESMANSHIP, directs the entire city-statetoward happiness.
This is an interesting and effective way to define the core of political motivations.
In stark contrast to China and India, in the classical period no Greek school ofthought—indeed hardly a single individual—seriously considered opting outof his political community. The state and its politics were more central to theway people lived and thought than they were in any other ancient culture.
Here community is so immediate and important that it becomes a significant part of the individual. Thus to be fulfilled as an individual one must be a good member of the community
It was a relatively relaxed ideo-logical environment.
Greek culture was in all facets relaxed and emphasized what could be learned or created. It was highly conducive to improvement and open to experimentation.
The gods were more like humans than in other cultures; they had humanemotions, foibles, and moral fallibility. They are not particularly benevolent(as they tended to be in the theologies of sacred monarchies
This really reflects the Greek beliefs about power and divinity. Even the gods are not infallible and they do not rule because of some ordained right. Zeus gained his position through violence.
a widespread commitmenton the part of citizens to participate in public affairs
Wouldn't that be nice
Nevertheless, there was far more popular control overdomestic and foreign policy, far more political participation, than anywhereelse in the ancient world, or in the vast majority of modern states.
Literally. Very cool
Pericles noted that it was only at Athens that those who donot take part in public affairs (ta politika) are looked down upon (Thucydides2.40.2). By these means the citizens ‘gained control over the constitution as awhole’. 25
Such a powerful take on citizenship. There is an obligation of the citizen to serve the country through political action.
he powerful should thank him for preventing the populace fromdestroying their wealth. ‘I took my stand like a boundary stone...betweenthem’ (EG 28). Solon was both a moral thinker and a politician: he put hissolutions into practice by combining might and right (West, ed., 141) andpiecemeal political engineering.
Basically Solon is the GOAT. Actually though it is crazy to see how the virtue of one man could lead a state to prosperity and establish ideas that have been foundational to humanity. Certainly the Athenians have to get some credit for wanting a just and equal system and entrusting Solon with their future, but it is so compelling to me to think of such a man, who is devoted entirely to harnessing the potential virtue of his entire community.
Eunomia meant generosity(euergesia: doing good works) as opposed to pleonexia (being grasping)
What a great way to understand the two opposing views of how people interact with their community and state in general. We can grasp for things ourselves or do good works.
What he tried toinstil in his fellow citizens was sophrosune (self-control, discretion, moder-ation); this became a fundamental moral and political value (Greenhalgh 1972:195–6). He spared no pains in pointing out to the Athenians that their poliswas in danger of being destroyed by its rich citizens, who, ‘lured by wealth...know not how to restrain their excess’. Their injustices are reducing the polisto slavery. This is a public evil, affecting everybody ‘even (in) the innermostrecesses of his bed-chamber’
Solon was an absolute beast
hecitizens elected (594) Solon (‘the wise’), an itinerant Athenian merchant,as a special chief officer with full powers to sort out the class war betweenrich and poor. This tactic of calling in a ‘wise lawgiver with unlimited power’(CGR 423) was a major innovation.
Very interesting. This act of giving someone absolute authority to resolve the issues of a democracy is very unique. It certainly is compelling. If you could find a Solon, a wise and trustworthy man, it certainly would be nice to leave everything in his hands. In this way you can escape the gridlock of democracy.
networks of carefully nurtured personal relationships with peers, subordinatesand inferiors’
The relationship to power is personal and mutual.
When a whole family, or one individual among the rest, happento be so outstanding in virtue that they exceed all the others, then it is just thatthis family be royal and sovereign over all, and that this individual be king’(Politics 1288a1.15–35). This no doubt had something to do with the examplesof Philip of Macedon, at whose court his father had served, and of Alexander,whom Aristotle had tutored.
Very interesting. One can see how in such a scenario it would seem better to entrust a single virtuous person or family with power. Due to the distinct nature of Greek states there is less incentive for abuse of power and if you can find a truly exceptional person than why not entrust them with total power rather than a collection of somewhat virtuous people.
The comic drama-tist Aristophanes (c. 448–380) made fun of leaders in Athens’ ‘democratic’polis; he was the only person in the ancient world who regularly and publiclycriticized active politicians without fear of reprisal
This is very cool. The Greeks had something which other civilizations did not: a belief that those in power were human and fallible. Although the Chinese believed rulers can fail or deserve to lose power, it does not come anywhere close to this.
Moderation was a virtue;
Real
The community of the polis, like other forms of state, superseded the clan asthe focus of loyalty and comradeship. Disputes were to be settled, wrongs putright not by feud and violence but by public law and in a spirit of civility whichone finds in such proverbs as ‘forgiveness is better than vengeance’, ‘winbloodless victories’, ‘obey the laws’, ‘do not speak ill of neighbours’.
A genuine sense of community at large
This was patriotism, not nationalism.The polis ‘became the focus of a man’s moral, intellectual, aesthetic [as well as]social and practical life’ (Kitto 1951: 11).
Good way to put it. This is true patriotism in a sense that could not be realized in a different situation. Not just the sense of belonging (knowing and caring for all the people of your state) but the sense that one can have a significant impact on their community is also very compelling. It would surely create the ideal citizen.
In contrast to nearly every other literate ancient society, these were face-to-face communities, small enough for all citizens to meet together in one place,the agora (both market-place and assembly). 10 This was the only time in worldhistory that such relatively intimate communities flourished as sovereignstates.
Super interesting and important. This must have produced such a strong unity and reverence for one's state.
The success of the polis as a type of political society depended crucially onits male members being willing to die for it (despite a slender belief in life afterdeath).
As we learned, a key component of nationalism is the willingness to die for one's nation. One could imagine how a state small enough to have a mostly non-imagined community could produce a particularly powerful sense of national pride and loyalty.
One’s own survival and that of one’sfamily depended on people with whom one had face-to-face contact. Govern-ment by the citizens could be maintained because it was the mass of citizenswho made up the predominant military force, the hoplites (heavy infantry), anextremely effective ‘block of identically equipped troops’.6 There was a con-nection between military and political participation. In fifth-century Athens,some justified dēmokratia7 on the ground that the state’s power rested on thenavy, which was manned by the common people
For the Greeks, the imagined community of one's state was an actual community. It is understandable then how ideas like democracy could spring up - the people are already collectively involved in the welfare of their state and not in a forced or distant way like in larger states such as in China.
They were united by their language, religion, mythology,epic poetry (their nearest equivalent of scripture) and commerce. The Greeksare good example of a people united in their stories
The Greeks had a strong imagined community and national myth. The fact that they were united in identity despite their physical separation and belonging to separate states is a testament to the strength of this national myth.
The concerns of anoble person, said Mengzi, should be his family, his reputation, and theeducation of talented youngsters. Thus Confucians saw improvement ofmorals and culture as an end in itself.
Overall Chinese political philosophy presents a very interesting take on sacred monarchy. Here intellectualism and morality play a role which is noticeably separate from yet informed by religion. Heaven favors those who are wise and committed to their duties and morals. Sacred power is not inseparable from any particular lineage and can be lost by poor leadership. Furthermore, the shi served to insulate political and philosophical intellectualism from power, allowing for such ideas to develop uncorrupted. I think it is very interesting to see how ideas similar to those from Egypt are echoed here.
Thus Confucians saw improvement ofmorals and culture as an end in itself.
I really like this perspective. Service to others and to one's society are a reward in and of themselves.
The development of ethics in China from the sixth to thethird centuries BCE was more state-oriented than analogous developmentselsewhere. There was no mention of rewards in an afterlife.
An entirely service oriented morality with no expectation of reward.
The Confucian view, similarly, was one of enlightened paternalism: it is theduty of government to look after the people, but there was no suggestion thatthe people were to be consulted about how this should be done. On thecontrary, the people are, as a matter of observable fact, moulded by whoeveris in power: ‘if you desire the good, the people will be good. The virtue of thegentleman is the wind; the virtue of the people is the grass’ (CA 12.17, 19).Similarly, ‘if one day [the ruler] can overcome himself and turn to humane-ness, the world will turn to humaneness along with him’ (CA 12.1; 13.12). TheConfucian ideal was a moral ruler and a moral ruling class who would give thepeople moral leadership.
Here we see the idea of paternal leadership
Some Chinese writers seem to have come tantalizingly close to this.According to a sixth-century source, ministers who are members of the royalfamily could depose a ruler who persists in his mistakes; in doing so, they wouldbe carrying out the will of Heaven and of the people.
Very interesting.
All this might be thought to imply that acceptance by the common peoplewas necessary for holding the Mandate.
Legitimacy
The people, especially the poor and the disad-vantaged or disabled, should be treated kindly by their social superiors (‘leadthem, work them . . . Do not weary them’: CA 13.1).21 This was in accordancewith the view stated in the Odes: the people are ‘indeed heavily burdened and itis time for them to rest a while’.22
Similar to Egypt
deviate from the way of virtue and behave oppressivelyand licentiously, they will lose Heaven’s Mandate’
Sacred monarchies have some expectation of virtue and proper rule for the monarch. Their fitness as a leader is not just a political concern but a religious concern. Poor leaders have disgraced their sacred duty.
The difference between the nobleand the ‘small’ man was that the former ‘concentrates on right’, the latter on‘advantage’, especially financial gain
Based Confucius
But discussion was limited to monarchy and did not, as in Greece, considerother types of state.
An important distinction. All Chinese political thought originated with a top-down perspective.
The revolution of c. 1046 BCE was based on, or gave rise to, the beliefthat the ‘Mandate (or Decree) of Heaven’ (tian ming) had passed to theZhou lineage, because of the Shang’s misrule and the virtue (de) 5 of theZhou.
Interesting how religious authority was able to be transferred. Could a new lineage of Pharaoh's have done the same?
. During this period of politicalflux and frequent warfare, Chinese philosophy got started—much as it didduring the age of independent poleis in Greece
Interesting how a plurality of impermanent and at risk states births great political creativity.
Egypt’s was the first expression of sacred monarchy. It was effective for anenormous stretch of time because it was tied in to the current view of the waythings were.
I think that Egypt's sacred monarchy is the ultimate form of this system. The religion is not used to justify the monarchy, the monarchy is the religion. Thus its legitimacy is powerful, but also the king's responsibilities to the people are powerful and real. By comparison, Christian monarchies made use of a religion which was largely inaccessible to laypeople and which had long been reduced to its simplest, most superstitious pieces. The hailing of a king as appointed by god was fabricated entirely outside the context of the religion and the moral attributes were discarded and unacknowledged. Thus the king's legitimacy was created by using the religion as a vehicle and did not actually originate within the religion.
I made the four winds that every manmight breathe thereof like his fellow...I made the great inundation that thepoor man might have rights therein like the great man...I made every manlike his fellow’ (c. 2000 BCE : ANE 7–8). Appointments should be made on thebasis of merit, not status (‘do not prefer the wellborn to the commoner, choosea man on account of his skills’) (Merikare, in Lichtheim: i. 101). Male andfemale were on the same moral plane. Was this related to the wide gulfbetween pharaoh and all subjects
Again we see that religion informs the society's politics far more than the actual political structure it has.
urged to ‘administerequal justice to all’ regardless of wealth, status, or affinity to the judge
This is something which we often consider as a core tenet of modern liberal democracies, yet it is an incredibly old idea which existed under absolute religious monarchy.
The wealthy and powerful have an obligation to provide for the poor andvulnerable. This was a central principle of the patrimonial state
Its interesting to see how much this idea was repeated. I wonder how this actually played out in Egypt, if most Pharaohs could be considered just and kind rulers. Its interesting to think how absolute monarchy could play out in very different ways depending on the culture and beliefs of the state and society.
Partly as a consequence, it was themost extreme theory of absolute monarchy.
Similar to how medieval states revolved around central authority, yet even more extreme. Egypt is Egypt because of the pharaoh, and the people can call themselves Egyptians because they are ruled by him.
nationalist religious imperialism
In this sense we can have both empire and nationalism. The Egyptians believed in empire simply to conquer land and take what was rightfully theirs. There is no desire to bring other people into the empire and thus it can be limited while seeking to expand.