So you say you want a revolution?

[gigagaia]

I would like to present what will hopefully be a rather scintillating debate between myself and my brother Tostig, over how best to use political philosophy in an effort to bring about change.
Those of you who enjoy debate under excellent conditions, intellecutal openness and genetlemany conduct, sit back, relax and enjoy.
Those of you who feel the need to post in this thread, beware. Tostig and I will be ruthless and efficient foes to anyone other than our temporary declared intellectual antagonist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take issue with the belief that Hobbes, Locke, Machiavelli, Rousseau and others can be used as models to aspire to. Their ideals, while at the time premised on their real-world situations, were ultimately designed under the influence of assumptions which idealized certain aspects of human society. Thus they led ultimately to utopian socities which, given our rather imperfect existence as human beings are likely impossbile to achieve. They did, admittedly, form foundations upon which much of our political ideologies have been constructed.
These ideals which permeate our political discourses, whether we realize it or not, are powerful tools to use to understand concepts of liberty, justice, freedome and governance.
For example, when seeking to understand how liberalism regards freedom and where it is derived from, one can look at how Locke saw the state of nature, the social contract and the reasons for entering into it and thus understand much about how we regard freedom in a modern liberal society. Understanding where it is derived from can then influence how we can proceed to protect freedom in a modern society with modern solutions to modern problems. They can also be used to understand and interpret the many facets of political action that takes place in our modern political systems.

However useful these thoerists are at providing perspecitve, however, they should not be mistaken as any more than a means and surely not an end. The perspective they had, as I noted, was influenced by revolutions of many years ago, in societies which are no longer ones that we exist in. They do not always provide solutions to the problems that we face. And they most certainly do not give us a perscription for modern governance. Simply put, they are unable to account for the modern social developments that have progressed through the centuries since these great works were published and can only now be used to understand the foundational concepts upon which our ideolgical structures are built upon. Our political and social understanding of the human existence is far more developed and our outlook far more rational towards our imperfections for any theory based on too many assumptions about something so dynamic as human nature to guide us in how we construct our political and social systems.

I will conclude this opening observation with the statement that theory is a powerful tool that's use is most suited to better understanding situations and problems as well as analyzing real-life political moves and actions and understanding why things are done.
Theory can not be used as a basis for constructing change, rather it is something that can help us better understand our situation so that we can formulate a modern solution to a modern problem.

[imb39]

Good... Fight! Fight! Fight!

[Tostig]

First of all let me start by saying that I’m not feeling very coherent at the moment, I just cycled back from the pub, and so will probably need to edit it. However since the Canadian is asleep at the moment I should have plenty of time. What I start off with will probably be a bit poor I'm afraid.

What is political philosophy? Political philosophy is essentially an attempt to understand the mechanics of society, and extrapolating from that they are an attempt to improve them The are of course fabricated by fallible humans with fallible world views, and so are not perfect. None the less that is no reason not to dismiss them. No piece of literature can be perfect, so shall we give up on writing?

There are certainly limitations to what an individual piece of political philosophy can do, but when studied they can none the less enrich and enlighten the individual, and from that can be used to improve society. You dismiss them as not being prescriptive, however the vast majority of works of this nature are not prescriptive for the very reasons you mentioned earlier – they are inherently limited by the author’s experienced, and so if they were to lay down dictates they with time they would become as outdated as any dogmatic religion. None the less the ideas contained in political philosophy – of freedom of choice, equality of ownership or of legitimate authority are in themselves timeless.

If there is a problem with the ideals of these thoughts it is not with the thoughts themselves, but rather with the limitations of the willingness of society to allow them. Again it is not a flaw of the law any more than the existence of willing rapists is a flaw in the laws against rape.

[gigagaia]

What is political philosophy? Political philosophy is essentially an attempt to understand the mechanics of society, and extrapolating from that they are an attempt to improve them The are of course fabricated by fallible humans with fallible world views, and so are not perfect. None the less that is no reason not to dismiss them. No piece of literature can be perfect, so shall we give up on writing?

Of course no intention is meant to stop writing them. However my contention is that we should not take them as bibles and guides for a utopian society. They are excellent guide which can be used to explore certain facets of our lives and political, social, and economic spheres. What I would contend is that they are not so much means to improve life, but means to understand it. Can we expect to replace our liberal democracies with a Hobbesian Prince? The pure fact is that Hobbes was not all correct in his assesment of politics and human nature; His entire structure of governance relied on the existence of a benevolent dictator, which is something that is far more rare than he would have believed. Hobbes is an excellent writer to understand the needs of society for order, but a poor way to combat social and political problems, as well as find a political system which can best accomodate us in this day and age.

There are certainly limitations to what an individual piece of political philosophy can do, but when studied they can none the less enrich and enlighten the individual, and from that can be used to improve society. You dismiss them as not being prescriptive, however the vast majority of works of this nature are not prescriptive for the very reasons you mentioned earlier – they are inherently limited by the author’s experienced, and so if they were to lay down dictates they with time they would become as outdated as any dogmatic religion. None the less the ideas contained in political philosophy – of freedom of choice, equality of ownership or of legitimate authority are in themselves timeless.

I agree with this. The ideas that are found within are powerful means to understand basic concepts and traditions found within our socio-political vocabularies. However the theories themselves cannot be a means to advancing politics, rather a means to understanding these concepts.

If there is a problem with the ideals of these thoughts it is not with the thoughts themselves, but rather with the limitations of the willingness of society to allow them. Again it is not a flaw of the law any more than the existence of willing rapists is a flaw in the laws against rape.

Indeed. And so threin lies the problem of using the great theories to perscribe political solutions; societies are imperfect creations of an imperfect being who cannot be summed up as living a life which is nasty, brutish and short. Rather we are complex people who make mistakes and have desires, goals and needs. One solution cannot solve all ills. And radically and revolutionarily swinging into one solution based on the writings of primarily one man will further excaerbate ills that are not addressed by a thinker's solutions.
I maintain that theories are merely lenses to look at the world. In order to solve the ills, one must take practical and modern understandings of society and politics to address the complex and multi-faceted problems that our societies face.

[Tostig]

Of course no intention is meant to stop writing them. However my contention is that we should not take them as bibles and guides for a utopian society. They are excellent guide which can be used to explore certain facets of our lives and political, social, and economic spheres. What I would contend is that they are not so much means to improve life, but means to understand it. Can we expect to replace our liberal democracies with a Hobbesian Prince? The pure fact is that Hobbes was not all correct in his assesment of politics and human nature; His entire structure of governance relied on the existence of a benevolent dictator, which is something that is far more rare than he would have believed. Hobbes is an excellent writer to understand the needs of society for order, but a poor way to combat social and political problems, as well as find a political system which can best accomodate us in this day and age.

I would disagree with you on your appraisal of the Hobbesian sovereign – it instead requires a self serving dictator who is intelligent enough to realise that what is best for his people results in the best for him, something which is however just as infrequent as a benevolent dictator.

I agree with this. The ideas that are found within are powerful means to understand basic concepts and traditions found within our socio-political vocabularies. However the theories themselves cannot be a means to advancing politics, rather a means to understanding these concepts.

In my opinion they can be used to solve an immediate problem. For instance Hobbes’ role of the Prince was seen as a cry out for a return of a Monarchy/Lord Protector during a period of civil wars and strife when the Parliamentarians had been experimenting with a series of ways to rule. Of course this isn’t to say that his idea of a personified state is applicable everywhere, but it has in a surprising number of situations (most of which were when a country was being dragged kicking and screaming out of the feudal system) – Charles I and Cromwell, Louis XIV, Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa of Austria. On a similar note Marxian ideas may serve a role in a society were money and profit dominate, but in my opinion it has very little to say in a barter or information economy.

Indeed. And so threin lies the problem of using the great theories to perscribe political solutions; societies are imperfect creations of an imperfect being who cannot be summed up as living a life which is nasty, brutish and short. Rather we are complex people who make mistakes and have desires, goals and needs. One solution cannot solve all ills. And radically and revolutionarily swinging into one solution based on the writings of primarily one man will further excaerbate ills that are not addressed by a thinker's solutions.
I maintain that theories are merely lenses to look at the world. In order to solve the ills, one must take practical and modern understandings of society and politics to address the complex and multi-faceted problems that our societies face.

No solution is permanently perfect, however I am reminded of Hegel’s dialectic, where through a series of violent or peaceful changes, revolutions and upheavals conspire to shift society to a position were it is perfect for the current time. By looking at the world through different lenses we can find one which focuses our view of the situation, and using that lead us to increase out understanding of both it and our ills. Incidentally what do you mean when you say “one must take practical and modern understandings” for I cannot think of much more practical than Machiavelli’s Prince, or that with a much more modern understanding of the individual that a few branches of Communitarianism.

A single violent upheaval might not bring about a perfect world, but a steady series of shifts, changes and the occasional dismembering of an antiquated system will. If one so desires you can consider the entire history of Britain since 1688 in terms of political philosophy thesis/anithesis/synthesis, the only difference is that our changes have been less violent than those abroad.

[gigagaia]

I would disagree with you on your appraisal of the Hobbesian sovereign – it instead requires a self serving dictator who is intelligent enough to realise that what is best for his people results in the best for him, something which is however just as infrequent as a benevolent dictator.

Indeed, we reach the same conclusion via different means.

In my opinion they can be used to solve an immediate problem. For instance Hobbes’ role of the Prince was seen as a cry out for a return of a Monarchy/Lord Protector during a period of civil wars and strife when the Parliamentarians had been experimenting with a series of ways to rule. Of course this isn’t to say that his idea of a personified state is applicable everywhere, but it has in a surprising number of situations (most of which were when a country was being dragged kicking and screaming out of the feudal system) – Charles I and Cromwell, Louis XIV, Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa of Austria. On a similar note Marxian ideas may serve a role in a society were money and profit dominate, but in my opinion it has very little to say in a barter or information economy.

However theories are reflective, not perscriptive. Consider how a hobbesian prince would fit into today's modern liberal-democratic state. He simply wouldn't. Where Hobbe's ideas are valuable, is when we look at the source of authority in things such as Soverignty and Law, and the nature that has made it necessary. Thus we can understand that authority is a necessary and vital component of any solution to a political problem. That we cannot devolve ourselves utterly away from authority into a rule of the many with no unity, rules or cohesion. But what it cannot be used to do is perscribe a method to solve the problem; namely to replace an elected parliament with a single, powerful prince.

No solution is permanently perfect, however I am reminded of Hegel’s dialectic, where through a series of violent or peaceful changes, revolutions and upheavals conspire to shift society to a position were it is perfect for the current time. By looking at the world through different lenses we can find one which focuses our view of the situation, and using that lead us to increase out understanding of both it and our ills. Incidentally what do you mean when you say “one must take practical and modern understandings” for I cannot think of much more practical than Machiavelli’s Prince, or that with a much more modern understanding of the individual that a few branches of Communitarianism.

A single violent upheaval might not bring about a perfect world, but a steady series of shifts, changes and the occasional dismembering of an antiquated system will. If one so desires you can consider the entire history of Britain since 1688 in terms of political philosophy thesis/anithesis/synthesis, the only difference is that our changes have been less violent than those abroad.

Well, I mean that the solutions that these men proposed could not provide solutions to the problems of today. How can Machiavelli's writings come to solve a problem regarding corruption in a liberal-deomcratic state. Our concepts of duty, ethics and statehood are far different from Machiavelli's Florence. But he can provide a lens, as you saw, which can focus our sights on a particular problem and where that is coming from. Further he can give us vague and general direction, but cannot provide us concrete solutions to a problem. For those, we must look to our modern understandings of politics.

Hegel's Dialectic is fascinating, in that it does represent a very pointed description of historical progression. But history has also shown us that slow, measured change in response to problems using contemporary solutions has produced far more stable and effective change than radical upheavel. The English Civil War, for example, resulted, as you likely know better than I, in total chaos and destruction. However past that, England's change has been much more measured and stable, which has resulted in a far more stable political system insulated against meltdown, tyranny and anarchy than many other states such as France (A revolution for every season). Change is necessary, however revolutionary change is dangerous.

[Lord Bohemond]

I disagree with the statement that Machiavelli's idea leads to Utopian theory. If anything, it leads to DIStopia - the idea that the ends justify the means - a leader must not let morals get in the way of doing what he thinks is the necessary thing to do.

But this philosophy can be used to justify truly brutal leaders, like Hitler, by arguing that they were just doing the necessary thing.

[Tostig]

Firstly I would disagree. Machiavelli's own works, with the exception of the Prince, are all based around the idea of the utopian republic in the style of Venice. The Prince was merely a tour de force in order to show his prospective employers that he was a good statesman. The rest follows logically.

Do you have anything of value to add to the topic about the role of Political Philosophy in the Age of Information?

[imb39]

Whilst, technically, anyone can post in this thread, i ask that Tostig and Gigagaia be given some lattitude - consider it an experiment.

don't be surprised if other comments are routinely ignored by either of the combatants. Of course, I do not condone that. - imb39