#political and moral philosophy

[aboutanancientenquiry]

The Influence of Herodotus on the Political and Moral Philosophy of Aristotle (V)

Dimka Gisheva-Gocheva (Sofia) “The influence of Herodotus on the practical philosophy of Aristotle” (Labyrinth, Vol. 18, No. 2, Winter 2016, available on https://www.academia.edu/37571279/DIMKA_GICHEVA_GOCHEVA_Sofia_The_Influence_of_Herodotus_on_the_Practical_Philosophy_of_Aristotle)  

“6. The just in the rule of the majority

The Aristotelean account of the great advantages of democracy, the rule of the many, called politeia in his typology in the Politics, is greatly influenced by Herodotus: 1.In the view of Otanes the inherent feature of the rule of majority is stated to be ἰσονομίη –literally, the equity of all in respect of the requirements of the laws; the germane idea of the rule of law; 2. What a monarch does, never occurs under the rule of the many. The bitter experience of Otanes and his childhood trauma obviously influenced him to insist on this, but in tens of other stories in the Histories Herodotus narrates that there are perilous conse-quences of the unlimited power of a person first on himself. The boundless power of a ruler leads him to madness and disaster. 3. Another valuable characteristic in the rule of the many, according to Otanes, is the distribution of many public duties, positions and responsibilities by the lot -πάλῳ μὲν γὰρ ἀρχὰς ἄρχει. 4. Even more important is the responsibil-ity for these responsibilities, or translated into our modern parlance, the accountability of the persons, who have been in charge: ὑπεύθυνον δὲ ἀρχὴν ἔχει – the power is held into account, it is responsible. 5. Last in the speech of Otanes is the mode of decision-taking: all problems are discussed and resolved in common βουλεύματα δὲ πάντα ἐς κοινὸν ἀναφέρει. This might be read as the first advocacy of the deliberative democracy.

Later on in the fifth book of the Histories, two other important factors for the democratic developments in Athens and its subsequent leadership among the city-states are mentioned:ἡ ἰσηγορίη ὡς ἐστὶ χρῆμα σπουδαῖον...ἀπαλλαχθέντες δὲ τυράννῶν μακρῷ πρῶτοι ἐγένοντο ( V, 78) 9. Firstly, ἡ ἰσηγορίη, the equity-and-equality of the citizens on the agora, the participation of the citizens in the arguing and the decision-making of the public matters; and, secondly, the abolishment of the tyrants' regime, the hostility and the resistance to many despotic authoritarian practices - these are the healthy strengths of the Athenians, which lead their city-state not only to the economic prosperity, but also to the military and the political supremacy among the Greek communities.

The abolishment of the tyranny, which is the worst of all political orders, made Athens the mightiest Greek polis in the military aspect. The freedom of the citizens and the chances they received to work for the fulfillment of their private entrepreneurships enhanced the economic prosperity of the city as well. The work for the family property and the personal household, and not for the tyrant, who would expropriate the gain, became the  basis of the Athenian polis. Another meaning of the concept ἡ ἰσηγορίη is to be pointed out. It means not only equity of the free men on the agora, the right to be equally eligible and to elect like all the rest free citizens. It signifies also the equity to participate and to cooperate in the exertion of the political power. Last, but not least it means freedom of speech, the equity of all deliberative positions of all free citizens, expressed in the public debates, in the discussions and the taking of decisions, especially the ones, passed by the assembly.

 All of them are marked as the inner engines of the glory and the positive changes inthe polis by Aristotle in The politeia of the Athenians. Once more we see how brilliant examples of stories, used as instruments by the narrative method in the History of Herodotus, become implicit concepts in an Aristotelian text. In the institutional history and the constitutional stages in the development of Athens, the warfare is just mentioned: the Greek-Persian wars and the Peloponnesian war are just referred to, because The politeia of the Athenians was meant to be a sketch of the successive forms of the institutional self-governance of the city-state and not a political history. In this brief survey of the constitutional progressive development of Athens many of the explanations of the political evolution of the city-state are in harmony with the ones, proclaimed as the most influential ones by Herodotus.

9 See the pertinent commentaries of Robert W. Wallace and Paul Cartledge on this subject in The Origins of Democracy in Ancient  Greece. (Raaflaub, Kurt A., Josiah Ober, and Robert W. Wallace2007).”

[philosophybits]

Wherever there are politics or economics no morality exists.

Friedrich Schlegel, Ideas

[liberatingreality]

Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.

Leo Tolstoy, A Confession

[celaenaeiln]

Dick and Jason would totally have a debate about reading. Except it wouldn’t be about whether Dick could read or not, it would be about whether classical literature is better than philosophical texts and they would hate the other because Jason would say that philosophical texts are a bunch of phony ramblings from old men who had nothing better to do and Dick would get mad and say classical literature is only popular because it’s too messed up for its time period and therefore the only reason it’s remembered and not because it’s actually good. 30 mins later Tim walks into the room with Jason and Dick not even a centimeter apart and screaming into each others faces and takes a slow sip of coffee and says “programming books are the most fun to read.”

Dick and Jason turn their heads so slowly to look at him that with each movement their neck muscles positively creak with pure revulsion for him.

Later Jason sends a half a dozen photos to the Titans and Bernard of Tim’s most awkward poses and Dick sidles up to Bruce and convinces him that Tim has gotten to the point where his sleep is affecting him so much he’s not functioning properly so Bruce takes matters into his own hands.

[thatveganwhiterose]

Man I love unfollowing blogs that I 99% have agreements with on moral and political beliefs solely because they reblog misinformation about what veganism is, and other related topics, because they decide to make tags like “I hate vegans”.

Like these people unironically claim to be leftists and support leftism, which usually includes reducing waste or harm as much as possible, but then demonize the very movements (veganism and animal rights) that put forth these very practices into action.

It’s one thing to have legitimate criticisms of things, though people also unironically seem to believe that most of these criticisms are BECAUSE OF philosophies such as veganism versus things like capitalism, classism, poverty, etc.

The fact that so many “leftists” have such brain dead takes without using actual critical thinking skills or comprehension that they shriek and cry about the right acting on makes me not trust these fucks farther than I can throw them.

Anyway, if you can’t unironically include veganism or animal rights into your advocacy or activism (which is literally just reducing animal usage as much as you can), you are unironically acting like right-wing reactionaries you cry about.

If you need any clarification or further explanation as to what that is, I am happy to engage in a civil discussion about this.

Bad faith takes will get you ignored or blocked.

I am so tired of being a minority who has to constantly explain why veganism is so important and necessary for all things leftism is concerned with. Like seriously shut the fuck up and actually listen to us and engage with us instead of this continual brain poison and misinformation campaign tumblr and other “leftist” sites love to push.

Yours truly,

A ND Jewish vegan woman

[usefulquotes7]

To impart a moral responsibility to exercise fairness in leadership builds greater leaders of strong character. Wayne Chirisa

[thepersonalwords]

To impart a moral responsibility to exercise fairness in leadership builds greater leaders of strong character.

Wayne Chirisa

[decolonize-the-everything]

"Suppose that Jones has suffered an accident in the transmitter room of a television station. Electrical equipment has fallen on his arm, and we cannot rescue him without turning off the transmitter for 15 minutes. A World Cup match is in progress, watched by many people, and it will not be over for an hour. Jones’s injury will not get any worse if we wait, but his hand has been mashed and he is receiving extremely painful electrical shocks. Should we rescue him now or wait until the match is over? Does the right thing to do depend on how many people are watching – whether it is one million or five million or a hundred million? Should we rescue him now or wait until the match is over?"

- T.M Scanlon, What We Owe Each Other

Follow up questions:

To what extent are the people watching tv responsible for their experience? They pay to continue the service when they know it causes harm to Jones yet if service stopped they would also be upset. How responsible are they for perpetuating the owner's maltreatment; does that extend to responsibility to improve Jones's equipment?

Is it then morally right or wrong to blame Jones for not wanting to go to work for the common good if he's harmed by it; why?

To what extent is he morally responsible to suffer for others, even if the responsibility to suffer is unbalanced and discriminatory?

At what point does common good outweigh the life of a single suffering person? How many people need to watch TV to justify Jim's harm? Is that a number that can be quantified; how so exactly?

[brisingr-sword]

used to be afraid to stand up for what i believe in bc i was like… what if people treat me weird, do not trust me, do not let me be involved in the intellectual pursuits i am interested in because of my politics,

but then i watched oppenheimer and learned how that man distanced himself from his politics for his career and so he could do something horrific and just… i don’t want to be that. i don’t want to let myself lose my conscience, my knowledge of what is right and wrong just because i really like physics and engineering.

it’s BAD to be a physicist, to be an engineer, to be whatever without being true to what you know is right and what is wrong, because that is exactly what leads to superweapons and cold wars and watching your creations be responsible for death. science and engineering is not meant to be used for death, it should be used to expand our knowledge of the world, to help people, to feed that natural curiosity of ours.

i never want to lose sight of that.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Dance of Perspectives and Beliefs: Shaping Our Worldview

Our lives are a delicate interplay of perspectives and beliefs, two elements that quietly sculpt the contours of our worldview. As we navigate the complex tapestry of existence, our perspectives serve as the lens through which we view the world, while our beliefs lay the foundation upon which our decisions and actions are built.

Perspectives Shape Beliefs: Our perspectives, which are influenced by our upbringing, culture, experiences, and personal values, play a significant role in shaping our beliefs. When we encounter new information or ideas, our existing perspectives filter and interpret that information, leading to the formation or reinforcement of our beliefs.

Beliefs Influence Perspectives: Conversely, our beliefs also influence our perspectives. When we strongly hold a particular belief, it can color the way we perceive and interpret the world around us. This can lead to confirmation bias, where we tend to seek out information that supports our existing beliefs and filter out information that contradicts them.

Openness to New Perspectives: Philosophically and intellectually, being open to new perspectives is a key aspect of critical thinking and personal growth. It involves being willing to challenge and reconsider our beliefs when presented with new evidence or alternative viewpoints. Without this openness, perspectives can become rigid and closed.

Diversity of Perspectives: A diverse range of perspectives in society is essential for a well-rounded and vibrant exchange of ideas. When people with different perspectives come together, it can lead to constructive dialogue, innovation, and a deeper understanding of complex issues.

Cognitive Dissonance: When our perspectives and beliefs come into conflict, it can create cognitive dissonance — a state of mental discomfort. This discomfort often motivates individuals to either adjust their beliefs or seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs, depending on various factors such as the strength of the belief and the individual's willingness to confront contradictions.

Worldview: Our perspectives and beliefs collectively form our worldview, which is the overarching framework through which we interpret and make sense of the world. A worldview encompasses our views on ethics, reality, purpose, and the nature of existence, among other things.

In summary, perspectives and beliefs are deeply intertwined, with each influencing and being influenced by the other. They shape our understanding of the world, our values, and our interactions with others, making them essential components of human cognition and experience.

[philosophybitmaps]

[aboutanancientenquiry]

The Influence of Herodotus on the Political and Moral Philosophy of Aristotle (IV)

Dimka Gisheva-Gocheva (Sofia) “The influence of Herodotus on the practical philosophy of Aristotle” (Labyrinth, Vol. 18, No. 2, Winter 2016, available on https://www.academia.edu/37571279/DIMKA_GICHEVA_GOCHEVA_Sofia_The_Influence_of_Herodotus_on_the_Practical_Philosophy_of_Aristotle)  

“5. The just in the human community

The real foundation of the political thinking on the different types of the self-organization of a community is discussed on several significant pages of the Histories (ІІІ,80-82), in the famous trialogue, in which collocutors are Otanes, Megabyzus and Darius.

The first to speak is Otanes, the unhappy child, who has witnessed the terrible death of his corrupt father: it is no wonder that after such a shocking experience in his childhood the first speaker should glorify τὸ πλῆθος opposed to μουναρχίη. Indeed, we cannot expect argumentation and concepts, clarified by definitions in Herodotus. He narrates short rather suggestive stories, bearing sense, which will later engender political or ethical concepts. It is not by chance that the speech in favour of the rule of the many should be delivered not by anyone else but by Otanes. This reveals the talent of the historiographer, who is a writer as well. Otanes is the judge who has inherited the position of his corrupt and severely punished father. His accusation of the excesses of the unbounded monarchic power is to be expected and the motives for it are both negative and psychological. The power of the one is detrimental to himself, because it is the source of arrogance, cruelty and disdain. In the speech of Otanes the accent is laid on the psychological degradation of the ruler, who enjoys absolute power. Its devastating effects fall much more on himself, than the arbitrariness and the atrocities, which destroy the lives of his victims. Of course, Otanes combines the denial of the one form with a praise of another and offers a positive enumeration of the five essential merits of the opposite to the monarchy: the rule of the many. 

The rule of the many, on the other hand, has, in the first place, the fairest of names, to wit, isonomy; and further it is free from all those outrages which a king is wont to commit. There, places are given by lot, the magistrate is answerable for what he does, and measures rest with the commonalty. I vote, therefore, that we do away with monarchy, and raise the people to power. For the people are all in all. (III, 80)

After him, Megabyzus praises the rule of ἀρίστων δὲ ἀνδρῶν, opposed to ὀλιγαρχίη.The speech of the second noble collocutor provides a real example of dialectical Aufhebung, because it partially preserves and partially discards what has been already said: the monarchy is bad, he agrees, but at the same time he disagrees that the supreme power should be concentrated in the majority. 

For there is nothing so void of understanding, nothing so full of wantonness, as the unwieldy rabble. It were folly not to be borne, for men, while seeking to escape the wantonness of a tyrant, to give themselves up to the wantonness of a rude unbridled mob… Let the enemies of the Persians be ruled by democracies; but let us choose out from the citizens a certain number of the worthiest, and put the government into their hands. (III, 81)

Darius is the last to speak in the trialogue and his speech is also dialectical development of the previous statements: he supports the negative evaluation of the rule of the many, proposed by Megabyzus, but rejects the appraisal of the aristocracy as the best form of political governance. On the day after, he will become the new king with treachery and falsification, because he convinces the other four participants who remain silent in the dispute, but are entirely persuaded by him and vote in favour of his opinion: thus the champion in the debate is Darius, who proclaims the monarchy as the best form of governance, opposed to the power of the people/demos (ІІІ, 85).

The third opinion is also much more psychologically grounded than politically elaborated. Like the first speaker Otanes, the third one Darius emphasizes the personal degradation of the ruling figures, who inevitably become the first victims of the concentration of power not only in the hands of a minority, but even in the rule of the many. The disastrous consequences of the oligarchic and the democratic political orders likewise according to Darius, tooq are much more detrimental to the ones, who rule than to the human community governed by them. 

In oligarchies, where men vie with each other in the service of the commonwealth, fierce enmities are apt to arise between man and man, each wishing to be a leader,and to carry his own measures; whence violent quarrels come, which lead to open strife, often ending with bloodshed… Again, in a democracy, it is impossible but that there will be malpractices: these malpractices however do not lead to enmities, but to close friendships, which are formed among those engaged in them, who must hold well together to carry on their villainies. (III, 82)

The closer inspection of the precise words, used by the three noble Persians in this political debate on the best form of governance, supports more decisive observations and conclusions: the six basic political forms – the three good ones and their three opposites, later laid down as fundamental by Aristotle, are sketched in this conversation. The speech of Otanes points out the advantages in the rule of the majority, τὸ πλῆθος - the rule of the many, later called democracy, and to the enormous dangers in its contrary, which he labels μουναρχίη, but in fact means its distorted form, the tyranny. Megabyzus advocates the rule of ἀρίστων δὲ ἀνδρῶν – the aristocracy and blames the power of the unbridled mob, later labelled the bad or the deviated democracy. Darius properly describes the psychological mechanisms in the group of the ruling men, which in his view transforms any aristocracy into oligarchy, and declares that monarchy is the best.

The conversation of the three Persians is reflected with some variations and new arrangements by Plato in the Republic (in the VIIIth book, with the addition of timocracy to the forms of the political orders) and in the Statesman (291d-292e), but there is no complete coincidence, because in the Republic one more type is added, whereas in the Statesman one form (not surprisingly the good form of the rule of the many) is missing. These six forms, sketched by Herodotus in the trialogue of three Persian noblemen, are the focal points of Aristotle's meticulous analysis, developed at length in the Politics from the middle of the third book to the end of the sixth.”

[philosophybits]

Weakness, fear, melancholy, together with ignorance, are the true sources of superstition.

David Hume, Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary

[insaniquariumfish]

Hot take here but the overwhelming majority of morality is just social trends influenced by the ebb and flow of innumerable sociopolitical forces outside of anyone's actual control and the vast majority of ethical beliefs held by any given individual have nothing to do with genuine independent thought on their part and are simply emblematic of how that individual happens to be influenced by said trends and forces. Causality and natural laws determine the flow of human thought and behavior just as much as they do the flow of water, because humans are a part of nature. Also we are never going to gain collective enlightenment, because humans are not neurons in an ancient brain and we do not, when considered as a collective, literally constitute a singular being who learns and grows over time. Humans today are the same kind of beings as humans from 50,000 years ago, and humanity cannot ever meaningfully change because it is human nature and not ideology that ultimately determines how we think and behave as a species, and all ideology is ultimately both a product of and subject to this nature. And we cannot make concrete philosophical progress in the same sense that we make scientific progress, because philosphical truth and morality and ideas are not objective properties of reality, and all it takes to "unlearn" a philosophical belief is to have a reason, even an entirely subconscious reason, to not want to believe it, whereas something like how a light bulb works is true whether you want to believe it or not, and people (most of the time) do not have any psychological motivation to abandon scientific claims and observations. There is a reason why history repeats itself and progress backslides and problems that have plagued humanity for at least as long as recorded history continue to do so, and why issues just come right back in new forms whenever they are meaningfully addressed, and why they are so rarely ever meaningfully addressed in the first place, and why you can see certain types of oppression and depravity everywhere in the world no matter where you go. Humans are humans and will always be humans. And yes, that fact is incredibly depressing and disheartening, and yes it does mean that having genuine faith in the idea of "progress" is misguided.

[theidealistphilosophy]

What looks like politics, and imagines itself to be political, will one day unmask itself as a religious movement.

Soren Kierkegaard, Source Unlisted.

[thatveganwhiterose]

The biggest issue I see with anti-vegans on tumblr is the fact that at the end of the day, they literally do not understand what veganism actually is.

This is why it’s so frustrating, ultimately, regardless if the person is a troll or may mean well. Vegans are working with the actual definition of veganism whereas anti-vegans or non-vegans are not.

So again: Veganism is a political, ethical, philosophical, and moral movement that centers around not using animals as far as is practical and possible for one’s situation.

Veganism is not about being plant based, though it is a component of it that covers food consumption. It has nothing to do with capitalism or any economic system, though these things often intersect with one another.

I am begging non-vegans of all walks of life to please understand this. Veganism is a social justice movement.