Is an Aristotelian polity a realistic or feasible system?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Unlike Plato, who dreamed of an authoritarian system of government ruled over by elite “guardians”, Aristotle said that there are 3 forms of government: rule by the one, rule by the few and rule by the many. But unlike today where we say one is better than the other, Aristotle said that there is a good and bad form of each. Indeed he said that the best form of government would combine all three types, which you could say representative democracy seeks to do to some extent. But the point relevant to this debate is that the ‘bad’ form of rule by the many according to Aristotle was called democracy, which he called bad because it creates a tyranny of the majority whereby the majority rules at the expense of the minority. The good form was called a polity, which would seek to include and account for all people, not just the majority.

But is such a notion – that of a polity – realistic? Or is it merely naive to think such a state of affairs truly possible?

Great expectations – are they a good idea?

Posted on by One comment

In Charles Dickens’s Great Expectations Pip, a boy of humble origins, steadily grows into a man of great ambition. But is he the happier man? Or is it the unsophisticated and uneducated Joe who’s happiest? -the partner of his sister, who raised him. It’s often said that Dickens dedicated his works to railing against social injustices and inequalities.

But he was also playing with philosophical concepts, and obviously societal ones. We instinctively want the ambitious, lowly born person to do well. But should we not also question the ambition, as does Dickens? We teach people that having great expectations is a good thing. Sometimes we even go so far as to praise avariciousness, though we rarely call it by that name. But should we? Are great expectations always good? Or would it be a better thing to teach our young to be content with what they already have?

The group, the individual and Plato’s Republic

Posted on by Leave a comment

I have to say, I’m not amazingly impressed with Plato’s Republic, now reading it for the first time. Logic is all very well. But without the more Aristotelean empiricism used by people making arguments today, they continually seem to miss key arguments, make questionable assumptions, and brush over topics that have taken entire lives of dedication as if they were children discussing what’s their favorite meal.

Now if you know Plato’s philosophies, and you know me (essentially a postmodern democratic reformist) then it may come as no surprise to you to hear me disagree with Plato, and supposedly Socrates too, since he was the subject of most dialogues in the book. Plato’s philosophies echo the Spartan constitution far more than the Athenian. And they have been said to be the ideological root of totalitarian states like fascist Italy and Germany, as well as the USSR.

However there is one area on which I agree with Plato. He argues that when everyone lives completely individual lives and we always think about ourselves rather than the group then we create unjust societies in which unhappiness is widespread. He pursues the other extreme of course. But is it not true that one of the most unquestionable bedrocks of Western society is the primacy of the individual? Especially given recent advances in group psychology and evidence about how group membership affects well being, shouldn’t we start re-questioning whether we might be going a little too far?

The moral and the intellectual

Posted on by Leave a comment

Is it a reflection on modern day society that shows designed to make people think are so popular? I like to think so. I know for a fact that we respect intelligence. You could even say we have an obsession with it. But what about the moral?
My political involvement has largely been propelled by the desire to see more compassion. But in a world of slogans and catchphrases the word compassion is rarely used. Why?
Ancient Greek philosophers were obsessed and fascinated both with human morality. How is it, they questioned, that we can have instinctive moral reactions to something, even before learning any theories of justice? Especially when humans are almost alone in the animal world in our ability to do this. Ethics formed the basis of aristotle’s work, and aristotelianism formed the basis of western liberal socio-political culture.
So where has our fascination with morality gone? Has it disappeared?

How important is innovation?

Posted on by 2 comments

I recently took part in an innovation rally. It was said there that a) few financial firms manage to get intro Forbes list of innovative firms, and b) that it was an achievement that 50% of this firm’s (statestreet) employees think innovation is essential. However this means 50% don’t think this, and is this not in fact the reason financial firms struggle to be innovative?
What’s the single most valuable resource on the planet? Human capital. The firms that find ways to tap into the cognitive and creative surplus of their employees over the coming decades will be the most successful ones. Because these firms will be making the most efficient use of that valuable resource, empowering people throughout the organization and presenting as many people as possible with genuine opportunities to innovate.
Do you agree with this analysis? And if so how can today’s firms more effectively and efficiently innovate?

Do we need some constants in life?

Posted on by Leave a comment

So I’m Sat here on my iPhone, wondering if this will be how I blog from now on. We tend to think all technological advances are inevitable. And indeed change is a fact of life inherent to all things. But so is our search for constants – parents, religion, tradition etc. So my question to you is this: do we need some constants to form a part of our lives and thus our identities? Or can we be happy with change in its entirety?

Does any one concept trump them all?

Posted on by 5 comments

A bit of dialectical philosophy for you:

Fictional character A: “Would you forgive me for what I did, as you say you would be prepared to forgive him?”
Fictional Character B: “Would you want me to?”
A: “Yes. Yes I want to be forgiven.”
B: “… you’d do it again though wouldn’t you?”
A: “You think that?”
B: “Yes.”
A: “I suppose you’re right. Fine, then this. Would you forgive your teacher his failings?”
B: “Perhaps. He didn’t mean to do what he did.”
A: “Ah! And because I planned, and he blundered, I am more beyond forgiveness than he?”
B: “Yes.”
A: “Then answer me this: would you forgive your best friend or lover if they committed some crime like mine? Or helped someone else commit one?”
B: “Yes I probably would.”
A: “And what’s the difference between your best friend or your lover and I?”
B: “You aren’t them.”
A: “You mean you love them.”
B: “Yes.”
A: “And love is more important than justice.”
B: “Sometimes, yes.”

Do you agree that love is more important than justice? Do you think love should always come above all things? Or would this lead to catastrophic, selfish ends?

Direction in Life – is there a right one? Can one be better than another?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Hunter-gatherer societies live what we might define as rather unsophisticated lives, which could even be said to be “nasty, brutish and short” seen as murder rates are far higher within such communities. Yet those hunter-gatherer societies which exist today do not think of themselves as backwards, weak and unhappy. Take one tribe in the Amazon as an example. I won’t tell you the tribe’s name because I have no idea of how to spell it. But I can tell you a bit about them nonetheless.

They live in the middle of the Amazon. Each person works on average ten to twenty hours a week hunting/gathering and cooking food. The rest of the time they do whatever they want. They are fiercely proud to belong to their tribe, and although they have opportunities to learn Portuguese and enter Brazilian society they tend to think that the reverse should be a more likely story. They do not write or read. Their language has no numbers, and so they have never count. The language has far fewer words than ours. For example the word for skin, grass, cheek and a couple of other things is all the same. And yet scientific observers report that they smile and laugh far more than anyone in a “civilised society”. Indeed they often told the observer from whom I learnt all of this that if we could, then everyone would want to become a part of their tribe and live the way they do.

And they have some things to teach us as well: how to live sustainable lifestyles in keeping with nature; how to rebalance the equation between work and leisure; and also some more specific things. Their language includes a number of prefixes and suffixes, which inform you not only about what the information is that they have, but also where it came from. For instance imagine that you’re at a meeting and you say product X is worse than product Y. In English someone would have to ask you to elaborate. But in their tribal language you would have to structure the sentence so as to say where you got the information i.e. whether it was an opinion, found out from experience, inferred from something else etc.

So my question to you is basically this: is their life better? Or is ours? If you had the choice which would you choose and why?

« Older Entries Recent Entries »