The Left's False Narrative

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Why must civil liberties be considered a theory rather than a practice?

Why do you assume this theory precedes practice, rather than vice versa?

---

If we look at what the Founding Fathers wrote both in the Federalist Papers and other personal works it is clear that the rights position they took was derived from the work of Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu and Rousseau etc. It was a theoretical enterprise and thoroughly a product of Enlightenment thought.

Quote:

---

Neither of these assumptions has been proven. Moreover, if you're talking about origins, then surely you must be able to demonstrate a consistent link between the democracy of the high middle Ages and the democracy of ancient greece. Yet, there seem to be major lacuna here that would suggest different origins for modern democracy in the ideas of the high middle ages rather than ancient Greece. Are the origins of our democratic practices really to be found in Greece rather than medieval Europe?

---

The fall of the Classical World did not mean a complete erasure of all that it had produced. Certain platonic works (like the Republic) survived in the West. The same is the case with elements of Roman legal dicta. Further, from 1087 with the fall of the Library of Toledo to the Christians, the Aristotelian corpus was again available.

The reason 'democracy' in English is Greek derived and not German is not insignificant. (love those negatives!)

Quote:

---

Note I was only pointing out some, not all, of the steps you had missed.

There is no relevance to the distinction between secular and canon law. It's not doing any work for you.

---

I'm not attempting any exhaustive exegesis. My original point was civil liberties is a Western construct.

Conciliarism isn't tied to civil liberties discourse.

Quote:

---

I might agree with you to some extent there. Nevertheless, this creates tremendous problems for Hanson's theory and your defence of it. If being politically fractured is an inherent characteristic of 'The West' that makes it superior, then the Greece and Rome you look to for the origns of 'The West' were not truly 'Western'. Greece was unified by Alexander and Rome was an empire for over 500 years.

---

I don't think fracture is an inherent characteristic. Rather is was a characteristic and in areas where this has been the case: the Greek city-states, the Italian Peninsula or Western Europe in general that situation has generally produced more dynamic societies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If we look at what the Founding Fathers wrote both in the Federalist Papers and other personal works it is clear that the rights position they took was derived from the work of Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu and Rousseau etc. It was a theoretical enterprise and thoroughly a product of Enlightenment thought.

---

Which itself looked back on the actual struggle between Cromwell, parliament and the monarchy in the previous century, which itself cited the Magna Carta and the liberties of the middle ages, which themselves... etc. etc.

Quote:

---

The fall of the Classical World did not mean a complete erasure of all that it had produced. Certain platonic works (like the Republic) survived in the West. The same is the case with elements of Roman legal dicta. Further, from 1087 with the fall of the Library of Toledo to the Christians, the Aristotelian corpus was again available.

---

Actually, only the Phaedo and Timaeus were widely available in the West. Where are you getting the idea that the Republic was known?

The entire Aristotelian corpus was available in Latin translation only in the thirteenth century.

Quote:

---

The reason 'democracy' in English is Greek derived and not German is not insignificant. (love those negatives!)

---

Latin was the written language, Germanic tongues spoken. Again, you're looking only at theory and not at practice.

Quote:

---

I'm not attempting any exhaustive exegesis. My original point was civil liberties is a Western construct.

---

Do Byzantium, Jerusalem and Alexandria count as part of The West?

Quote:

---

Conciliarism isn't tied to civil liberties discourse.

---

The concept of free elections certainly is.

Quote:

---

I don't think fracture is an inherent characteristic. Rather is was a characteristic and in areas where this has been the case: the Greek city-states, the Italian Peninsula or Western Europe in general that situation has generally produced more dynamic societies.

---

Then what is the inherent characteristic that makes the West better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

Then, as I'm pretty sure you see this coming, where do places like Japan stand? They are certainly a succesful democracy, and they have many cultural portions of his Christian "West". Perhaps a better question is: If the advent of Civil Liberties, Democracy, and the Scientific Method come from the West, as you have defined it, why is the West still superior to any other place that has adopted Western ideals?


I can agree with the majority of what he has said, but it is reminiscent of Kipling's The White Man's Burden, and all of the problems a superiority complex can bring.

---

Japan isn't a Western nation. From the Meiji Reformation forward Japan has adopted or had imposed certain elements of the West. Several of these elements have become more or less settled, but the source remains foreign: the primary civilizational impulse remains Far Eastern.

My use of superior was historical and moral. The West produced these 'goods'. I think they are superior to rival claimants. For example: I think science is demonstrably superior to superstition when dealing with the world. I think the same is the case on the moral plane: I think democracy and civil liberties are superior to autocracy. As these ideas spread to other arenas I think the people there naturally benefit: Japan is an example. I hope Iraq proves to be as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Which itself looked back on the actual struggle between Cromwell, parliament and the monarchy in the previous century, which itself cited the Magna Carta and the liberties of the middle ages, which themselves... etc. etc.

---

I don't think this is right. Just to cite Locke as an example, he used the followng language:

"To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man." (Second Treatise of Government, 1690.)

Like the above, Enlightenment Thinkers were not involved in historical argument to justify their position, but rational inquiry as to the nature of rule.

Quote:

---

Actually, only the Phaedo and Timaeus were widely available in the West. Where are you getting the idea that the Republic was known?

The entire Aristotelian corpus was available in Latin translation only in the thirteenth century.

---

I thought the Republic and the Laws were both available. Maybe I'm remembering wrong. (constant expossure to leftist thought tends to deaden the mind).

Yes, the translation process took time, the key point is the recovery of Classical thought.

Quote:

---

Latin was the written language, Germanic tongues spoken. Again, you're looking only at theory and not at practice.

---

Latin was written and spoken among the intelligensia.

Yes I am looking at theory because it was theory that was used to justify the overturning of monarchic systems.

Quote:

---

Do Byzantium, Jerusalem and Alexandria count as part of The West?

---

The 'West' is not a set geogrpahic point, but the ideas and values of a Civilization. Areas where those values have been replaced by say Islamic notions wouldn't qualify.

Quote:

---

The concept of free elections certainly is.

---

I don't know what this means. Paritcipants in Ecumenical Councils were Bishops, themselves appointed, who were to decide theoretical stances. The last of these was in the 8th Century. This has nothing to do with the governance of a state or the rights of men.

Quote:

---

Then what is the inherent characteristic that makes the West better?

---

I don't know there is an inherent characteristic. I don't even know what that would mean given culture and Civilization are constructs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I thought the Republic and the Laws were both available. Maybe I'm remembering wrong. (constant expossure to leftist thought tends to deaden the mind).

---

Ah Pindar, my friend, I've known you long enough to recognize that a diversionary, backhand swipe at the left is the closest you can come to admitting an error. I'll just take it for what its worth and keep delivering the tough love. Rock on, buddy. :guitarist:

More to come on your more substantial points when I get a moment free from work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Ah Pindar, my friend, I've known you long enough to recognize that a diversionary, backhand swipe at the left is the closest you can come to admitting an error. I'll just take it for what its worth and keep delivering the tough love. Rock on, buddy. :guitarist:

More to come on your more substantial points when I get a moment free from work.

---

Cheers ~:cheers:

When you reply clarify for me: your position isn't so much contra my claim about democracy and civil liberties arising in the West as much as when this occurred. Is that right? If so why do you consider this important?

Quote:

---

Prove it.

---

Look at the NEWS. Drugs are not a threat to our way of life. The real harm was done by making them illegal and in fact its the governments ridiculous position on it that causes almost all the problems with drugs. There was no drug problem until the drug laws of the 60s. Most of the deaths from drugs can also be layed squarely at the feet of the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Prove it.

---

BOOOOM !!!!! ~D

Wow. A guy writes an article that says "The war in Iraq was a good idea, detaining people at Gitmo is a necessary and just thing, the Patriot Act doesn't infringe on civil liberties, and western (read "American") culture is superior to all others," and all the conservatives in the Backroom have themselves a love-in gushing over his brilliance.

Who'd of thunk it?

~;)

At any rate, I am aquainted with quite a few lefties, and most of them are even non-American lefties (the worst kind, from what I understand). Never have I heard any of them even hint that they believe American bears any culpability for the Sep11 attacks. This claim is just a tactic used by the right to villify those who have political viewpoints anwhere even slightly left of Ronald Reagan. While there may be a few rabid freaks on the fringe who believe the U.S. "had it coming," on Sep11, it is certainly not mainstream liberal thinking.

Quote:

---

That's not proving it. In September 2001, let's say about 3000 people died from Terrorism in the US. Less actually, were American citizens. I think I can safely say alot more than 3000 people died in the US from drug-related causes in September of 2001.

---

I knew you would go here. Fuist off less people die from drugs than from terrosim. But many more Americans die from the war on drugs than from the war on Terror. Also by your reasoning the automoblie is a fer greater danger to our way of life than either of these as more peole dir in car accidents. Im talking of threatening our way of life not how many people die from it.

Quote:

---

Prove terorism is more dangerous, more of a threat, or otherwise a bigger deal. Or are all Republicans afraid to pull out some hard facts these days?

---

All it takes to realise Im right is a brain that works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Reagardless of any perceived failings, if you recognize the above as 'goods': that science does have positive products, democracies do in fact exist, and civil liberties have recognized legal standing then the point is made.

---

If the point is: "and that proves the West superior", the existence of democracy as a concept (or science, or civil liberties) is not enough. To be superior, the West would have to be clearly ahead in the exercise of democracy. It's not enough to have thought about it first, to be superior, one also need to apply its finding. And the West has been faulty on that.

It would not come to my mind to claim France is superior to Algeria as far as democracy or civil rights are concerned since WE WERE THE ONE TO DENY THEM THOSE RIGHTS TO START WITH. And for each and all countries in the West, there is a ugly backyard. None of us have been able to stand up for those standard.

Why shall we claim superiority for standard we have not uphold and applied? Worse, we betrayed them multiple times...



As far as the practice/ theory discussion goes about democracy and civil liberties... that's a good example of discussion framing by Pindar.

A good example of non western democracy at works would the Nordic "thing"; given that Pindar defines Western as "Children of the Greek" and that I doubt anyone can trace the thing institution back ot Greece, I'd say it's non western.
The roots of modern day democracy in the land "of the children of the Greek dominated by catholicism and protestantism" are not in Athens... It's only later, once there were already some form of democracy that some people thought of the Greek. As mentionned above, in Western Europe, that would be XIth-XIIIth century.
For Iceland, the thing institution is far older, I think they can claim the title for being the oldest strand of democracy still alive nowadays. I guess it makes them superior. And since they are not "children of the Greek from a catholic-protestant dominated land", I guess we ought not to consider them western.

Unfortunately, as there is no theorical work from VIIIth century Icelander and no philosophical corpus describing it and the principle at work behind it... (none that I know of) chances are we can dismiss it.


We did not even came up with the idea first... Then we stabbed that very idea in the back anyway. But in the name of that very idea, we would claim superiority on others?

Louis,

Quote:

---

Second: Even if you take the cops and the government out of the picture, more people are dying. Overdoses, drug wars between dealerships, ect.

---

You just dont get it do you? Overdoses and and drug wars are a result of making drugs ilegal.

Quote:

---

First off: Automobiles are stupid. Mass Transit would solve most if not all of the Automobile-Related problems. But good luck getting that kind of system in place.

---

Again theres a big difference between what kills people and what threatens our way of life.

Quote:

---

Your argument wreaks of self-rightousness,

---

I would say the same of you. I dont see how my arguing that terrorissts are a bigger danger to our way of life than drugs makes me self rightous. You however think that your right yet havent made one factual point here.

Quote:

---

Maybe I'm just stupid, but around here alot more people die from overdosing on Meth than from Drug-Busts

---

People OD because the drugs arent regulated. You know like the FDA does. You never know how strong the drug your buying maybe. Again fatalities from something dont make it a threat to our way of life.

Quote:

---

What a load of crap. You think that illegal sale of drugs would end if they became Legal? They'd still sell it on the street, and people would still kill eachother over it.

---

The only load of crap here was just spewed forth by you. Yes making drugs legal would stop almost all street sales. Why take a chance of goig to jail to make 10 dollars for something you can buy in the store? The only clients left would be kids. You simply make a law anyone caught selling drugs to a kid gets 10 or 20 years minimum. The only reason people sell drugs is theres a huge profit margin in it.

Again this isnt about what or who kills more people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

If the point is: "and that proves the West superior", the existence of democracy as a concept (or science, or civil liberties) is not enough. To be superior, the West would have to be clearly ahead in the exercise of democracy. It's not enough to have thought about it first, to be superior, one also need to apply its finding. And the West has been faulty on that.

---

Hypocrisy objections are interesting. If there is a nation say the U.S. that claims: all men are created equal and yet possesses slaves and another society, say a Muslim state where slavery is an age old practice that has no conceptual or legal challenge the argument seems to be moral equivalence. There are a couple ways to respond to this. For example, if popular sovereignty is recognized as a good then one could argue that to the degree it exists, to that same degree there is a manifestation of that good. From this simple perspective it would seem that a state that has some liberty vs. a state that does not is superior. This would apply even to an imperfect model.

There is also the expansion model. Popular sovereignty from inception forward seems to have worked off of a growing recognized circle of participants. The root is typically citizens. Citizens have often been qualified say: male, possessing certain wealth or property, being of a certain age etc. Now the history of the concept has shown this growth to include an ever increasing profile of recognized participants: all men, all races, both genders etc. Now if one wishes to argue that no single point along that process is democratic because it does not include all possibles then the concept loses meaning. I think a more prudent approach is to center the idea around the core concept: popular sovereignty. This means if rule is determined by the citizenry and is amenable to the same (even if that citizenry is not all inclusive) then the label can be applied. As it is applied it can also be justifed and jusification is a moral label.

Quote:

---

A good example of non western democracy at works would the Nordic "thing"; given that Pindar defines Western as "Children of the Greek" and that I doubt anyone can trace the thing institution back to Greece, I'd say it's non western.
The roots of modern day democracy in the land "of the children of the Greek dominated by catholicism and protestantism" are not in Athens... It's only later, once there were already some form of democracy that some people thought of the Greek. As mentionned above, in Western Europe, that would be XIth-XIIIth century.
For Iceland, the thing institution is far older, I think they can claim the title for being the oldest strand of democracy still alive nowadays. I guess it makes them superior. And since they are not "children of the Greek from a catholic-protestant dominated land", I guess we ought not to consider them western.

---

The Althing does appear democratic. I also think one could argue the Vikings had moved beyond simple tribal organization. From my understanding of Icelandic history the Island was not able to maintain its independence. It fell under foreign sovereignty and control from the 13th Cen. Regardless, the 10th Cen. innovation of the Althing is not older than the Athenian model. Therefore the Greeks still get their due. Also, I don't think the Althing had any impact outside of Iceland. The thinkers who were exposed to the idea of democracy looked to recovered Greek texts not Iceland. The critical point however, is the rational tradition of the Greeks was thoroughly a part of Western European culture and consequently the notion of democracy could be appraised afresh in light of the conditions of the time. I think this is exactly what happened in the 17th Cen. when thinkers were working against the Divine Right of Kings model.

Quote:

---

And, yes. It is about what kills more people.

---

How do you figure that?

Quote:

---

People overdose on legal drugs all the time, because it gets them high. If you made them legal for recreational purposes, that would hardly be less Detrimental to society--people would still build up a tolerance to the drug, and eventually overdose. Making them legal for medicinal use only would do nothing to discourage their sale on the streets. You're argument is shot all full of holes.

---

Would you like to give me some stats on that? Does their doctor over prescribe the drug or do they go out and buy it illegally? Do you really belive prescription drugs are a bigger threat to our way of life than terrorism. This is becoming more ridiculous by the moment.

Quote:

---

That's the best way to gauge it. It's physical proof for your arguments. Spout political drivel all you want for either side of the argument, it's still Bias and still crap.

---

How soes the thing that kills the most people make it the biggest threat to our way of life? If thats so old age and disease are the biggest threat. Again it to our way of life not to our life that were speaking on.

Quote:

---

By all means. I've been trying to get you to post some stats to back up your position since several posts back.

---

I dont need to as my position is that the number of people killed by these things is totaly irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Both. But for those using it medically, it's almost always an accident. Those who get it illegally for recreational purposes die from overdose.

---

Its far from a threat to our way of life. It seems you just dont get it. You dont think making drugs legal would greatly reduce fatalities. I cant believe Im arguing here basicly for the left in this thread.

Quote:

---

Terrorism is not anywhere near as dangerous in America as Drugs. Oklahoma City Bombing, Columbine, Twin Towers the first time, 9/11, ect. Yes, we get the occasional act of senseless violence, but they are rare when compared to people dying every day from overdoses, or inter-dealership drug wars.

---

Earth to th Cube. Yor right until the first city gets nuked by them. Then I dont want to have to be the one who has to tell you "I told you so" Again its not how many people have died or will die from it but whether it can overthrow our government and way of life. Its not our physical lifes Im speaking of. You simply keep dodging the point and go on about deaths. It irellevant here.

Nukes could be shiped into a port very easily.

Quote:

---

Now I must be missing something with your drug Argument. Do you actually think that people would stop dying from them if were made legal for recreational use?

---

Dont be ridiculous. Of course people will still die from them but a very reduced rate. They in no way threaten our way of life.

Quote:

---

Give me a break. If our intelligence agencies and our border gaaurds do their jobs right, there is no way someone could get a Nuke off within the US. They are large devices, and complicated to build. You would either have to smuggle one in or build one here in the US--both of which are impossible if the powers that be do their job. Mind you, it's not inconcievable that someone could sneak a Nuke through the Mexican Border, but that's because the Administration is too pussy to tell Vincent Fox to shove it, and ruthlessly enforce the border laws.

---

Are you serious? They can smuggle hundreds of thousand of people accross our borders every year and millions of pounds of drugs accross our borders but not a suitcase nuke? Its time you faced reality here. How much damage do they have to do before you realise the threat?

In a way they are because they harm the country.

Quote:

---

Like I said before, the Border problem is the Government's fault. And Mexicans coming accross the Border are hardly terrorists, if that's what you're trying to imply.

---

So you think its only mexicans who are sneaking accross the border?

Besides that the recent bombings in London show that even entirely closing the border cant stop these people. Radical Islam is not only the biggest threat to our way of life but of the entire free world.

Quote:

---

And as long as you fail to acknowledge that more people die from Drugs (which should not be made legal, in my opinion) than from Terrorism within the United States, this argument will go nowhere.

---

Ive always acknowleded that. You just dont get the fact that its irellevant here. Again terroism THREATENS to kill many more and in fact overthrow our government.

Quote:

---

Says who? I maintain that the terrorist threat here in the US is overstated greatly. Without it, the Bush administration could never get away with half the crap it does.

---

Well your entitled to your opinion but can you back it up. Im glad were at least starting to discuss the real subject. Excatly what crap are you speaking of? So you think however it seems that they are doing a good job of protecting us it seems or there is no threat. I find that again very naive looking at what has happened around the world over the last few decades.

Quote:

---

The FBI is sufficient to deal with internal threats, and the CIA is sufficient to make sure External threats don't find their way inside.

---

Again theres 3000 dead people in my city who would dissagree with this.

Quote:

---

And then he used the Patriot Act to butcher the constitution.

---

Thats pretty funny. Once more much of the Patriot act was taken from our drug laws which are much more invasive and unconstitional than the Patriot act.

Quote:

---

I have motive, I have circumstance. What do you have?

---

You have nothing. I have attacks upon us and others by them for over 30 years.

Quote:

---

You are taking that out of context. Badly too, since the rest of the context is right in that post. I said 9/11 happened because the FBI and CIA have become too politicized. The breaking point happened in the '80s, I think. To truly prevent future attacks we don't need Homeland Security or Patriot Acts, we need to de-politicize the CIA and FBI. They need to cease being agencies of politics, and do what they are supposed to do.

---

No what was needed was the homeland security act which was designt do just whar asking for and it seems theve been succesful. So far at least.

Quote:

---

We went over this several pages back. I still stand by what I said then.

---

D you realise how invasive and unconstitutional these drug laws are? Theymake the patriot act look like the Emancipation Declaration.

Quote:

---

I know nobody is using the Drug Laws for Malicious Purposes. I can't say alot of that for the Patriot Act.

---

They use it to tap your phones and all sort of other invasive things. They also confiscate your property. There is probably no laws that are more missused for profit by the government and trample our freedoms. I gues as long as YOU agree with there program the constitutionality of these laws matters not but ones that ar far less intrusive like the Patriot act are wrong. The only way to stop drug use is education. Once more making them ilegal has proven only to exasterbate the problem.

Quote:

---

I'll tell you what: How about we call them both unconstitutional, scrap them, and find legal ways to do things?

---

Well we really do think much alike. I can go for that. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

There is probably no laws that are more missused for profit by the government and trample our freedoms.

---

What about traffic law? :hide:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Cheers ~:cheers:
When you reply clarify for me: your position isn't so much contra my claim about democracy and civil liberties arising in the West as much as when this occurred. Is that right? If so why do you consider this important?

---

My objections are mostly to the following:

1. The privileging of the west over other cultures. In some spheres this can be done--there is no doubt the west was more technologically advanced than others in the mid-20th century. But how does one judge morality? The value of a culture's beliefs? I know you believe you can find some objective standard, but I don't. And I've seen what happens when one culture thinks it is superior to others, from the horrors of colonialism to Nazi expansionism. I don't want to go back down that road of a 'white man's burden'. We must treat all cultures not as means, to paraphrase Kant, but as ends in themselves.

2. The idea that the Greeks thought of everything first and that the West invented everything about science and democracy. This is just ahistorical. Like any culture, the west borrowed a lot from its neighbours. Moreover, the historical record does not unfold in such a simplistic progression from bad to good as Hanson tries to prove. Greek-style emocracy was abortive in Greece and had little effect on 'the West' (another monolithic construct that, like 'feudalism' or 'the decline and fall of the Roman empire' does almost as much harm, historiographically speaking, as it does good) for millenia (see below). Moreover, privileging Western science over all other culture's scientific discoveries is both ignorant and erroneous. The chinese invented many of the greatest scientific discoveries of the classical and medieval and even early modern worlds. Arabic learning and science was leaps and bounds ahead of the West for most of the Middle Ages. European doctors even at the end of the Renaissance were still using the Arabic works as their basic textbooks. The list goes on and on. So in terms of discoveries, there is no question that many other cultures have made innovations as valuable and significant as those of the West. In terms of methodology, yes, the West has played the dominant role in developing it since the renaissance. I have no problem recognizing that. But to see science as a whole as the West's child, without acknowledging its mother, is rather silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The Althing does appear democratic. I also think one could argue the Vikings had moved beyond simple tribal organization. From my understanding of Icelandic history the Island was not able to maintain its independence. It fell under foreign sovereignty and control from the 13th Cen. Regardless, the 10th Cen. innovation of the Althing is not older than the Athenian model. Therefore the Greeks still get their due. Also, I don't think the Althing had any impact outside of Iceland. The thinkers who were exposed to the idea of democracy looked to recovered Greek texts not Iceland. The critical point however, is the rational tradition of the Greeks was thoroughly a part of Western European culture and consequently the notion of democracy could be appraised afresh in light of the conditions of the time. I think this is exactly what happened in the 17th Cen. when thinkers were working against the Divine Right of Kings model.

---

Iceland fell under the sway of foreign powers, but the assemblies were maintained. Hence, Iceland remains the oldest continuing democracy in Europe. Why do you think the Allthing is younger than the Athenian model? What I'm getting at is that the germanic and Celtic peoples had a history of tribal assemblies that go back to the time of Homer. Why are you assuming that they did not exist during Athens' golden age? Why do you assume that since they could not write, they could not hold tribal assemblies? Also, the Allthing did have an impact outside of Iceland, if you consider that it was an expression of practical, Germanic ideas about political organization. This was an ancient folk belief that required consultation of the community before any change was initiated. Your statment that 'The thinkers who were exposed to the idea of democracy looked to recovered Greek texts not Iceland' is both vaguely worded and circular. If they were exposed the the idea of [Greek] democracy, of course they were looking to the Greeks! But you don't note that these were very few and not particularly influential. Few people had read any of the Greeks when the Allthing, the English Parliament, the French estates general, the Spanish cortes, the communes of Lombardy and Flanders were created. Nor is your statment that Greek democracy was 'thoroughly a part of Western culture' borne out by the facts. Certainly not when representative parliaments and communal governments appeared in 'the West' in the high Middle Ages, which is the only source and period to which our modern democratic sytsems can be traced in an unbroken line. You've been led astray by a classicist (Hanson) who doesn't understand the medieval material, and by a historiographical tradition that is dated, inaccurate and circular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

My objections are mostly to the following:

1. The privileging of the west over other cultures. In some spheres this can be done--there is no doubt the west was more technologically advanced than others in the mid-20th century. But how does one judge morality?

---

One judges morally by appeal to morals. My morality says that Aztec society sacrificing tens of thousands of people to the sun is inferior to say Modern Britain.

Quote:

---

2. The idea that the Greeks thought of everything first and that the West invented everything about science and democracy. This is just ahistorical.

---

I have never argued the Greeks thought of everything. Nor have I argued the Greeks invented science. I did argue democracy is a Greek product. I have also explained I don't consider tribal or personal compacts as civilizational models. Civilizations can only be compared to other civilizations.

Quote:

---

Iceland fell under the sway of foreign powers, but the assemblies were maintained. Hence, Iceland remains the oldest continuing democracy in Europe.

---

If a land is not independent it cannot claim democratic nation status.

Quote:

---

Why do you think the Allthing is younger than the Athenian model?

---

Because the Allthing dates from the 10th Cen. A.D. and the Athenian model dates from the 5th Cen. B.C.

Quote:

---

Also, the Allthing did have an impact outside of Iceland, if you consider that it was an expression of practical, Germanic ideas about political organization.

---

You're arguing that the Germans looked to Iceland as the model for their society? Who did this, when and where?

Quote:

---

Your statment that 'The thinkers who were exposed to the idea of democracy looked to recovered Greek texts not Iceland' is both vaguely worded and circular. If they were exposed the the idea of [Greek] democracy, of course they were looking to the Greeks!

---

I did not say "Greek" democracy. I said: "The thinkers who were exposed to the idea of democracy looked to recovered Greek texts not Iceland." I don't think this is vague. This means the concept democracy and the texts that discuss it were Greek not Icelandic. I don't know of any Enlightenment thinkers who appealed to Iceland.

Quote:

---

Nor is your statment that Greek democracy was 'thoroughly a part of Western culture' borne out by the facts.

---

This is not what I wrote. I wrote: "The critical point however, is the rational tradition of the Greeks was thoroughly a part of Western European culture and consequently the notion of democracy could be appraised afresh in light of the conditions of the time." Rationality is a Greek construct. This was part of the Western Tradition, all the more by the time of the Enlightenment. It was through rational appeal that democratic revolution was justified.


The chronological argument does not impact the more general notion that democracy is a Western construct.

None of this effects the thrust of the essay which is focused on divison within Western ranks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

One judges morally by appeal to morals. My morality says that Aztec society sacrificing tens of thousands of people to the sun is inferior to say Modern Britain.

---

The example is facile. How about the Greeks telling you your system of government is not a democracy because you don't get to vote yourself, but rather you rely on representatives? Which is better? Why is it you that gets to decide?

Quote:

---

I have never argued the Greeks thought of everything. Nor have I argued the Greeks invented science. I did argue democracy is a Greek product. I have also explained I don't consider tribal or personal compacts as civilizational models. Civilizations can only be compared to other civilizations.

---

You are defining your ideas into existence. What exactly is 'civilization'? Was medieval Europe a 'civilization', according to your definition? If you're going to make the arguments that tribal societies don't count as civilizations, then go ahead and make it. But you haven't yet.

Quote:

---

If a land is not independent it cannot claim democratic nation status.

---

Yet it can claim to have maintained democratic institutions, and the oldest continuous ones have nothing to do with the Greeks.

Quote:

---

Because the Allthing dates from the 10th Cen. A.D. and the Athenian model dates from the 5th Cen. B.C.

You're arguing that the Germans looked to Iceland as the model for their society? Who did this, when and where?

---

I'm saying germanic assemblies where consensus ruled predate written records of the allthing. It wasn't just the Icelanders who had them. We can see them already in Merovingian placita and even as far back as Tacitus. Why do you assume they only began at the exact moment when they left us their first written record?

Quote:

---

I did not say "Greek" democracy. I said: "The thinkers who were exposed to the idea of democracy looked to recovered Greek texts not Iceland." I don't think this is vague. This means the concept democracy and the texts that discuss it were Greek not Icelandic. I don't know of any Enlightenment thinkers who appealed to Iceland.

---

Nor do I know of any representatives at the Allthing who appealed to Cleisthenes.

Your sentence was leading. You have narrowly defined democracy to rule out most of the democracies that have existed in the world. Then you use this definition to show that only the Greeks could have invented democracy. You're looking only at thinkers, not at practice, as if democracy were merely the progressive reification of philosophical musings from on high. That's putting the cart before the horse. When democracy first really began to take hold in western Europe, long after the Greek abortion, practice preceeded theory.

Quote:

---

The chronological argument does not impact the more general notion that democracy is a Western construct.

---

Ah yes but it does. I thought I was being clear, but let me spell it out in detail then: if you cease to define democracy anachronistically as something only the Greeks could have developed, you see that democracy is not the exclusive preserve of Western culture. Native Americans, Africans, Asians... all of them can point to times in the past when their tribal societies worked by community and consensus. This is a shared world heritage, not the brainchild of the West.

Quote:

---

None of this effects the thrust of the essay which is focused on divison within Western ranks.

---

Ah yes, we wouldn't want to question ourselves as we create our worldwide empire now, would we? That would seriously undermine the Pax Romana.. I mean Pax Britannia... I mean Third Reich... I mean Pax Americana... I mean New World Order.... Wait, I need some help: which euphemism are we using for imperialism now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

The example is facile. How about the Greeks telling you your system of government is not a democracy because you don't get to vote yourself, but rather you rely on representatives? Which is better? Why is it you that gets to decide?

---

The definition of democracy is not a moral concern. Judgment of Aztec human sacrifice vis-a-vis Modern Britain is.

Modern Britain is better.

I can decide because I am a moral being.

Quote:

---

You are defining your ideas into existence. What exactly is 'civilization'? Was medieval Europe a 'civilization', according to your definition? If you're going to make the arguments that tribal societies don't count as civilizations, then go ahead and make it. But you haven't yet.

---

I think the standard use of Civilization is a complex society involving: metal working, a writing system, societal division of roles (political roles, labor roles etc.) cities with an attendant level of engineering, an established agricultural system, the development of abstract thought etc.

I think parts of Medieval Europe were civilized, other parts weren't.

Quote:

---

Yet it can claim to have maintained democratic institutions, and the oldest continuous ones have nothing to do with the Greeks.

---

If Iceland was not independent it was not democratic. Popular sovereignty must be maintained to be democratic.

I don't think you have understood my position. I have argued that the Greeks developed democracy. Therefore at the impetus of the Western Traditon democracy was an extant principle. The West is a product of the Greeks and the Classical Tradition. Part of this product is rationality. Rationality was used to develop anew democratic notions.

Quote:

---

I'm saying germanic assemblies where consensus ruled predate written records of the allthing. It wasn't just the Icelanders who had them. We can see them already in Merovingian placita and even as far back as Tacitus. Why do you assume they only began at the exact moment when they left us their first written record?

---

I haven't assumed anything. I simply stated the Allthing is from the 10th Cen. and therefore younger that the Athenian model. I also said I doubted Iceland influenced Germany.

Quote:

---

Nor do I know of any representatives at the Allthing who appealed to Cleisthenes.

---

So you wouldn't argue the Greeks impacted Iceland and would agree the Icelanders didn't impact the Enlightenment I assume.

Quote:

---

Your sentence was leading. You have narrowly defined democracy to rule out most of the democracies that have existed in the world. Then you use this definition to show that only the Greeks could have invented democracy. You're looking only at thinkers, not at practice, as if democracy were merely the progressive reification of philosophical musings from on high. That's putting the cart before the horse. When democracy first really began to take hold in western Europe, long after the Greek abortion, practice preceeded theory.

---

I haven't narrowly defined democracy. I consider democracy as popular sovereignty. Sovereignty implies an organized state. A state implies distinctions of membership i.e. a political body: citizens.

I look at "thinkers" because they informed the Modern reality.
The Medieval World was dominated by Monarchic systems. Other political variants tended to be eventually absorbed. These other models are after the Classical model and did not form the intellectual framework or what was to follow.

Quote:

---

Ah yes but it does. I thought I was being clear, but let me spell it out in detail then: if you cease to define democracy anachronistically as something only the Greeks could have developed, you see that democracy is not the exclusive preserve of Western culture. Native Americans, Africans, Asians... all of them can point to times in the past when their tribal societies worked by community and consensus. This is a shared world heritage, not the brainchild of the West.

---

I don't accept barbaric practice or private practice as demonstrative. One of the reasons is because as societies develop these penchants tend to be replaced by more autocratic forms. One of the reasons for this is because the rule of law is yet to develop.

Quote:

---

Ah yes, we wouldn't want to question ourselves as we create our worldwide empire now, would we? That would seriously undermine the Pax Romana.. I mean Pax Britannia... I mean Third Reich... I mean Pax Americana... I mean New World Order.... Wait, I need some help: which euphemism are we using for imperialism now?

---

Put your anti-Americanism back in its box. You really should try and overcome your inferiority complex.

I'm off to a wedding for the weekend, so I won't be able to respond point by point till Monday, but there were three things I just had to address before then:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I look at "thinkers" because they informed the Modern reality.

---

And the 'doers' did not? Why do you assume 'thinkers' were more important than 'doers'? This I really just do not understand. Is it perhaps because you are more familiar with thought than with practice, and it is easier to research?

Quote:

---

The Medieval World was dominated by Monarchic systems. Other political variants tended to be eventually absorbed. These other models are after the Classical model and did not form the intellectual framework or what was to follow.

---

Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. In fact, communal governments tended not to be absorbed but in fact to absorb the monarchies. Take a look at Germany and Italy.

Quote:

---

Put your anti-Americanism back in its box. You really should try and overcome your inferiority complex.

---

It's anti-Imperialism, not anti-Americanism, and no, I will not be silenced.

Ok, that's it for now. Have a good weekend!

~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

I'm off to a wedding for the weekend, so I won't be able to respond point by point till Monday, but there were three things I just had to address before then:

---

Lets see. Canada legalizes gay marriage. Hurin excuses himself...for a wedding. Hmmmm, could it be?

Quote:

---

And the 'doers' did not? Why do you assume 'thinkers' were more important than 'doers'? This I really just do not understand. Is it perhaps because you are more familiar with thought than with practice, and it is easier to research?

---

Modern democracy's founding made a distinct theoretical appeal. That appeal is tied to the rational tradition. That is the point.

Quote:

---

Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. In fact, communal governments tended not to be absorbed but in fact to absorb the monarchies. Take a look at Germany and Italy.

---

Both what became Germany and Italy were unified under a monarchy. Prior to that action the regions were composed primarily of aristocratic and oligarchic polities. Further, large swaths of both were under the suzerainty of an Emperor.

Quote:

---

It's anti-Imperialism, not anti-Americanism, and no, I will not be silenced.

---

You don't need to be silenced just a little less consistently hostile towards those who are not your enemies.

I'm glad to see the anti-imperialism. Now get the queen off your money!

Quote:

---

Ok, that's it for now. Have a good weekend!

~:cheers:

---

You too. Cheers. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Lets see. Canada legalizes gay marriage. Hurin excuses himself...for a wedding. Hmmmm, could it be?

---

Haha. I guess I should have specified-- someone else's wedding. No, I'm not gay... not that there's anything wrong with that.

Quote:

---

You don't need to be silenced just a little less consistently hostile towards those who are not your enemies.

---

Fair enough. I just really, really, really dislike the way in which the 'War on Terror' (or 'struggle against extremism', which is the Pentagon's new name for it, realizing that if its a War they might actually be judged to be losing it) has resurrected the ideas and even the terminology of the nineteenth century. We're back to barbarism vs. civilization, good vs. evil, savagery vs. enlightenment etc. I almost expect people to start talking of the White Man's Burden again. Yech.

Quote:

---

I'm glad to see the anti-imperialism. Now get the queen off your money!

---

I'm perfectly willing to boot the old lady off the loonie. Would you reciprocate by removing 'In God we trust' from yours?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

... not that there's anything wrong with that.

---

That's what I hear.

Quote:

---

Fair enough. I just really, really, really dislike the way in which the 'War on Terror' (or 'struggle against extremism', which is the Pentagon's new name for it, realizing that if its a War they might actually be judged to be losing it) has resurrected the ideas and even the terminology of the nineteenth century. We're back to barbarism vs. civilization, good vs. evil, savagery vs. enlightenment etc. I almost expect people to start talking of the White Man's Burden again. Yech.

---

I think Islamo-fascism is a barbarism, evil and savage. You disagree I take it.

Quote:

---

I'm perfectly willing to boot the old lady off the loonie. Would you reciprocate by removing 'In God we trust' from yours?

---

Sure. I'll send a memo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I think Islamo-fascism is a barbarism, evil and savage. You disagree I take it.

---

I don't believe in evil as a metaphysical construct, so that is right out. I put it in the same category as God. Barbarism and savagery I would only use in very specific contexts. They have been used to justify imperialism far too often: those people aren't like us, they are therefore savage, and whatever we do to them will be an improvement. Killing more people is somehow justified if you're 'civilized' and they are 'barbarians'.

Do you really find the rhetoric of civilization/savagery to be useful?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

I don't believe in evil as a metaphysical construct, so that is right out. I put it in the same category as God.

---

I understand. I see rape, torturing children, beheading civilians etc. as evil. We disagree.

Quote:

---

Barbarism and savagery I would only use in very specific contexts. They have been used to justify imperialism far too often: those people aren't like us, they are therefore savage, and whatever we do to them will be an improvement. Killing more people is somehow justified if you're 'civilized' and they are 'barbarians'.

---

That has certainly been the case.

Quote:

---

Do you really find the rhetoric of civilization/savagery to be useful?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I understand. I see rape, torturing children, beheading civilians etc. as evil. We disagree.

---

I see them as bad, and as things that should be stopped, but not Evil with a capital E, because I don't believe that Evil subsists.

Were the Americans who tortured detainees at Abu Ghraib evil?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

I see them as bad, and as things that should be stopped, but not Evil with a capital E, because I don't believe that Evil subsists.

---

If bad is a moral judgment then I'm not really sure why the semantic distinction save perhaps to say that torturing children doesn't really meet the maximal condemnation. If bad is not a moral charge then I don't know how you are using the word.

Quote:

---

Were the Americans who tortured detainees at Abu Ghraib evil?

---

Depends on the definition of torture. I don't consider panties on someone's head or dog collars torture. If we are talking about cutting off limbs or beating to death then I would say yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Depends on the definition of torture. I don't consider panties on someone's head or dog collars torture. If we are talking about cutting off limbs or beating to death then I would say yes.

---

Maybe the guy's in Gitmo have a different sexual orientation than you Pindar, so they don't appreciate the mentioned appliances..... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Modern Britain is better.
I can decide because I am a moral being.

---

The first sentence of that statement couldn't be more true. The second sentence, however, made me laugh out loud. And that contradiction made me think. I believe the second sentence exposes a major weakness in your position.

Western civilization can boast of unique accomplishments that we should cherish and defend with our lives, not ignore, debase or sell out to the first (or second) president or terrorist who comes along. The West is superior (or rather: has been superior until now) in the various ways that you state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The West is superior. Three simple examples: the advent of democracy, the creation of science, the rise of civil liberties.

---

And Isabelle Adjani, I would add. All those who have watched that scene where she rises naked from a bathtub will immediately understand her inclusion in a list of Western civilizational achievements.

But here's the rub: the fact that the West produced these superior institutions does not mean that westerners are superior human beings. The West has changed the world, but it has not managed to change human nature. And I don't think we ever will, at least not in our lifetime, unless by crude genetic and pharmaceutical means with very uncertain outcomes.

I agree with Victor Davis Hanson's position that sees..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Victor Davis Hanson

.. human nature as unchanging and history as therefore replete with a rich heritage of tragic lessons.

---

Which gives rise to the following question: how could these superior institutions have evolved in the face of immutable human nature? Why are they successful? My answer would be that they are superior responses to the 'tragic lessons' mentioned (I guess that, in a way, I am betraying my Dutch calvinist roots here).

As fas as democracy is concerned, I think that it is successful not because it reflects a superior human nature or moral position of people in the West, but because democracy is better than other, previous political systems at containing human nature and channeling its aspirations and energies in productive ways. It is the best system for humans to mutually check and balance their ambitions, to their mutual advantage. In other words, democracy is the best palliative for the disease called 'society'. This rhetorical short-cut is not meant to devalue democracy in any way, but this is a Internet forum post, not a Ph.D. thesis.

In a similar way, science is a superior response to eternal human curiosity and civil liberties are a superior response to the eternal human yearning to be socially and intellectually free. Of course these three major civilizational accomplishments have deep historic roots; so has human nature. Of course they can be traced back to Antiquity and the dawn of written sources; so can human nature. Of course they have roots and precursors in any historical civilization and in the remotest corners of the world: so has human nature. And of course, for that very same reason, they appeal to the large majority of mankind.

Pindar may well be right that these institutions could evolve more easily in Europe as a consequence of European historic fragmentation and competition between neighbouring political systems, competing religions and rival ideologies. We will never now because we can not experiment with history, turn back clocks or change historical outcomes.

And Pindar is certainly right that Asian cultures have no hang-ups about their superiority. Ask any Japanese, Chinese or Indian what they think of their civilization, and nine out of ten will shamelessly vaunt its superiority and (in the case of Japan) its superior uniqueness as well. Westerners, on the other hand, have always displayed and cultivated a great curiosity about other civilizations. Remember who invented anthropology.

On a side-note I would say that socialism is, in my view, a fourth major accomplishment of Western civilization, 'invented' in nineteenth century Germany and spreading across the world ever since. Arguments that socialism runs counter to human nature don't cut it with me. So does democracy, and look how we embraced that system after its numerous failures and in spite of lingering (and oft justified) doubts about its outcomes.

Now back to my initial question: what justifies our judgment that modern Britain is superior to Aztek society? I think it is justified by the knowledge that we have drawn from the aforementioned 'tragic lessons' of human failure and conflict. We know that our way of life is superior, we know that there are no Gods who demand human sacrifice, we know that dictatorship and slavery are both unproductive and unjust. As individuals we may not all be morally superior to an Aztek high priest, but our institutions are.

PS Superior topic, Pindar! :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Now back to my initial question: what justifies our judgment that modern Britain is superior to Aztek society? I think it is justified by the knowledge that we have drawn from the aforementioned 'tragic lessons' of human failure and conflict. We know that our way of life is superior, we know that there are no Gods who demand human sacrifice, we know that dictatorship and slavery are both unproductive and unjust. As individuals we may not all be morally superior to an Aztek high priest, but our institutions are.

---

You don't know how the Aztek institution would have looked like today, if they would have been allowed to develop.
Warfare isn't a measurement on superiority, neither is resistance to small pox. Most western culture did have human sacrifice in their history.

Further more, ther is nothing that says that dictatorship and slavery are both unproductive and unjust. Look at China today...... ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Further more, ther is nothing that says that dictatorship and slavery are both unproductive and unjust. Look at China today...... ~D

---

I suppose this is a joke, but with BMolsson you never know.. ~:cool:

So I'll answer your point anyway. Yes, slavery is unjust because nothing that we know of justifies the legal ownership of one race by another, or one group of people by another.

And we know that slavery is unproductive (or rather; less productive than free labour) as well. Slaves do not work any harder than they have to in order to survive and prevent being sanctioned by their masters. Therefore every nation will try to develop beyond that stage as soon as it can, to cut bond labour and child labour, to introduce minimum wages and to set about modernising its economy and social system.

Yes, slavery is unjust because nothing that we know of justifies the legal ownership of one race by another, or one group of people by another.
Rubbish , slavery is right and slavery is just , it says so in the bible ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

...On a side-note I would say that socialism is, in my view, a fourth major accomplishment of Western civilization, 'invented' in nineteenth century Germany and spreading across the world ever since. ...

---

Adrian, this is too much honor. :bow:
German philosophers did their share. But do not forget the British socialists (like Morris) or even the French (Proudhon). We owe them a lot. Even the British capitalists. They were always a source of inspiration for socialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Adrian, this is too much honor. :bow:
German philosophers did their share. But do not forget the British socialists (like Morris) or even the French (Proudhon). We owe them a lot. Even the British capitalists. They were always a source of inspiration for socialism.

---

Franconicus, you are a gentleman. As is the case with the other achievements, the roots of socialism can be traced far back in history, from Plato's Republic to the oldest African village economy. In the Middle East they can already be found in the Sermon on the Mount. Through the ages some of the world's major religions, both Western and non-Western, have been the bearers of socialist notions of social justice and collective responsibility, as well as laboratories for the practice of these ideas. Socialism was baptized by the French revolutionary Gracchus Babeuf somewhere around 1790, but its main tenets go back as far as mankind's known history for the same reaons I mentioned in connection with the other civilizational achievements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Franconicus, you are a gentleman. As is the case with the other achievements, the roots of socialism can be traced far back in history, from Plato's Republic to the oldest African village economy. In the Middle East they can already be found in the Sermon on the Mount. Through the ages some of the world's major religions, both Western and non-Western, have been the bearers of socialist notions of social justice and collective responsibility, as well as laboratories for the practice of these ideas. Socialism was baptized by the French revolutionary Gracchus Babeuf somewhere around 1790, but its main tenets go back as far as mankind's known history for the same reaons I mentioned in connection with the other civilizational achievements.

---

Adrian, your knowledge is beyond comparison! :bow:
It is great to have a person with your wisdom and politeness back in the org :bow::bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hypocrisy objections are interesting. If there is a nation say the U.S. that claims: all men are created equal and yet possesses slaves and another society, say a Muslim state where slavery is an age old practice that has no conceptual or legal challenge the argument seems to be moral equivalence. There are a couple ways to respond to this. For example, if popular sovereignty is recognized as a good then one could argue that to the degree it exists, to that same degree there is a manifestation of that good. From this simple perspective it would seem that a state that has some liberty vs. a state that does not is superior. This would apply even to an imperfect model.

---

I am tempted to say; so what?

There are two points that bother me here:
- being just merely slightly better is probably not enough to lecture other country how they shall rule themselves; there is an attitude behaviour problem with lecturing people when you hardly do any better. In your example, if we take Pre civil war US and any other non western country with slaves, I can probably agree that some freedom is better than no freedom at all, however, however I would find it very rich for Pre Civil war US to lecture that non western state about slavery, because at least in the US, there is some notion of freedom. Got a pretty big piece of wood in your face.
- I also think that case would be far more convincing if the West and other countries had been completly separated. Too bad, they had not. To go back to slavery, not only we had slaves, (just like the non western), but we help spread it all other the world, and actively discourage other countries to move away from it... Triangular trade for slave is a western invention too, and slavery on Africa West Coast would never has reached that extent without our interference.
It's not about superior in an imperfect model; it's us keeping them low on purpose and at our convenience...

Quote:

---

There is also the expansion model. Popular sovereignty from inception forward seems to have worked off of a growing recognized circle of participants. The root is typically citizens. Citizens have often been qualified say: male, possessing certain wealth or property, being of a certain age etc. Now the history of the concept has shown this growth to include an ever increasing profile of recognized participants: all men, all races, both genders etc. Now if one wishes to argue that no single point along that process is democratic because it does not include all possibles then the concept loses meaning. I think a more prudent approach is to center the idea around the core concept: popular sovereignty. This means if rule is determined by the citizenry and is amenable to the same (even if that citizenry is not all inclusive) then the label can be applied. As it is applied it can also be justifed and jusification is a moral label.

---

Funny how we move away from the three basic notion you mentionned before...

Again, for a topic whose title is "the left false narrative" that is a funny statement... Given that the left is, in most countries, the force that pushed for the extension of that circle.

And you are still reharsing the same argument. But that does not counter the hypocrisy argument the slightest... Apply the label all you want, that does not change the fact we were actively denying to others...

Was the US a democracy before the civil war? Sure it was, I am not denying that label under the pretexte that it was not all inclusive. Would that allow the US to parade around lecturing others how better they are? Certainly not.

Quote:

---

The Althing does appear democratic. I also think one could argue the Vikings had moved beyond simple tribal organization. From my understanding of Icelandic history the Island was not able to maintain its independence. It fell under foreign sovereignty and control from the 13th Cen. Regardless, the 10th Cen. innovation of the Althing is not older than the Athenian model. Therefore the Greeks still get their due. Also, I don't think the Althing had any impact outside of Iceland. The thinkers who were exposed to the idea of democracy looked to recovered Greek texts not Iceland. The critical point however, is the rational tradition of the Greeks was thoroughly a part of Western European culture and consequently the notion of democracy could be appraised afresh in light of the conditions of the time. I think this is exactly what happened in the 17th Cen. when thinkers were working against the Divine Right of Kings model.

---

The "thing" institution also existed in other Nordic countries.... Sweden, Norway...

Whether Athenians were first or not does not really matters, we're talking about living democracy, and the Greek one was long dead. Not so for Iceland and other Nordic countries (although, at some point it was only living at a local level).

Thinkers had looked at Greece and Rome. But living democracy in "modern" Western Europe came before those thinkers.
You also seem to think that people who took la Bastille on July 14th had all read Montesquieu... Chances are they did not. That's "post fact rationalization". Bastille day and the French Revolution would have happened with or without Athens, and with or without l'esprit des lois. You overstate the importance of Enlightement thinkers on the Revolution. For the French craftmen living in Paris, the revolution was more about royal scandal, unfair tax burden and bankruptucy than about Greek ideals.

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

And Isabelle Adjani, I would add. All those who have watched that scene where she rises naked from a bathtub will immediately understand her inclusion in a list of Western civilizational achievements.

---

She is Algerian ~:cool: ~D


Sir, your argumentation, although proved false, would have been better served with Monica Belluci anyway.

Louis,

PS: unless the major achievement was the bathtub, in which case, I'd like to apologize for my misunderstanding...

What move does Isabelle Adjani get nekkid in??? :smitten:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A2

And Isabelle Adjani, I would add. All those who have watched that scene where she rises naked from a bathtub will immediately understand her inclusion in a list of Western civilizational achievements.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

She is Algerian ~:cool: ~D

Sir, your argumentation, although proved false, would have been better served with Monica Belluci anyway.

Louis,

PS: unless the major achievement was the bathtub, in which case, I'd like to apologize for my misunderstanding...

---

The 'her' in Adrian's post can in English, unlike in French, only refer to living beings, not things. The unimaginative Anglosaxon mind does not think of a bathtub as a metaphysical female entity. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If bad is a moral judgment then I'm not really sure why the semantic distinction save perhaps to say that torturing children doesn't really meet the maximal condemnation. If bad is not a moral charge then I don't know how you are using the word.

---

I'm using the distinction Nietzsche first elucidated in his Genealogy of Morals. Yes, it is a moral charge. I define things as good and bad, rather than Good and Evil. Good and Evil imply that morality is absolute and unchanging, that what is Good now will always be good for all people. Good and bad imply a relativistic morality. When I make the charge that something is bad I am simply saying bad from my perspective, recognizing that others may disagree.

Quote:

---

Depends on the definition of torture. I don't consider panties on someone's head or dog collars torture. If we are talking about cutting off limbs or beating to death then I would say yes.

---

Where then do you stand on chaining people in stress positions for 20 hours at a time, jumping on their naked bodies, grinding their hands into concrete with combat boots, ordering your dogs to bite them, sodomizing them with flashlights and beating them to death in interrogations?

Anyway, you've said that those that beat prisoners to death were evil. I've just never found Evil a productive explanation for human behavior. It seems like a cop out to me, no offense. Why did Hitler hate the Jews? Oh, he was just evil. Why did terrorists attack on 9/11? Oh, they're just evil. But note how facile and divisive this is: it could be applied to anything. Why do Americans support Mubarak and Musharraf? Oh, theyr'e just evil. It avoids actually having to look at the facts of the matter. It promotes division and intolerance. It is a metaphysical rather than a scientific explanation.

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, expecially since it has sprung to life anew, and inevitably a discussion between you and me about the nature of evil would do precisely this. However, to return to the matter at hand: The problem with Hanson's idea of the 'left's false narrative' is not only its historical inaccuracies, but the fact that it obviates any serious understanding of why the terrorists are doing what they are doing. Simply saying 'they are Evil' is very comforting, I am sure; but it tells us nothing about the facts of the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

She is Algerian ~:cool: ~D

---

She is French. Check for yourself, you self-deflating excuse for a soufflé. :mellow:

Isabelle Yasmine Adjani est née à Paris 17ème le 27 juin 1955. Elle a un frère de quelques années plus jeune, Eric, célèbre photographe. C'est en 1969, au lycée de Courbevoie, que la découvre l'assistant du réalisateur Bernard Toublanc-Michel qui lui propose le rôle principal de son film Le petit Bougnat. Etc. etc.

Since when is anyone checking anything here :furious3: ? I thought it was the place to discuss stupid generalisation, and put forward lie as truth! I want my money back!

Ok, her parents are algerian ~D

Louis,

PS: by the way being born somewhere does not mean she is not of whatever citizenship ~D am only nitpicking ~D
Although, being born in France means being a French citizen, she may very well have both citizenship if she so wishes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

Although, being born in France means being a French citizen (..)

---

Aha, yes. Now, I don't want to nit-pick either, but here we touch upon one of the superior characteristics of French immigration policy. It does not attribute nationality according to 'blood and soil' principles, but according to those of Ernest Renan: all individuals who support and respect a nation's institutions are considered part of that nation.

Adjani is a French institution.

Nuff said. ~:handball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

The first sentence of that statement couldn't be more true. The second sentence, however, made me laugh out loud. And that contradiction made me think. I believe the second sentence exposes a major weakness in your position.

---

Hello AdrianII,

Nice to here from you. I actually listened to I believe a colleague of yours the other day. I can't recall his name, but I think the fellow's name was something like De Veers. He has taken over the column that used to be handled by the murdered Van Goth. My guess is the position he was arguing is not very popular in your homeland.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand: I agree with most of your post. I only have a few minor comments. The first refers to the above quote: I don't believe there is any contradiction in a moral position making moral conclusions. I don't think it is a weakness either.

I don't think any one is arguing Western people are superior. People are people regardless of time or place. The focus, or rather my focus, was on civilizational mores.

I'll leave socialism aside for another time.

Now, to your major failing. Western Civilization's greatest achievement is not Isabelle Adjani , but Monica Bellucci. This should be a self evident truth. Go and sin no more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

- being just merely slightly better is probably not enough to lecture...

---

Perhaps, but slightly better is still, well better.

Quote:

---

Was the US a democracy before the civil war? Sure it was, I am not denying that label under the pretexte that it was not all inclusive. Would that allow the US to parade around lecturing others how better they are? Certainly not.

---

A state with popular sovereignty is superior to an autocratic state. If a democratic nation wishes to use that truth as a rhetorical point, bully for them.

Quote:

---

The "thing" institution also existed in other Nordic countries.... Sweden, Norway...

Whether Athenians were first or not does not really matters, we're talking about living democracy, and the Greek one was long dead. Not so for Iceland and other Nordic countries (although, at some point it was only living at a local level).

---

A polity that recognizes a monarch who has real power to determine legal dicta is not a democracy.

Quote:

---

You also seem to think that people who took la Bastille on July 14th had all read Montesquieu... Chances are they did not. That's "post fact rationalization". Bastille day and the French Revolution would have happened with or without Athens, and with or without l'esprit des lois. You overstate the importance of Enlightement thinkers on the Revolution. For the French craftmen living in Paris, the revolution was more about royal scandal, unfair tax burden and bankruptucy than about Greek ideals.

---

I have made no reference to the French Revolution. That revolution failed. I have referenced the American Revolution which did not fail and whose framers did make explicit appeal to Enlightenment Thinkers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

I'm using the distinction Nietzsche first elucidated in his Genealogy of Morals. Yes, it is a moral charge. I define things as good and bad, rather than Good and Evil. Good and Evil imply that morality is absolute and unchanging, that what is Good now will always be good for all people. Good and bad imply a relativistic morality. When I make the charge that something is bad I am simply saying bad from my perspective, recognizing that others may disagree.

---

Do you wish to argue a position based on The Genealogy?

Structurally, I don't see how the bad/evil distinction holds up. I don't know of anything that requires bad to suggest a 'to me' and evil cannot suggest 'to me'. This seems ad hoc. The use of good also seems problematic given in one formula it is supposed to be absolute while in the other it is not. This is an equivocation.

So you admit a moral charge is being made even if we substitute evil for bad. Using 'bad' demonstrates others may disagree. Why is this relevant? Does disagreement invalidate the moral charge? If so then moral judgments cannot be made. If not then the reference to possible disagreement serves no purpose.

Quote:

---

Where then do you stand on chaining people in stress positions for 20 hours at a time, jumping on their naked bodies, grinding their hands into concrete with combat boots, ordering your dogs to bite them, sodomizing them with flashlights and beating them to death in interrogations?

---

Does it matter if morality is a personal preference?

Quote:

---

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, expecially since it has sprung to life anew, and inevitably a discussion between you and me about the nature of evil would do precisely this. However, to return to the matter at hand: The problem with Hanson's idea of the 'left's false narrative' is not only its historical inaccuracies, but the fact that it obviates any serious understanding of why the terrorists are doing what they are doing. Simply saying 'they are Evil' is very comforting, I am sure; but it tells us nothing about the facts of the matter.

---

You have demonstrated no historical inaccuracies.
Hanson's essay isn't focused on why terrorists do what they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Do you wish to argue a position based on The Genealogy?

Structurally, I don't see how the bad/evil distinction holds up. I don't know of anything that requires bad to suggest a 'to me' and evil cannot suggest 'to me'. This seems ad hoc. The use of good also seems problematic given in one formula it is supposed to be absolute while in the other it is not. This is an equivocation.

---

Please note the capitalization. It avoids equivocation.

Quote:

---

So you admit a moral charge is being made even if we substitute evil for bad. Using 'bad' demonstrates others may disagree. Why is this relevant? Does disagreement invalidate the moral charge? If so then moral judgments cannot be made. If not then the reference to possible disagreement serves no purpose.

---

Moral judgements can only be made from moral perspectives. These are themselves multiple.

Quote:

---

Does it matter if morality is a personal preference?

---

.

Yes. Because all moral perspectives, not just the ones I agree with, generate values. That is, in fact, their function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Please note the capitalization. It avoids equivocation.

---

You didn't answer the ad hoc element to your post.

As far as equivocation is concerned: if capitalization is all that is required, why can't I do the same with evil and Evil or bad and Bad? Further, this seems to prioritize written communication. There is no verbal capitalization. So if a subject says: "X is good" which is being referred to? The expression alone isn't clear.

Quote:

---

So you admit a moral charge is being made even if we substitute evil for bad. Using 'bad' demonstrates others may disagree. Why is this relevant? Does disagreement invalidate the moral charge? If so then moral judgments cannot be made. If not then the reference to possible disagreement serves no purpose.

Moral judgments can only be made from moral perspectives. These are themselves multiple.

---

This reply doesn't respond to my comment. Recognizing a multiplicity of moral positions does not mean they are all equally justified. If all positions are equivalent then there is no need for the category. If an actual standard does exist then contrary opinion is irrelevant.

.

Quote:

---

Yes. Because all moral perspectives, not just the ones I agree with, generate values. That is, in fact, their function.

---

Morality's function is to create a value? Most moral systems focus on content over and above structure. If morality is simply a perspective like preferring vanilla over chocolate: it doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Now, to your major failing. Western Civilization's greatest achievement is not Isabelle Adjani , but Monica Bellucci. This should be a self evident truth. Go and sin no more.

---

I'm afraid such blasphemy must lead to yet more heresy in one's Church. Watch, dear Pindar. Don't search your soul; just watch this image of pure delightsomeness and its truth will set you free.

For those who asked: the epochal bathtub scene was from the 1997 film L’Été Meurtrier (‘Murderous Summer’).

http://www.celebritystorm.com/images...3_standard.jpg

Does it have anthying to do with schnapps?
:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

Does it have anthying to do with schnapps?
:inquisitive:

---

I couldn't answer that, Bourgeois, because I don't get the point. Please elaborate?