Extending these thoughts forward from my last post...
I tend to agree with Plato, at least initially, regarding democracy, especially in light of current metaphysical thought, which is worth developing as it will relate back to Plato eventually. The nature of man and the majority belief is relevant here. The majority opinion currently shared is this: man's natural tendency is toward the good.
This may seem minor in comparison to all other issues, but, I assert, it is this thought that drives all other thoughts. It is this thought that serves as a wildcard of sorts as it is used to excuse all behavior and reduce all behavior to equal status. "We can tolerate everything because man will, in the end, default to the good," is the prevailing cognitive stance. It is a get-out-of-jail free card; it is discovered treasure, and it is the gold at the end of the rainbow. In the end, it is really a destructive idea that destroys all other ideas, especially those rooted in excellence and morality. We need only look around us to see the destruction it has left.
This belief also renders thoughts inconsistent and grants this inconsistency equal status with all other thoughts; this belief lowers our guard in regards to thoughts, allowing an acceptance of the irrational and the illogical because the trait of inconsistency is no longer considered a flaw. We, then, start to believe that man is the pinnacle of all that there is, and we make this logical leap because we buy into the belief that the nature of man is good. Our actions, words, and deeds reveal our true beliefs; when they are marked by inconsistency and selfish tendencies, even subtle ones, then this belief has already taken root.
Like it or not, most of us live lives that reflect and reveal this belief. These decisions start as subtle small ones, but an analysis of them reveal that they tend to be more about our own contentment, peace, joy and benefit, hardly the traits of a humble servant or a philosopher-king. Yet, if our belief is that our own nature is good, we will justify this belief in our minds in other forms that involve self; these forms are usually rooted in our own self preservation. If this is our thinking then government would logically be our great rescuer because government is the highest extension of man to us.
Extending this line of thinking forward even further, our tendency would be to embrace democracy, as we currently do, because it is an extension of the people, who are, by nature, good. Goodness is achieve, in a democracy, through a collective pursuit of freedom and liberty, which is open to all who participate in the democracy. Democratic rule rests with the people as an equal whole. Democracy is thought to be the very best form of government, especially if our belief is that our natural tendency is toward the good. The little secret is that the process of democracy actually reinforces that belief in our minds and hearts as we participation in the democratic process when we elect politicians who, we think, do our bidding, never realizing that we are doing theirs.
And, that is where we find ourselves today. Government is our answer because most think the nature of man is good. But, I propose a different line of thinking; if our nature is good, then a democratic government would NOT be the best option as far as I am concerned. If the belief is that man's nature is good then the democratic idea is a poor idea; why would a democracy be needed if man's tendency is good?
If man's tendency is toward the good then the implication would be that he has the ability to choose what is good over what is bad. If man has an ability to choose what is good, then there are multiple choices to be made, both good and bad because a choice for the good is also a choice against bad. This reveals that there is a part of man that is not good and a choice that is not good. The belief that the tendency of man is towards the good also reveals that there is the possibility of a bad choice occasionally. There is also still one thought with which everyone agrees, man is still not perfect. These thoughts reveal two competing natures inside man, one that is good and one that is bad. Why would we want those participating in the ruling process who have not yet excelled at choosing good?Is a democracy really just a roll of the dice, betting on the house, that those in the majority know how to choose the good more than the bad?
If man's "tendency" is good, then, there are also those who will make better choices than others. The implications are many: that there are a varying degree of choices; there is a possibility of bad choices, and there are those who will choose well and those who will not. The list can go on... Again, why, then, do we need a government of the people for the people? Why does everyone need a vote? This view regarding the nature of man changes everything, especially when considering a democracy.
I will continue this line of thinking in post number four, which will come in a few days.
No comments:
Post a Comment