the righteous tyrant

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:26 pm I would say, "All the difference in the world." And in regard to legitimation, He alone makes legitimation a rational idea.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Is that all you got?
Gary Childress
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Gary Childress »

Or what about the rate of negentropy? For example, entropy cannot theoretically, supposedly be reversed in the aggregate. If we waste resources unnecessarily by creating too much order too quickly such that it is more order than needed, wouldn't that be burning through our resources quicker, leading to an end sooner than later? And in that case wouldn't it be a bad thing?

In other words, can negentropy happen at different rates? Or do negentropy and entropy always occur at the same rate?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11672
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:29 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:19 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:54 pm
The evidence of history.
Heh. :D That's a liiiiitle broad. Can you give some specific evidence?
Fact there was once a time when there were no universals of tyrrany.
Ummm... :?

Okay, there's not really an easy way to say this, but that's not quite what a "universal" means. You're using the world in a colloquial sense, I see, whereas I meant it in a philosophical sense.

Legitimation of a particular government can only actually be achieved if there is some universal principle of authority that corresponds that that type of governance...such as, "the majority is right," or "monarchy is sacred," or "collectives can rightly exploit individuals," some axiom that show that Democracy, Monarchy or Socialism (respectively) would be the ultimately right government.

A "tyrant," by definition, is not "legitimate." Tyrants do not offer legitimations; they transgress all of them. That's what makes us call them "tyrants."
Advocate
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=507310 time=1618356729 user_id=9431]
[quote=Sculptor post_id=507275 time=1618349348 user_id=17400]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=507263 time=1618345152 user_id=9431]

Heh. :D That's a liiiiitle broad. Can you give some [i]specific[/i] evidence?
[/quote]
Fact there was once a time when there were no universals of tyrrany.[/quote]
Ummm... :?

Okay, there's not really an easy way to say this, but that's not quite what a "universal" means. You're using the world in a colloquial sense, I see, whereas I meant it in a philosophical sense.

Legitimation of a particular government can only actually be achieved if there is some universal principle of authority that corresponds that that type of governance...such as, "the majority is right," or "monarchy is sacred," or "collectives can rightly exploit individuals," some axiom that show that Democracy, Monarchy or Socialism (respectively) would be the ultimately right government.

A "tyrant," by definition, is not "legitimate." Tyrants do not offer legitimations; they transgress all of them. That's what makes us call them "tyrants."
[/quote]

Regardless of whether it's necessary, a tyrant can be righteous by legitimating themselves.
Last edited by Advocate on Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11672
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:00 am ...a tyrant can be righteous be legitimating themselves.
How can a "tyrant" legitimize himself? What's the procedure for that?
Dubious
Posts: 2640
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Dubious »

Advocate wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:00 am ...a tyrant can be righteous by legitimating themselves.
I think a more accurate way of expressing it would be that they appear righteous by legitimizing themselves. The history of Christianity itself is a perfect example of that.
tillingborn
Posts: 1073
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by tillingborn »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:26 pm
tillingborn wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:05 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:44 pmIf we start by believing that this world is merely a random product of time plus chance, and that it has no inherent purpose, no objective moral facts in it, and no ultimate telos or goal, then the answer is going to be "legitimation looks like a fiction," and plausibly, like Nietzsche said, merely a sort of attempt by the supporters of one regime to (illegitimately) seize power over others." And that's all it's ever going to be, if that's the supposition we start with, so nothing is every going to be "legitimate." It's all going to be a fix.
Isn't that exactly what we do see?
Well some people claim to see nothing.
So where is this legitimate regime? My point is not about what some people claim not to see, it is that the political reality of our world looks exactly the same as one in which God has no interest. Whatever other arguments you might have to support your belief in God, political legitimacy simply isn't among them.
Age
Posts: 6682
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:44 pm
Age wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:23 am
Lacewing wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:21 pm Like staring into a drop of ocean water vs. seeing the broader ocean.
But to see the broader, and ALL OF the, ocean, then ALL of the drops 'need' to be LOOKED AT.
No, they don't. Examining everything in detail may or may not bring any particular understanding.
Who mentioned anything about "examining"?
Lacewing wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:44 pm And any particular understanding is not necessarily (nor even likely) a broader understanding than the detail that's being obsessed over.
I suggest you look at the actual words I write ONLY, then, hopefully, you will see, and understand, the absolute Truth, simplicity, and obviousness in them.

Also I suggest you stop making assumptions, and if you do, then you might, and hopefully will, also stop obsessing over things that I am NOT even suggesting, let alone saying and meaning.

I suggest looking at and seeing the big and broader picture that I am showing only and stop looking at and seeing some imagined particular detail/s, which you are just making up, through and from you assuming things.

I NEVER said ANY thing about examining NOR said ANY thing about any particular understanding being a broader understanding.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:32 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:29 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:19 pm
Heh. :D That's a liiiiitle broad. Can you give some specific evidence?
Fact there was once a time when there were no universals of tyrrany.
Ummm... :?

Okay, there's not really an easy way to say this, but that's not quite what a "universal" means. You're using the world in a colloquial sense, I see, whereas I meant it in a philosophical sense.
:lol: :lol:
It's the way you tell 'em.

Legitimation of a particular government can only actually be achieved if there is some universal principle of authority that corresponds that that type of governance...such as, "the majority is right," or "monarchy is sacred," or "collectives can rightly exploit individuals," some axiom that show that Democracy, Monarchy or Socialism (respectively) would be the ultimately right government.
This is just an abuse of langauge. You do not know what you are talking about.

A "tyrant," by definition, is not "legitimate." Tyrants do not offer legitimations; they transgress all of them. That's what makes us call them "tyrants."
Rubbish.
It's a Lydian word, adpoted by Greeks and describes a perfectly legitimate, though usually self made leader of a Polis; τύραννος .
Like all words the meaning varies according to those who utter it. Since Tyrrant has collected a perjorative it is most often used by outsiders to describe people who have made their position legitimate by what ever means, and all legitimacies begin as NOVEL ideas.
To call these universals is meaningless.

Your entire contact with this thread is due to your misunderstanding of these basic facts.

Some come to power and make themselves legitimate, others begin with legitimacy and use it for tyrrany.
You've missed the point of the thread entirely, due to your anal thinking.
Legitimate Tyrrants:
Hitler
Mussolini
Stalin
Pol Pot
Boris Johnson
Skepdick
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:10 pm This is just an abuse of langauge.
What legitimises this claim?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11672
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

tillingborn wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:07 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:26 pm
tillingborn wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:05 pm Isn't that exactly what we do see?
Well some people claim to see nothing.
So where is this legitimate regime?
It depends. What do you think is the foundational principle of legitimacy?

If you think it's "consent of the governed," then maybe you think Democracy is legitimate. If it's "the will of the king," then you're a monarchist. If it's "the triumph of the proletariat," then you're a Marxist. If it's "equality of outcome," then maybe you're a Social Justice believer...

What's your basic axiom, there? That determines which regime you think is most legitimate, even if you can't find one you think is utterly legitimate.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11672
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:10 pm Legitimate Tyrrants:
Boris Johnson
Heh. :lol: Well, that's the level of your understanding is it? Okay.
tillingborn
Posts: 1073
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by tillingborn »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:55 pm
tillingborn wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:07 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:26 pmWell some people claim to see nothing.
So where is this legitimate regime?
It depends. What do you think is the foundational principle of legitimacy?
It doesn't depend on what I think. You were making some vague, hand-wavy allusion to the legitimacy of government being a product of intelligent design. Your concern was that:
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:26 pmIf we start by believing that this world is merely a random product of time plus chance, and that it has no inherent purpose, no objective moral facts in it, and no ultimate telos or goal, then the answer is going to be "legitimation looks like a fiction," and plausibly, like Nietzsche said, merely a sort of attempt by the supporters of one regime to (illegitimately) seize power over others." And that's all it's ever going to be, if that's the supposition we start with, so nothing is every going to be "legitimate." It's all going to be a fix.
My point is that the political world looks exactly like one that "is merely a random product of time plus chance".
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11672
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

tillingborn wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:17 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:55 pm
tillingborn wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:07 am So where is this legitimate regime?
It depends. What do you think is the foundational principle of legitimacy?
It doesn't depend on what I think.
Actual legitimacy doesn't, of course. But what you will accept as legitimate is absolutely determined by it.

I don't expect you to concede legitimacy on the basis of what I believe, unless you also believe it. But actual legitimacy will be what it is, regardless of what you and I think.

If there is no fundamental principle, then there is no actual legitimacy. And the same is true if one believes that our existence here is merely an accident. There are no rules for how an accident has to conduct itself. No accident is "more legitimate" than any other accident.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:56 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:10 pm Legitimate Tyrrants:
Boris Johnson
Heh. :lol: Well, that's the level of your understanding is it? Okay.

He daily exceeds the legitimate use of power - I call that tyrrany.
Post Reply