the righteous tyrant
the righteous tyrant
First you establish legitimacy, then you use whatever force is necessary to accomplish your objectives.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22502
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
This describes the founder of another philosophy forum.
They even claim to be legitimately righteous, BUT THEN do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they say and claim to "fight for".
They CLAIM EVERY one has A RIGHT to 'free speech', but then BLOCK some people from speaking. Usually, by the way, when they are being PROVEN Wrong.
The "righteous" tyrant does NOT like to be shown up as being False, Wrong, and Incorrect.
Re: the righteous tyrant
They use 'argumentative' and/or 'persuasive' form. Once they have a 'following', people agreeing with and accepting them, thus are seen as being 'legitimate', then they use whatever force necessary to accomplish their objectives. Which is usually just to be seen as being RIGHT, and as being in CONTROL.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22502
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=506607 time=1617891878 user_id=9431]
[quote=Age post_id=506601 time=1617890514 user_id=16237]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=506587 time=1617888452 user_id=9431]
How?
[/quote]
They use 'argumentative' and/or 'persuasive' form.
[/quote]
[u]Precisely[/u] how? i.e. "[u]on what basis[/u] in legitimacy established"?
[/quote]
Someone did a thing about that which i remember as the three pillars of legitimacy but i don't have access to my data cache ATM and Google isn't cooperating.
It's not the Max Weber thing. Anyhow, i find it to be a stable foundation for understanding the dynamics at play. I'll try to find it more.
[quote=Age post_id=506601 time=1617890514 user_id=16237]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=506587 time=1617888452 user_id=9431]
How?
[/quote]
They use 'argumentative' and/or 'persuasive' form.
[/quote]
[u]Precisely[/u] how? i.e. "[u]on what basis[/u] in legitimacy established"?
[/quote]
Someone did a thing about that which i remember as the three pillars of legitimacy but i don't have access to my data cache ATM and Google isn't cooperating.
It's not the Max Weber thing. Anyhow, i find it to be a stable foundation for understanding the dynamics at play. I'll try to find it more.
Last edited by Advocate on Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22502
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
Don't you just know? If you don't, how do you recognize ANY government as "legitimate"?Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:18 pmSomeone did a thing about that which i remember as the three pillars of legitimacy but i don't have access to my data cache ATM and Google isn't cooperating.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:24 pm Precisely how? i.e. "on what basis in legitimacy established"?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22502
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
"Neutral," "respect," "voice" and "trustworthiness."
Well, here's the problem: "neutral" with regard to what, that are regarded by whom as the extremes? "Respect" as detected how, by whom? "Voice," as in "all voices equal, regardless of such things as intelligence, rightness, morality, and so on? And "trustworthiness," how much, "trusted" by whom, to do what?
In other words, these so-called "pillars" simply take for granted that whomever is advocating them ALREADY has the objectively correct moral perspective, so that satisfying them on these four points would turn out to be right. But what constitutes "neutrality" to the whole spectrum of political "voices" is not at all the same thing. Neither is "trustworthiness": for the right might "trust" DT and the Left, JB...but neither finds the other's candidate "trustworthy," or even the electoral process "trustworthy" anymore -- the Left knows they subverted it and wants to be able to keep doing so; the Right knows they did it, and so neither finds it "trustworthy," even though one side is glad the process isn't "trustworthy" and the other is not. As for "respect," is "respect" of body dysmorphic individuals identifying them as such and getting them help, or normalizing their malady as "trans-identity"? Which perspective is "respectful"?
So those answers turn out to be pretty dusty. They give us nothing on legitimacy, really.
Re: the righteous tyrant
Whatever 'you' agree with.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:24 pmPrecisely how? i.e. "on what basis in legitimacy established"?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22502
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
Doesn't work, for two reasons: one, you need a prior principle that shows that consent is the basis of legitimacy (in things like monarchy, or in totalitarianism, it's not), and two, other people are likely to be less impressed by "your" wishes, and more by their own, which are often different from "yours." Legitimation has to be on some universal principle, not on personal preference.
Re: the righteous tyrant
OBVIOUSLY.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:57 pmDoesn't work, for two reasons: one, you need a prior principle that shows that consent is the basis of legitimacy (in things like monarchy, or in totalitarianism, it's not), and two, other people are likely to be less impressed by "your" wishes, and more by their own, which are often different from "yours."Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:51 pmWhatever 'you' agree with.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:24 pm
Precisely how? i.e. "on what basis in legitimacy established"?
But what 'you' find is 'legitimate' is whatever 'you' agree with. As I was just saying and pointing out.
So, you go and make this CLAIM here. But, are you at all able to explain EXACTLY what this 'universal principle' IS?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:57 pm Legitimation has to be on some universal principle, not on personal preference.
Also, how do you KNOW that legitimacy HAS TO BE on some 'universal principle'? Is this some personal opinion of yours, or is this CLAIM based on some ACTUAL evidence and/or proof?
If it is the latter, then WHERE and WHAT is this evidence and/or proof that you have?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22502
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
And I pointed out that you were wrong.Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:15 pmOBVIOUSLY.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:57 pmDoesn't work, for two reasons: one, you need a prior principle that shows that consent is the basis of legitimacy (in things like monarchy, or in totalitarianism, it's not), and two, other people are likely to be less impressed by "your" wishes, and more by their own, which are often different from "yours."
But what 'you' find is 'legitimate' is whatever 'you' agree with. As I was just saying and pointing out.
But now I remember you.
Bye.
Re: the righteous tyrant
ONCE AGAIN, "another one" who when questioned and challenged in regards to THEIR CLAIMS runs away when they can NOT answer nor explain.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:18 pmAnd I pointed out that you were wrong.Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:15 pmOBVIOUSLY.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:57 pm
Doesn't work, for two reasons: one, you need a prior principle that shows that consent is the basis of legitimacy (in things like monarchy, or in totalitarianism, it's not), and two, other people are likely to be less impressed by "your" wishes, and more by their own, which are often different from "yours."
But what 'you' find is 'legitimate' is whatever 'you' agree with. As I was just saying and pointing out.
But now I remember you.
Bye.
This just SHOWS and PROVIDES another example of when one makes claims but can NOT back up and support THEIR CLAIMS.
By the way I did NOT mean, nor even say, what you were claiming I was wrong about.
Once more, you were way off and missing the mark, completely.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22502
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
No.
It's just that there's a minimal, very low bar for quality of conversation in order for it to be worth going forward. You always seem to find a way to be below the bar. It's probably a function of your age. So maybe you'll learn. We can all be optimistic about that.
But it's not today.