the righteous tyrant

[tillingborn]

Legitimation has to be on some universal principle, not on personal preference.

Except that there are really no universal principles.

Then there would also be no legitimation. There would only be competing power-groups, with none of them any objectively "better" or "more legitimate" than any other.

Which is exactly what we see in the real world.

[Lacewing]

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. And any particular understanding is not necessarily (nor even likely) a broader understanding than the detail that's being obsessed over.

[Sculptor]

Legitimation has to be on some universal principle, not on personal preference.

Except that there are really no universal principles.

Then there would also be no legitimation. There would only be competing power-groups, with none of them any objectively "better" or "more legitimate" than any other.

Rubbish.
DO you think principles of tyrrany existed before civilisation?
The answer to that is no.
That means that ALL principles are mere inventions, and inventions come and go in culture. It is simply an abuse of language to pretend that they are universal or that universality is the only leans of legitimation. You are, in thism as in many similar instances completely wrong. I think it maybe due to a lack of historical appreciation.
Fact is that Stalin's brand of tyrrany was new; not universal, yet fully legitimated by the heirarchy - the old "legitimacy" being fully swept away.
And for some point in history every single instance of a new category of legitimation was born new from the imagaination. Not universal nor objective in any sense.

Eventually you will learn that this is also true of all morality.

[Immanuel Can]

Except that there are really no universal principles.

Then there would also be no legitimation. There would only be competing power-groups, with none of them any objectively "better" or "more legitimate" than any other.

Which is exactly what we see in the real world.

That depends. Is the reason we don't see any legitimation because legitimation is not possible? Or is it because we pre-emptively decided that no grounds of legitimation will ever be acknowledged.

It's not like it's an impartial, factual observation: it's presumptive. But something may still be objectively legitimate, even if we individually refuse to acknowledge that it is.

[Immanuel Can]

Except that there are really no universal principles.

Then there would also be no legitimation. There would only be competing power-groups, with none of them any objectively "better" or "more legitimate" than any other.

Rubbish.

No, it's true. I rarely say this, but Advocate seems to see what's at stake here. No universals means no basis for legitimation, period.

[Skepdick]

Which is exactly what we see in the real world.

And somehow, in between all the illegitimacy and power-struggles humans somehow live better and longer lives in 2020 AD than they lived in 2020BC.

How did we manage to make anything better in between all the tribalism?

[Skepdick]

DO you think principles of tyrrany existed before civilisation?

Uhhh. Do you think ANY principles existed before humans invented them?

Fact is that Stalin's brand of tyrrany was new; not universal, yet fully legitimated by the heirarchy - the old "legitimacy" being fully swept away.

Imagine that! Out with the old - in with the new.

And for some point in history every single instance of a new category of legitimation was born new from the imagaination. Not universal nor objective in any sense.

Eventually you will learn that this is also true of all morality.

And in between all of this newer and newer legitimation things, somehow, keep getting better for more and more people.

The mystery.

[tillingborn]

Is the reason we don't see any legitimation because legitimation is not possible? Or is it because we pre-emptively decided that no grounds of legitimation will ever be acknowledged.

Hard to say. What would legitimation look like if it were in front of us?

[Skepdick]

Hard to say. What would legitimation look like if it were in front of us?

It would look like the least shit choice given the alternatives.

[tillingborn]

Which is exactly what we see in the real world.

And somehow, in between all the illegitimacy and power-struggles humans somehow live better and longer lives in 2020 AD than they lived in 2020BC.

How did we manage to make anything better in between all the tribalism?

Espionage and fraternisation. It's a mix of fear and loathing with love and sharing. Well done you for your steadfast loathsomeness.

[Sculptor]

No universals means no basis for legitimation, period.

A claim that does not even make sense.
What not try and establish your claim rather than ignore the evidence I have presented.

[tillingborn]

Hard to say. What would legitimation look like if it were in front of us?

It would look like the least shit choice given the alternatives.

Do you understand what Immanuel Can means by 'legitimation'? Perhaps you two could get together so that the rest of us know what you mean.

[Skepdick]

Espionage and fraternisation. It's a mix of fear and loathing with love and sharing. Well done you for your steadfast loathsomeness.

If you had no enemies to loathe, who would you steal secrets from; and fraternise against?

[Immanuel Can]

Is the reason we don't see any legitimation because legitimation is not possible? Or is it because we pre-emptively decided that no grounds of legitimation will ever be acknowledged.

Hard to say. What would legitimation look like if it were in front of us?

Well, based on what suppositions? If 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.

[Immanuel Can]

...the evidence I have presented.

Show me some "evidence" and I'll deal with it. Until then, I feel no particular need to address mere posture-striking or empty rhetoric.