Jonathan Sacks, I and We, and a Solution in Discussion?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
RWStanding
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:23 pm

Jonathan Sacks, I and We, and a Solution in Discussion?

Post by RWStanding »

Jonathan Sacks, I and We, and a Solution in Discussion?
Even with religion there is a primary choice to be made. ‘Good or Evil’. But what is ‘Good’ is a question.
The primary question is in reality about the form of society we belong to. What we already are, and only then followed by debate about whether that is where we should be. Except that only those that are not in an authoritarian state will be able to debate. Any form of globalised society must already have made this choice or become subject to tyranny.
On the basis of three essential forms or classes of society, opposed to Chaos. Then Chaos may be defined as our being ignorant of what make the world work, and how we can work within it. And also, our rejecting the world entirely.
If we accept the world as it is, then the three forms of society must at least be minimally practical. Within that pragmatism the choice is entirely a matter of philosophy. This can be defined in terms of forms of debate that relate to the society.
Authoritarianism going on to Tyranny, is like some religions, in being founded on faith. Debate is then confined to the theology within that faith, and interpretation.
Individualism going on to Autonomy, will have virtually unconfined Freedom of Speech. [Albeit self destructive].
Altruism, will have Responsible Discussion. Restrained only by rules on unjustified slander – towards individuals and cultures.
It is essential to separate Culture from Ethics, as much a possible. With Ethics already having been decided largely by the form of society we espouse. Culture being all features of social life that are in themselves innocuous, or like fashion. Individualism may be globalised on the basis of individual fashion. Altruism may be globalised on the basis of protected cultures within a federal world of local communities. Globalised tyranny has only one ethic and dominant culture.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4963
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Jonathan Sacks, I and We, and a Solution in Discussion?

Post by attofishpi »

RWStanding wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 1:56 pm Jonathan Sacks, I and We, and a Solution in Discussion?
Even with religion there is a primary choice to be made. ‘Good or Evil’.
Y?
Nick_A
Posts: 5571
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Jonathan Sacks, I and We, and a Solution in Discussion?

Post by Nick_A »

Compare RWs explanation with Plato's description of why we are as we are

People do not understand each other which is why society by definition is out of balance. It reflects the changing dominance of each of the three parts of the human condition. That is why war and peace concludes the cycle of societal life until it starts again

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_theory_of_soul
Plato's theory of soul, drawing on the words of his teacher Socrates, considered the psyche (ψυχή) to be the essence of a person, being that which decides how people behave. He considered this essence to be an incorporeal, eternal occupant of our being. Plato said that even after death, the soul exists and is able to think. He believed that as bodies die, the soul is continually reborn (metempsychosis) in subsequent bodies. The Platonic soul consists of three parts which are located in different regions of the body:[1][2][3]

the logos (λογιστικόν), or logistikon, located in the head, is related to reason and regulates the other parts.

the thymos (θυμοειδές), or thumetikon, located near the chest region and is related to anger.

the eros (ἐπιθυμητικόν), or epithumetikon, located in the stomach and is related to one's desires.

In his treatise the Republic, and also with the chariot allegory in Phaedrus, Plato asserted that the three parts of the psyche also correspond to the three classes of a society.[4] Whether in a city or an individual, δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosyne, justice) is declared to be the state of the whole in which each part fulfills its function, while temperance is the state of the whole where each part does not attempt to interfere in the functions of the others.[5] The function of the epithymetikon is to produce and seek pleasure. The function of the logistikon is to gently rule through the love of learning. The function of the thymoeides is to obey the directions of the logistikon while ferociously defending the whole from external invasion and internal disorder. Whether in a city or an individual, ἀδικία (adikia, injustice) is the contrary state of the whole, often taking the specific form in which the spirited listens instead to the appetitive, while they together either ignore the logical entirely or employ it in their pursuits of pleasure.
In theory, the only person capable of bringing about the balance of these three parts so they work together is the philosopher king. Only the philosopher king has objective knowledge of the forms so can pass it on into society.

We don't have any philosopher kings so human future is the endless cyclical battles including war and peace. The dominance of the arguments of the perspectives of subjective opinions has proven itself superior to the struggle to open to receive objective knowledge which is now out of fashion.
Post Reply