Re: the righteous tyrant
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:39 pm
Explain that: what is the range of his "legitimate use of power," as you put it.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Explain that: what is the range of his "legitimate use of power," as you put it.
Have you not been paying attention?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:39 pmExplain that: what is the range of his "legitimate use of power," as you put it.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:38 pmImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:56 pm
Heh. Well, that's the level of your understanding is it? Okay.
He daily exceeds the legitimate use of power - I call that tyrrany.
Indeed. Hopefully I shan't have to say this many more times:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:23 pmIf 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.
tillingborn wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:17 pmMy point is that the political world looks exactly like one that "is merely a random product of time plus chance".
I have. I know what I think is "legit," but I have not the foggiest idea what you think defines that range.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:57 pmHave you not been paying attention?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:39 pmExplain that: what is the range of his "legitimate use of power," as you put it.
[/quote]tillingborn wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:57 pm My point is that the political world looks exactly like one that "is merely a random product of time plus chance".
How would a legitimate cosmos look different to one that is illegitimate?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:15 pmFor when I used the phrase "a random product of time plus chance," I did not use it in reference to merely "the political world", but rather to the entire world, indeed, the whole cosmos. If the cosmos is "a random product of time plus chance," then no arrangement that happens within that cosmos, political or otherwise, is EVER "legitimate." There's simply no such thing.
Well, "legitimate" is not the right word to apply to the cosmos itself. What is, is. The cosmos, as a factual entity pre-existing our appearance, does lend itself to legitimation. That's a category error. "Legitimation" is a matter for human, institutional arrangements, not merely material ones.tillingborn wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:25 pmHow would a legitimate cosmos look different to one that is illegitimate?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:15 pmFor when I used the phrase "a random product of time plus chance," I did not use it in reference to merely "the political world", but rather to the entire world, indeed, the whole cosmos. If the cosmos is "a random product of time plus chance," then no arrangement that happens within that cosmos, political or otherwise, is EVER "legitimate." There's simply no such thing.
That was just my way of expressing it, Age. We can stick with your WORDS if you're assuming that my words aren't in line with your words.
It's subjective, relative and dependant on specific legislative protocols and precedents on particular countries.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:05 pmI have. I know what I think is "legit," but I have not the foggiest idea what you think defines that range.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:57 pmHave you not been paying attention?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:39 pm
Explain that: what is the range of his "legitimate use of power," as you put it.
What is the range of his "legitimate use of power"?
Then how do you know he's exceeded it? Maybe it's "subjective" to him, "relative" to what he wants to do? Or do you have in mind some "specific protocols" you could identify?Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:11 pmIt's subjective, relative and dependant on specific legislative protocols and precedents on particular countries.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:05 pmI have. I know what I think is "legit," but I have not the foggiest idea what you think defines that range.
What is the range of his "legitimate use of power"?
Duh!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:12 pmThen how do you know he's exceeded it? Maybe it's "subjective" to him, "relative" to what he wants to do? Or do you have in mind some "specific protocols" you could identify?Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:11 pmIt's subjective, relative and dependant on specific legislative protocols and precedents on particular countries.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:05 pm
I have. I know what I think is "legit," but I have not the foggiest idea what you think defines that range.
What is the range of his "legitimate use of power"?
Heh. You don't know what you're talking about, I can see. So I'll help you out.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:16 pmDuh!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:12 pmThen how do you know he's exceeded it? Maybe it's "subjective" to him, "relative" to what he wants to do? Or do you have in mind some "specific protocols" you could identify?
If you want to know more , read Hansard.
No.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:21 pmHeh. You don't know what you're talking about, I can see. So I'll help you out.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:16 pmDuh!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:12 pm
Then how do you know he's exceeded it? Maybe it's "subjective" to him, "relative" to what he wants to do? Or do you have in mind some "specific protocols" you could identify?
If you want to know more , read Hansard.
You're trying to say he exceeded the mandate the voters gave him.
But if the voters "gave" the mandate, then it means you're a democrat...you don't think authority resides in Boris, or in somebody who appointed him, or in the Queen, or in anything else that might have made Boris the PM. You think the ultimate and real authority is something conveyed by the voters to Boris, and the limits of it are defined by the Constitution.
So that's your conception of legitimacy.
Good. Then you can put me back "on track," simply by explaining what you DO believe is the source and nature of Boris's legitimate authority.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:32 pmNo.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:21 pmHeh. You don't know what you're talking about, I can see. So I'll help you out.
You're trying to say he exceeded the mandate the voters gave him.
But if the voters "gave" the mandate, then it means you're a democrat...you don't think authority resides in Boris, or in somebody who appointed him, or in the Queen, or in anything else that might have made Boris the PM. You think the ultimate and real authority is something conveyed by the voters to Boris, and the limits of it are defined by the Constitution.
So that's your conception of legitimacy.
As usual you are off track and confused.