lol!
Wouldn't it be nice to break that cycle?
Globalisation is bringing countries closer together....there has never been a better time for a new approach to things
Do people suck at Democracy?
- Thread starter Barnabas
- Start date
lol!
Wouldn't it be nice to break that cycle?
Globalisation is bringing countries closer together....there has never been a better time for a new approach to things
I now better understand your mindset.
My take on ruling or leading a country or people in general?
“He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool - shun him. He who knows not and knows he knows not: he is simple - teach him. He who knows and knows not he knows: he is asleep - wake him. He who knows and knows he knows: he is wise - follow him.”copied
My take on ruling or leading a country or people in general?
“He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool - shun him. He who knows not and knows he knows not: he is simple - teach him. He who knows and knows not he knows: he is asleep - wake him. He who knows and knows he knows: he is wise - follow him.”copied
No, I dont think we can survive without an "other". Although I think in an ideal world yes, it would be nice.
Agreed, most countries that practice democracy only practice a watered down version of it.
I believe that a truely democratic country would actually give more power to the people other than the right to choose their representatives and/or government. Democracy should be representative and people should have more power to say what they want to happen in their society.
I believe that a truely democratic country would actually give more power to the people other than the right to choose their representatives and/or government. Democracy should be representative and people should have more power to say what they want to happen in their society.
Democracy and know it alls are Stupid
Fist of all you can't compare science and politics. Politics doesn't utilize the scientific method to establish it's philosophy of function. Second, in no way shape or form does a person need to be enthusiastic about something to learn about it, then since they are emotionally invested in said subject their knowledge of the subject is clouded becoming in-accurate. That whole argument basically said that a person can not really know politics at all because it is not a science and you must be emotionally invested in the subject to know it, in which case you don't know it because your judgment is clouded. That sounds like a circular argument which is also a catch-22 for anyone to know politics at all. The only thing that can be science, is science. And in essence, all people are in some way a scientist because they use some form of technology every day, even if it is a better improved spear to kill their food.
Fist of all you can't compare science and politics. Politics doesn't utilize the scientific method to establish it's philosophy of function. Second, in no way shape or form does a person need to be enthusiastic about something to learn about it, then since they are emotionally invested in said subject their knowledge of the subject is clouded becoming in-accurate. That whole argument basically said that a person can not really know politics at all because it is not a science and you must be emotionally invested in the subject to know it, in which case you don't know it because your judgment is clouded. That sounds like a circular argument which is also a catch-22 for anyone to know politics at all. The only thing that can be science, is science. And in essence, all people are in some way a scientist because they use some form of technology every day, even if it is a better improved spear to kill their food.
Google?
If you can Google hard enough to make the facts go away, then I guess there are no facts anymore; right?
And if modern science has all the answers, now that you can make all the facts go away, it has no more answers. Is that your argument? Did I get that straight? Anything proven to be true in science, is only true until it is proven not true. I'm just trying to understand this person's logic regarding science, politics, and his grand inquisition.
If you can Google hard enough to make the facts go away, then I guess there are no facts anymore; right?
And if modern science has all the answers, now that you can make all the facts go away, it has no more answers. Is that your argument? Did I get that straight? Anything proven to be true in science, is only true until it is proven not true. I'm just trying to understand this person's logic regarding science, politics, and his grand inquisition.
Without disagreeing, I think that "western society" as a general term places all stock in science, and disregards emotion and anything "unscientific" as simply having no value, because it is not a science, nor can it be measured and quanitfied... and I think that is a large issue.
I agree that it often becomes a problem in politics. But as society as a whole, our disregard of our emotional involvement may also be part of the problem of politics.
It's just my opinion that in everything humans do, we should strive to BALANCE our rational with our emotional. Of course, nothing is perfect, but to try is close.
Just a few comments:
Civilisation is not natural as well. It does not suck. Revolution is a product of free thinking and the masses think free through democracy. The rule of the stronger sucks too.
[In general] I do not see the controversy between us and them/the other in a democracy. Democracy is not about accepting everybody's views and keeping everybody happy. It is about giving the opportunity to everybody to have and demonstrate its own view and unhappiness.
Having different groups in a society is not a failure. Not winning is not a failure. Not having a universal perception of an issue is not a failure. Not having a view on an issue is a failure, even a scientific one.
said: People suck at democracy. Or does Democracy suck at people?
Well, democracy is all about middle class. It is not applied in countries where there is no middle class. People in middle class suck more than charismatic people and less than totally dump people, but they are no better or worse of another class as a whole. The reason we choose this class is that because its interests are more beneficial to the survival of the city- or of the state as a whole. Some middle classes in some countries suck more than other middle classes in other countries.
In fact lot of people accuse nowadays democracy, and not for bad reasons. It's like a fashion to condemn the discriminations and imperialism. And sometimes ancient Greece (sorry for the reference I do come from Greece and I feel it's a pity that the world does not feel fashionable to talk about the advantages of being democratic and about fairness and isigoria like the good old days back in the 19th century). There is racism, women are inferior in lot of democracies, people do not vote, people have rights with no obligations and people have obligations with no rights. Current slavery is more subtle and wild. I do agree. But it's not the system's fault. It's the humans behind it. It's not the shape, it's the substance. The people are rotten not the ideas.
Democracy is not only who is on power but how we run our everyday business. It's not a matter of arithmetics, it comes with a balance of freedom and measure, rights and obligations.
I think Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. That's true.
If there is a chance to educate the people is through democracy. I think the problem is that we combine democracy with the free market and people want to consume stupid things and so they are free to do. But in the rare case that people become clever it will be through democracy and it will be democracy that will work for them.
So Don't fight it, fight to improve it!
...OK, that was all for tonight... bye bye
corndogman said:
Civilisation is not natural as well. It does not suck. Revolution is a product of free thinking and the masses think free through democracy. The rule of the stronger sucks too.
[In general] I do not see the controversy between us and them/the other in a democracy. Democracy is not about accepting everybody's views and keeping everybody happy. It is about giving the opportunity to everybody to have and demonstrate its own view and unhappiness.
Having different groups in a society is not a failure. Not winning is not a failure. Not having a universal perception of an issue is not a failure. Not having a view on an issue is a failure, even a scientific one.
Well said. In practice globalisation makes it impossible at the current stage. Plato said that the only solution is to train the experts at the top so that they be philosophers. Just commenting I do not have suggestions.Galileo said:
said: People suck at democracy. Or does Democracy suck at people?
Well, democracy is all about middle class. It is not applied in countries where there is no middle class. People in middle class suck more than charismatic people and less than totally dump people, but they are no better or worse of another class as a whole. The reason we choose this class is that because its interests are more beneficial to the survival of the city- or of the state as a whole. Some middle classes in some countries suck more than other middle classes in other countries.
In fact lot of people accuse nowadays democracy, and not for bad reasons. It's like a fashion to condemn the discriminations and imperialism. And sometimes ancient Greece (sorry for the reference I do come from Greece and I feel it's a pity that the world does not feel fashionable to talk about the advantages of being democratic and about fairness and isigoria like the good old days back in the 19th century). There is racism, women are inferior in lot of democracies, people do not vote, people have rights with no obligations and people have obligations with no rights. Current slavery is more subtle and wild. I do agree. But it's not the system's fault. It's the humans behind it. It's not the shape, it's the substance. The people are rotten not the ideas.
Democracy is not only who is on power but how we run our everyday business. It's not a matter of arithmetics, it comes with a balance of freedom and measure, rights and obligations.
I think Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. That's true.
If there is a chance to educate the people is through democracy. I think the problem is that we combine democracy with the free market and people want to consume stupid things and so they are free to do. But in the rare case that people become clever it will be through democracy and it will be democracy that will work for them.
So Don't fight it, fight to improve it!
...OK, that was all for tonight... bye bye
Last edited: