Welcome to Gaia! ::

We are likely using different definitions of the term realist. By my view, in philosophy "realism" is based on how one thinks reality itself came to be. Indeed, it it is quite literal. This is something coming from the debates between philosophers about whether matter exists, or if our ideas are what produce our environment. The sense you are thinking of is probably the modern one, in which someone self-defined as a "realist" always thinks they're right.



Yes, although he holds these things as higher than ideals. We pursue them for our very survival. If you say that philosophers by his definitions follow his beliefs only (true, wise, beautiful, moderate), then you're saying that every human being doesn't pursue them as well? Or can you say with a straight face that you aspire to the false, the unwise, the ugly, and the gluttonous? If so, then I would say that you're in pretty good shape for being someone who pursues them.



Beautiful can't be defined as what one person sees as beautiful, but the pursuit of what each person considers beautiful to reach harmony in the soul. Many of these things are also very thought provoking, such as poetry or music (we both know they can also be very political).

The whole concept of the left/right scale is a matter of corruption of the original value in your actions. For example, you corrupt the truth by telling lies, you corrupt wisdom by not thinking, you corrupt beauty by mocking or defacing that particular art, and moderation is a corruption we've been hearing since we were children: You can have too much of a good thing. If I eat too much candy, I will get sick. If I take too much of a headache pill, I'll get a headache, and if I exercise too much I may damage a muscle. It's based more on this concept of corrupting a good thing than anything else.



Ah, but are checks and balances enough? As a former fellow of Anarchist thought, I know you are very aware of how many times the United States government has infringed upon the rights of the people. Socrates' main point is that unless the person in charge (hello, Mr. President) has values grounded in virtue, it does not matter how he's selected (E.G., George Bush). He will inevitably follow his own whim and do the wrong thing. Freedom of speach is by all means a major facet of Plato/Socrates' regime, hence the emphasis upon philosophy. Even if his regime does collapse, it will inevitably fall down the ladder and we'll run through the gradually worse regimes. If you look through the U.S. history, you can see this same trend.

When George Washington was president, you could consider his administration almost Plato's regime. He was well versed in philosophy, had an extensive military career, and even refused to take military power for himself. He also certaintly didn't want to be president. However, after his rule, the military became a prominent deciding force in our government, with frequent rebellions and other things quelled by force, and a great emphasis on war (timocracy). As time passed, the military men became competitive in wealth, and through greed we began to see military give way to wealth (oligarchy). This you could say lasted until about the 1960s, when there was a brief and heavy swing towards Democracy and the shunning of wealth making desires/pursuits. Now you could say we still hang on the balance between oligarchy and democracy. The only question is, you've seen the scale. When the people become fooled by corporations and give way to impassioned speeches, what is next?

And to cut the question off before it was made, you can consider the current Communist regimes Timocracies. You may notice their growing trend towards capitalism, and thus becoming Oligarchies. When the people revolt, they will likely become Democracies. Russia is in the Oligarchy stage right now.

I think you kind of hit on the point though. Maybe you want to shift away from defending Democracy, and try to prove that all of these systems are themselves flawed?

Remember, the best way to keep slaves is always to make them think they are free.

I'll pose to you the same question as before, what is a philosopher? I'm interested in hearing your response.

How a "philosopher king" could be elected is quite ambiguous, and you could take many approaches to it- for example, a very refined democracy. The only difference is what pool of people you are selecting from. To expand upon his ideas, I would say it would be a modification of our own constitutional republic. Not only are there checks and balances set in place, but the lead executive is checked for ambition and competency in executive (military and diplomatic) issues. You could also place the producers as well above the other two, military men live a life of conflict and the rulers are selected on the grounds that they not want to rule. On the other hand, producers are free to invent and enjoy free expression, with the ability to pursue the career they choose.

Also, I think you confuse political and economic classes. His idea is that the producers and military are decided based on nature when they are young based on nature (he had a strong admiration for Sparta), and the leaders are selected from the military (or in my modification, civilians for civilian matters). I'm debating with it myself, but I intend to place you against Plato's modified theory to see if you can defeat it, remember that. But most of all, I want to see you able to vindicate Anarchist theory. Otherwise, you may find yourself in conflict with me in the future.

Check your rage and try to defeat me with your logic, not your attitude. If you have emotions against me, they will have no sway unless you can show me they are well founded.

My point is in his "glorification" of philosophers. By this definition, whether he glorifies it or not, you're already a philosopher yourself, as am I and everyone else in this discussion. You cannot claim he glorifies something if you are unwilling to define what it is.

And yes, I am most definately asking you why. Down to the very core of your beliefs, I am asking how the foundational beliefs of Anarchism stand against the ideas I propose. By all means, you do have to either prove or disprove me. The two theories conflict, and two conflicting ideas cannot both be true. I refuse to believe in either until the other has been defeated, and so I will challenge you all myself. The entire idea is that he holds no more authority. I refuse to accept an idea simply because it seems appealing to me, but because it is true. This is not simply from one book, but also from examination of the different rationalizations and constant, frantic discussion with a philosophy professor. On the way, I've created a fatal counter arguement to George Berkely and studied the works of people like Descartes and Plato. Consider this the last major barricade before I expand my mind outwards and pursue other theories.

Additionally, I don't think I need to answer that question. You all know me well, and you are well aware of my knowledge of Anarchist ideals having seen my writing many times.

If you truly wish to help me, then defeat me in debate. The part of me that speaks to you now is the part that still wishes to believe in Anarchism, and to do so, it demands to be defeated. Ideas are very fickle things, and if Anarchism is well founded, then this will be very well possible. If not and Anarchism is false, you will face an impossible task. Are you up for it?

Keep in mind, this is a debate in all senses of the word. Whether you have knowledge of the literature or not, you are still debating the words that come out of my mouth. It's a simple matter of refuting the points that I make. Consider us two lawyers in a trial, me acting on behalf of The Republic and similar ideas, and you acting on behalf of Anarchism. The way I see it, this is the character of almost all debates involving large systems of belief.

Now, the weight isn't really that large on this debate. Although, should you fail then I shall leave this guild in search of people more able to refute me. Does this sound fair?
------------------------------

The reason I asked you to define what you thought a philosopher was because you seemed to define it as something only a select few people could do. Whereas in my opinion, and his as I was taught, is that anyone can become a philosopher simply by pursueing these ends rationally.

As for my modern representation of it, I maintain his theory of the Regime Ladder (as I shall refer to it from here on), yet modify his model of the perfect regime to keep it from falling down the ladder. My main idea is to keep his "Philosopher King" (PK, from here on), yet reinforce his position with the other systems of government. The president should be selected in the same way as this PK simply because he mainly tends to matters of defense and diplomacy. His power of veto could be made less powerful, in the sense that it is only useful for matters that affect issues abroad.

Since he would be formerly of the military, and well versed in philosophy as well as public concerns from the military, he would be the perfect person for foreign policy. He must be a man of many campaigns, and a great strategist. Although, keep in mind, this does not mean he would be well versed in economic matters except when concerning the military.

Next I would do something that ressembles the current U.S. Congress and modify the two houses, and make the House of Representatives Democratic, with much more sway in the government, while the U.S. senate oligarchic, and very well kept in check by the Democratic House.

This way, you have the concerns of the military, the economy, and the people at the same table. All of these would remain kept in check by the sustained Supreme Court, which has people appointed by the joint election of the three bodies (moreso than today).

Although this system is similar to the current U.S. government, the changes in the election of the president and the Oligarchy of the Senate/Greater Democracy of the House move our government in a more Socratic Direction.

This is my model as it currently stands. Keep in mind, even if you do refute my model, you also have to refute Socrates' idea of the government ladder, since it holds Anarchy as a step between Democracy and Tyranny. Keep in mind, this is all in the case of a larger city. If you wish to have a socialist Anarchy, then it will have to be rather small, or else it will have vast problems of upholding the system. So, I suppose in supporting Socrates' method of arguement, how would this Socialism be maintained, and how do you hold even the government described above as unjust?

(And when you say using his form of arguement, Do you mean the Elenchus question/answer form? Lol I would, but this is a forum, so that would be extremely time consuming. For this situation, I would suggest the regular form our discussion takes.)

On your first question, precisely. Simply the aspect of pursueing all moral and logical options. When I say philosophy, I'm not referring to a particular idea, nor do I tend to use the word philosophy that way. I mean the critical examination of all ideas. Of course, this does not mean that they can completely shut out ideas, but that they explore their possibility rigorously. By its nature, not only would it increase their insight into their own moral issues through inner dialogue, but also to gain the skill to apply this to other things. Indeed, couldn't it be said that man's greatest skill is to ask questions, not only to himself but to others?

If you practice a trade, couldn't you easily say that you know more about it than someone who doesn't? For example, if you're a horse trainer, naturally you would know more about horses than most people (except other horse trainers). So does the same not apply to everything else, such as doctors or engineers? Both are quite competent, but when concerning the other's job they are simply unexperienced and unable to make good strategic judgement. Also, whenever they make these decisions, aren't they making decisions that could benefit or hurt the whole? For example, if a doctor makes a bad decision, doesn't his patient suffer? Lastly, isn't being in the military a profession as well?

Also, Plato has vast requirements for the military, but we can go into this a bit later, lest our posts get too long. First, let's stick with our current discussion.

i know a lot of 'philosophers' that frankly scare me when it comes to their philosophies, Ayn Rand is one that tops the list. the last thing i think i would ever want to rule a country is a Rand Objectivist 'philosopher king'. anyone that beleives "Hey! the rich are rich because they are awesome and the poor are poor because they are undeserving." then continues to say things like "those that are taken advantage of deserve to be taken advantage of because they allow themselves to be taken advantage of." should never be given the power of a single business let alone an entire country.

or Niccolo Machiavelli. A just prince is the prince that dose what he must for his country. this of course was a response to his hero Lorenzo Medici after Lorenzo assassinated his pollitical competition and also Lorenzo's great grandfather after he massacred a huge mob of textile workers during the Ciompi Revolution.

the rights of the people under both philosopher's inspirations were eradicated for the sake of 'a secure nation' . i don't at all believe the 'nobility of philosophers' is anything less corruptible than a career politician.

honestly; Plato suggests an absolute dictatorship with nothing to hold back corruption and poor decision making but an idealistic faith in the philosopher kings 'incorruptibility'.

but seriously if you still don't think that that is a decent enough argument then i do believe i will be the first to say, bye!

Alright, 5 days have passed and I remain unchallenged. Enjoy your island ideals here, without test nor trial, vindication or condemnation.

In your isolation, all that is left is for your ideals to remain quiet and age to a passive death. Farewell.