Thoughts

[will_to_power37]

I have been pondering something interesting as of late. It never occurred to me until recently to research the philosophy of the commonwealth until I realized how many great philosophers, Muggle and wizard alike, that touch on the subject. What amazes me is how many of them seem to say the same thing, which is that the best government is one under

Comments

[flaming_lion]

The definition of democracy used then differs from our common understaqnding of the term now. Then it meant every man got to vote on every thing - true governance by the people but heartily impractical. The current definition of democracy where we elect one ruler to make all the decisions, albeit aided by parliament, is I believe closer to what both the philosophers intended and what you yourself are saying.

((Oh god, here we go))

[will_to_power37]

That depends mostly on the philosopher. Interestingly enough, only Cicero thought that some combination of the three government types was ideal, much like what we have here. Though would you say our government is really ideal? I ask this honestly and not as a trap.

((ooc: Feel special that Voldy values your philosophical opinions, rofl))

[flaming_lion]

I didn't say our government reflected what they believed in, only that the current definition of democracy was closer to the ideal government they envisaged than to the previous definition of the term

[will_to_power37]

I cannot assume to be an expert on the modern democracy, but does it not seem to be currently experiencing the same problems that our own system of government is confronting, that is that leans more toward oligarchy, resting on the ignorance of the masses and the money of the few?
I must disagree with you that most of the philosophers in question believed themselves to be the man that could rule with excellency. Even Cicero believed that Rome had its share of a series of perfect monarchs. I do not find it merely ideal at all, but a reality that should be reevaluated by our society. I believe we are simply too afraid to admit that others are far superior to ourselves and would rather accept the delusion that all are corrupt and none rule well. But, I do believe this type of thinking errs on discussions we've had before.

[7thsunrising]

((OOC: I was going to show off the only thing I am picking up in class this year and point out that the Wizarding World is actually run by an elected Oligarchy, and then I realized that there is absolutely NO reason for Ginny to know this. This makes me really sad.))

[salems_witch]

[[ooc: (/shamelessly abuses my Ravenclaw character to be able to talk about these things in character) This is too good, tho! I read all these guys for my program at school, so yay.]]

[will_to_power37]

((ooc: crap. someone who knows as much as me but without my agenda. XDDD))

[salems_witch]

[[ooc: Ahahaha. This character was originally a Slytherin. In this particular incarnation she's not ruthless enough to be one (and damn, I do kind of miss that) but she's certainly a rebel. A very, very, scarily smart rebel. XD]]

[salems_witch]

Even Plato admitted that his Republic would fall and crumble in only a few generations, something with which Aristotle agreed. Having only one person ruling anything with no other check on their power-such as a parliament-almost never works. (Example A: The ancient and medieval British monarchies.) Plato also says that no truly good man would ever want to be the king of the Republic. That he has to be coerced into it, almost blackmailed with the knowledge that he's the best man for the job.

It surprises me somewhat to find students here reading Muggle philosophers. Is it on the curriculum for 7th year Muggle Studies?

[[ooc: Wow, an RP use for the degree I'm getting now. Who'd'a thought? (But also, Argh, they took Cicero off our program and I didn't get to read it. And I don't read Hobbes until next year. So I only have Plato and Aristotle to work with here.)]]

[flaming_lion]

Why would that surprise you? Not everyone here has a seperationist attitude.

[salems_witch]

It surprises me because most of you take segregation in stride without batting an eye.

[will_to_power37]

Most ? I take offense! Percy loves to remind me everyday that I am the strange segregationist around here and I am sure he would be APPALLED if anyone thought the majority of people here think as I do.

((ooc: Voldy is SO having a jest at Percy's expense. I'm hoping you can hear the sarcasm dripping in the above comment. XDD))

[toconquerdeath]

((OOC: Oh, oh God... I so want to rant at you about why Cicero's political opinions were just the mad ravings of a man who needed to justify executive power lest he face criminal prosecution for murder... Like Ginny-mun I am suffering under the weight of ex-plot knowledge. Wait! Harry's obsession with Tom gives me an in-character excuse to have done research in the four days since he posted! Thin Excuse Win!!))

I wouldn't pride myself on sharing philosophical positions with Cicero, the man was a hack, and his political opinions were largely the result of his own personal despair and mortal terror at the conditions his republic was suffering under. Further, he had to argue for executive powers and the whole "father of his country" concept, because they were the only thing standing between him and being convicted of murdering a bunch of people. Besides, whatever theory he may have written aside, the man was a dedicated ally of the system and the status quo in Republican Rome. He had bad luck with dictators and tyrants of all

[will_to_power37]

So, simply because the man had an agenda discredits what he wrote? I think we would all find ourselves out of luck and standing if that were the case!
I heartily enjoyed your description of our government. My sentiments exactly. It's a rather crude form of government, certainly less than ideal and in desperate need of some changes that I believe the philosophers I mentioned point to. That's quite the thought, isn't it? What if the wizarding world WAS united under one ruler? What if things could be changed, made more ideal? But as your "hack" Cicero would say, such things only occur from men of action, not men of mere talk.

((ooc: Nice rationalization there Harry-mun. XDDDD BTW YOU OWE ME PRESENTS> XDDDD))

[toconquerdeath]

There's a difference between possessing an agenda and serving it slavishly, as Cicero did for much of his later life. I don't blame the man for defending himself, but I think the things he wrote in that defense are intellectually less defensible because of it. Especially as some men say things to serve an agenda which transparently reveal it, and these are men whose opinions we can at least trust to be what they are, while others conceal their own self interest behind apparent high-mindedness, like the dishonest Cicero, and confuse everything.
Besides, like I said, whatever he wrote, Cicero proved himself-in what little capacity he had as a man of action-to be a supporter and defender of those at Rome who wanted the Republic to turn into an oligarchy, and come under the rule of the Senare and a man at political opposition to men who held solitary power - having the courage to prosecute friends of Sulla, and refuse the friendship of Caesar. I wouldn't use Cicero in my argument were I you, Tom. He's your enemy, too.

((OOC: Wail

[will_to_power37]

I am not entirely sure where you've gotten your opinions of Cicero. From what I have read, he was merely a Stoic trying to keep order in a revolting Empire. A man against change, against democracy. I do differ with him on quite a few things, but I appreciate the weaknesses he brings out about government. You cannot deny that. I do not particularly care about the man, merely the ideas and the ideas I believe are worth noting.

((ooc: It's cool, I can wait. XD Just making sure you hadn't forgotten! And Voldy really doesn't care if the people he reads about have secret agendas because, well, he does! XDDDD ))

[dromedaunchaind]

In reading this and everyone's replies to this I feel almost like I have learned a great deal while not understanding everything I learned. It makes my head feel a bit dizzy.

That being said I have to say that thing that really puzzles me here is that so many obviously brilliant fellow students seem to be calling for a change to something new while using the words of men long crumbled to dust. This is our time to figure out what we think. While not forgetting the past is important, the reason that is so is to prevent a repeat not to go chasing to copy what was said and done and thought before.

Why are none of you coming up with new ideas and ideals instead of endlessly repeating the ones of those who came before? We're supposed to remake the world in our image! Lets get to it people!

[toconquerdeath]

While I like your spirit of ingenuity and general forward momentum, I think it's a mistake to imagine that all that the countless generations that have come before us can teach us is what not to do. We read and discuss and debate thinkers who have come before us to add to our thoughts, not to replace them - to add depth and support to ideas that we are coming up with on our own, or to challenge our own ideas and make sure we understand and can defend them. Besides, while we shouldn't accept the past unthinking and unquestioning, there's no reason to reinvent the wheel. Why throw something out that really works for us just because we didn't think it our very own selves - isn't that a little naive, or, to be less generous, narcissistic

[dromedaunchaind]

Please, feel free to complicate all you want! Very little worth doing is totally uncomplicated.

There are always new mistakes to make. I think where this whole thing takes issue with me is where some people (not going to a name-pointer-outer here) seem to just be making a mis-mash of what others have said to apparently justify what they already thought. Which misses almost any point that we may wish to be making. You're right with the not reinventing the wheel part as well. Sometimes I get a little a head of myself with these things, possibly from my lack of formal learning and the fact that when I try to read a lot of those books, I get sleepy. The language is just too out-dated for me to keep up with easily.

Anyway, I love the part about us all being part of an unbroken continuity. It's very true, and again, you've pointed out where I misspoke the point I was trying to make. I hate how often I do that. What I really wanted to say was more that, while we can and should carry on good ideas and such, we shouldn't cling to them so

[will_to_power37]

You pose an interesting point, and one not entirely far from my own thoughts, but what exactly would you do that was new? I would like to hear your opinions on this, if you are alright with giving your own account of how you think a government should be run. I shall be gentle with your thoughts, this I promise.