----- Original Message ----- From: "David Brin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 11:41 PM Subject: Re: Brin: Second Salvo
> > >>Finally, the belief in absolutes is not a Romantic notion. Faith in > thetrancendental is defiantly a part of the enlightenment. Kant, the > quintessential Enlightenment philosopher, speaks very clearly towards > that.Jefferson penned such a faith statement in the Declaration of > Independence. > << > > > > Jefferson and Kant are called enlightenment figures because of timing and poor understanding. The Enlightenment is a well established philosophical and political movement. As I mention below, you may be thinking of what is commonly referred to as "modernism." >Jefferson in fact was the last person to straddle both romanticism and the enlightenment comfortably. >But soon after the American revolution romantics like Keats saw that "democracy" was not Socrates in >togas but shopkeepers, tradesmen and farmers shouting at each other in town meetings. The >Romantics turned their backs on democracy. Jefferson's ideal, IIRC, was citizen-farmers. Considering the fact that overwhelming majority of people worked the land at the time, that made sense. Its true that he didn't see the immense wealth that could be obtained by the average person from the Industrial Revolution, but that wasn't apparent for a long time....in the 20th century. Marx missed it much more severely, and he wrote much later. > Oh, and Kant led to Hegel who was the philosophical father of BOTH Communism and Nazism... >and the neoconservative movement. Spare me. Spare you what? The fact that Hegel came right after Kant doesn't mean that Hegel's ideas are the logical extension of Kant's. Very frequently, in the history of philosophy, a well established idea leads to someone writing a reaction against it. Its true that Kant had significant problems with democracy...saying it would tend to lead to tyranny. But, let us see what he would put in its place. >From Perpetual Peace <quote> "The Civil Constitution of Every State Should Be Republican" The only constitution which derives from the idea of the original compact, and on which all juridical legislation of a people must be based, is the republican. 4 This constitution is established, firstly, by principles of the freedom of the members of a society (as men); secondly, by principles of dependence of all upon a single common legislation (as subjects); and, thirdly, by the law of their equality (as citizens). The republican constitution, therefore, is, with respect to law, the one which is the original basis of every form of civil constitution. The only question now is: Is it also the one which can lead to perpetual peace? The republican constitution, besides the purity of its origin (having sprung from the pure source of the concept of law), also gives a favorable prospect for the desired consequence, i.e., perpetual peace. The reason is this: if the consent of the citizens is required in order to decide that war should be declared (and in this constitution it cannot but be the case), nothing is more natural than that they would be very cautious in commencing such a poor game, decreeing for themselves all the calamities of war. Among the latter would be: having to fight, having to pay the costs of war from their own resources, having painfully to repair the devastation war leaves behind, and, to fill up the measure of evils, load themselves with a heavy national debt that would embitter peace itself and that can never be liquidated on account of constant wars in the future. But, on the other hand, in a constitution which is not republican, and under which the subjects are not citizens, a declaration of war is the easiest thing in the world to decide upon, because war does not require of the ruler, who is the proprietor and not a member of the state, the least sacrifice of the pleasures of his table, the chase, his country houses, his court functions, and the like. He may, therefore, resolve on war as on a pleasure party for the most trivial reasons, and with perfect indifference leave the justification which decency requires to the diplomatic corps who are ever ready to provide it. In order not to confuse the republican constitution with the democratic (as is commonly done), the following should be noted. The forms of a state (civitas) can be divided either according to the persons who possess the sovereign power or according to the mode of administration exercised over the people by the chief, whoever he may be. The first is properly called the form of sovereignty (forma imperii), and there are only three possible forms of it: autocracy, in which one, aristocracy, in which some associated together, or democracy, in which all those who constitute society, possess sovereign power. They may be characterized, respectively, as the power of a monarch, of the nobility, or of the people. The second division is that by the form of government (forma regiminis) and is based on the way in which the state makes use of its power; this way is based on the constitution, which is the act of the general will through which the many persons become one nation. In this respect government is either republican or despotic. Republicanism is the political principle of the separation of the executive power (the administration) from the legislative; despotism is that of the autonomous execution by the state of laws which it has itself decreed. Thus in a despotism the public will is administered by the ruler as his own will. Of the three forms of the state, that of democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which "all" decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, "all," who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom. Every form of government which is not representative is, properly speaking, without form. The legislator can unite in one and the same person his function as legislative and as executor of his will just as little as the universal of the major premise in a syllogism can also be the subsumption of the particular under the universal in the minor. And even though the other two constitutions are always defective to the extent that they do leave room for this mode of administration, it is at least possible for them to assume a mode of government conforming to the spirit of a representative system (as when Frederick II at least said he was merely the first servant of the state).5 On the other hand, the democratic mode of government makes this impossible, since everyone wishes to be master. Therefore, we can say: the smaller the personnel of the government (the smaller the number of rulers), the greater is their representation and the more nearly the constitution approaches to the possibility of republicanism; thus the constitution may be expected by gradual reform finally to raise itself to republicanism. For these reasons it is more difficult for an aristocracy than for a monarchy to achieve the one completely juridical constitution, and it is impossible for a democracy to do so except by violent revolution. The mode of governments, however, is incomparably more important to the people than the form of sovereignty, although much depends on the greater or lesser suitability of the latter to the end of [good] government. To conform to the concept of law, however, government must have a representative form, and in this system only a republican mode of government is possible; without it, government is despotic and arbitrary, whatever the constitution may be. None of the ancient so-called "republics" knew this system, and they all finally and inevitably degenerated into despotism under the sovereignty of one, which is the most bearable of all forms of despotism. <end quote> It is clear that Kant prefers a constitutional republic, with a guarantee of human rights, to a pure democracy. In other words, he rightly saw that articles like the US Bill of Rights do limit the sovereign power of the majority, and he favored that. Without a doubt, he also favors representative government...he states it directly above. He also favors checks and balances to the sovereign power of the majority, which does not seem unreasonable to me. To oppose that in principal would require opposing the US Bill of Rights, for example, because that's exactly what the Bill of Rights does....limit the power of government to act against individuals...even if those actions are favored by the majority. > Oh, you can argue that I misuse the name "enlightenment" when I describe it in my JRRTolkien paper. >Then maybe I need another term for whatever's the opposite in the two sides that posit nostalgia vs. >progress, past vs. future golden ages, feudalism vs. democracy, apprenticeships vs. professions, crafts vs. >factories, incantations (of faith, reason or ideology) vs. pragmatism. I think you are referring to for what is generally called "modernism." Modernism encompasses a wide range of philosophical traditions, including Marxism and Nazism, as well as the tradition of liberal democracies (republics). You do differ from JRR Tolkien in that you are a modernist, and he is a classicist. But, you and Stalin, and I are all modernists. The difference between Stalin and myself is his belief in the "science" of the historical dialectic and my belief in human rights. From all your writings, I conclude that you are fairly close to me on this division. A google of the 'net reveals that Kant's ideas are well regarded in the development of the philosophy/implementation of liberal democracies. Your diamond shaped ideal and Kant's political views are extremely compatible....as far as I understand both. One final point. The conflict now is not so much between the classical and modern viewpoints, but between the modern and post modern viewpoints. PoMo, IMHO, represents a much more serious challenge to modern philosophy than classicism. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
