Democracy Philosophy, Not Religion

[CSwriter1]

Democracy is the result of philosophy, not political science.

The bible did not result in a concept of human rights, as people believed everything was up to God, and God put people in the positions of life they had, and all the lowest were to do, was to obey those God put over them. Christian Europe believing we are evil by nature and born in sin, was sure there must be strong authority over the people to keep control of them. The Christian world was fighting evil, and is again today. As today people believe the US's war against "evil" is necessary. So do the Muslims fighting to keep the US influence out of their territory. Speak of cultural change! This emotionalism is not the thinking culture that democracy is suppose to be, and it seem subconsciously we know that as we the Muslims who believe they are fighting evil.

The concept of human rights came from philosophers such as Locke. The concept of liberty was shocking to those who believed we are born in sin. Christian Europe did not expect the democracy, with liberty, of the US to succeed.

Locke, and other educated people of his day, were literate in Greek and Roman classics. No one saw democracy in the bible, until there was literarily in these classics, and people began returning to the concept of a God that rules by reason, rather than one that rules by whim, because he is pleased or displeased.

Newton was important to democracy, because his science validate the universe is ordered. He was Christian, however, when validation of an order universe is mixed with Cicero, we get a stronger argument for democracy.

"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of
universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons
to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong doing by its
prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or
prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any
effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law,
nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it, and it
is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed
from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not
look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it.
And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens,
or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal
and unchangeable law will be valued for all nations and all
times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God,
over us all, for he is the author of this law, its
promulgator, and its enforcing judge.
Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying
his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will
suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is
commonly considered punishment." - Cicero

Cicero was a Roman statesman and read by most educated men, playing a strong role in the development of our form of government, which we don't seem to understand any more, thanks to people who insist the US is not a democracy, but a republic. So was Nazi, Christian Germany a republic, and the US has imitated Germany in every significant way, and if we do not come to a better understanding of what democracy as a culture with government as only one expression of that culture, we have fought every war for nothing!

Look up Naturalism, get a better understanding of "True law is right reason in agreement with nature" and what was meant by the "pursuit of happiness". Science is to democracy what Christianity is to autocracy. The opposite of democracy is not communism, that is an economic difference that includes democratic voting. The opposite of democracy is autocracy, and since the US stopped educating for democracy, it has unleashed the power of autocracy, and is rapidly become identical to the Christian Republic it defeated in two world wars.
__________________

[CSwriter1]

Prehaps this thread is not as much fun as trying to find fault with someone, but I think it is a whole more important.

[scameter]

Does democracy only incorporate political philosophy though, or the whole range of philosophy? And can it incorporate more, like science or history?

[______]

I think it's important to understand America's version of democracy versus the ancient Greek's version. Their's was based solely in phlosophy and America's once had that idea. Though now, it's all about getting ahead.

But don't look to me for answers on this one. I'm not entirely sure about what I just typed. :rolleyes: I'm certainly no expert on this. :lol:

[scameter]

:D No my friend, you're right. But, the main difference between the democracy of ancient Greece, even thought it too had republic aspects as ours does, is capitalism. America's government maybe that of a democratic republic, but we are capitalist, first and foremost; it is what America was founded on (rather brilliantly I believe), it is what has made us so very powerful, and it is what makes America what it is. Democratic republic is simply our government.

[CSwriter1]

Soldier of Truth, you are exactly right, but need more information, and if you follow the link I left at Pursuit of Happiness, you will have the needed information.
Check it out, think about what you said, and let us know what you think. :P

[CSwriter1]

Scameter, from the time of Athens, science as essential to democracy, and only recently have we divided philosophy into different branches, rather understanding it just as a way of understanding life, which included a scientific pursuit of truth.

All over the world, people had ideas of Gods and creation. What separated Athens from all the rest is through math, Thales and Pythagoras and others, concluded the universe is ordered. This is very different from believing the Gods and Goddesses ruled by whim, depending on their mood for the day, and if they were pleased or displeased. No, they did not, rule by whim and do as they pleased, because even they were subject to universal law. Like if even the Gods are subject to the law, shouldn't acknowledge kings too are subject to the law? Aren't we all equal under universal law?

I will use Cicero again, so may be everyone will get the connection between science, philosophy and democracy. Keep in mind, Jefferson wrote of the Laws of nature.

"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of
universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons
to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong doing by its
prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or
prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any
effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law,
nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it, and it
is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed
from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not
look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it.
And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens,
or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal
and unchangeable law will be valued for all nations and all
times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God,
over us all, for he is the author of this law, its
promulgator, and its enforcing judge.
Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying
his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will
suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is
commonly considered punishment."

You can not have happiness if you do not understand the true law, the law of nature, universal law. Nor can you have democracy with liberty.

[scameter]

Scameter, from the time of Athens, science as essential to democracy, and only recently have we divided philosophy into different branches, rather understanding it just as a way of understanding life, which included a scientific pursuit of truth.

Indeed, but not exclusively. In the past, other methods of finding truth, such as religion, were more popular, whereas the scientific ventures of the time were so inept that following them was only really applicable in a few ways, namely technology, even though they did attempt to follow their findings, they were still full of religious claims. Unlike modern times.

This is very different from believing the Gods and Goddesses ruled by whim, depending on their mood for the day, and if they were pleased or displeased. No, they did not, rule by whim and do as they pleased, because even they were subject to universal law. Like if even the Gods are subject to the law, shouldn't acknowledge kings too are subject to the law? Aren't we all equal under universal law?

Not all societies believed the gods ruled purely by whim, for it was not that random; the gods each had specific qualities about them, and it was our job to please them. But, this is viewing god from the theistic viewpoint, and so in a less spiritual way. To some religions, such as Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, there was no god, only the spirit, and it's following with natural spirituality. But, these people did not use math and science in their spirituality; they were purely spiritual. To them, science and math, and indeed the entire attempt to gain knowledge purely for the sake of knowledge, was egoistic, and disharmonious with nature. To them, we are supposed to put aside our egos ans listen to our spirits and the spirit of the world. Philosophy and spirituality are/were of a very different breed in the East than the West, throughout history. To the West, it has always been about the individual, the person, the mind and ego, and we have exemplified this view in our theism by having our gods have individual, quite human identities and egos. From the Norse to the Celts to the Greeks and Romans and (I personally consider them more West than East) the Jews, theism has taken this variety. And, if theism is put aside, such as you say in Athens, the human mind and ego take it's place. In the East, the ego was to be put aside, as well as egoistic theism, in favour of the spirit, and of ideals such as honour. Hinduism is more theistic than other Eastern traditions, but even it is largely spiritual, and it's gods seem less egoistic than that of the West.

[CSwriter1]

Whoo, Scameter, I really have to chew on your thoughts this time. Like have always been aware of the east/west difference, but not enlightened of the difference. I wish you would put the east and west difference in its own thread for several reasons. Number one not many are participating in this thread and you have brought up something worth chewing on and pondering.

Here I have a burning question! B) What kind of government comes out of eastern thought? That egoism is very present in democracy! Like the distinctly difference Gods, we have to come to agreements. Democracy is imitating these Gods. Without them, without ego, how do people think of their government and their relationship to government?

Through math the Greeks determined the universe is ordered. I Ching is about an order universe. I think the east has put much importance on wisdom. How is this wisdom gained without science? Dang, these are meaty questions and could be very important to managing our politics today. I don't have answers.

[______]

Check it out, think about what you said, and let us know what you think.
:lol: Always willing to learn more. That's why I post here! :D Thank you CSwriter. I will definitly look into it.

[scameter]

Whoo, Scameter, I really have to chew on your thoughts this time. Like have always been aware of the east/west difference, but not enlightened of the difference. I wish you would put the east and west difference in its own thread for several reasons. Number one not many are participating in this thread and you have brought up something worth chewing on and pondering.

:wub: You guys are good at flattering me you know. :P I agree with you though, I probably should make an individual thread on this. Although I personally think someone like Thomas or ___ could do it better, because their knowledge is more specific, if you guys would rather me do it I'd be honoured. :)

What kind of government comes out of eastern thought? That egoism is very present in democracy! Like the distinctly difference Gods, we have to come to agreements. Democracy is imitating these Gods. Without them, without ego, how do people think of their government and their relationship to government?

Indeed. In democracy, the people believe themselves to be gods, in a sense, and enact this belief by giving themselves the ability to rule their own lives. This may seem odd, as if such freedom should be implied, but it is usually not; in a monarchy for instance, the people's wishes to not matter, only that of the monarchy, and in a dictatorship it is about the same. But, in a democracy, and essentially so too in a republic, the people elect their desires to be enacted, and work for the government to give it the ability to give the people what they elect. The only difference between a true democracy, where every single person has a say on everything, and a republic or democratic republic, is the way the election/voting takes place: in true democracy, as you probably know, every person votes on everything, but in the latter two, the people elect officials they find best at enacting their desires to give them what they want. The genius of combining capitalism with a democratic republic, especially for such a large population as America, is that the people elect their officials, and the people also must work for the liberty to have what they want; the officials only give them the ability to work for it, the freedom to. Now, Eastern societies, being so deeply founded on tradition and spiritual/religious beliefs, their governments are usually monarchies, which is usually an issue of honour and loyalty, both traditional things in Eastern cultures. To be subserviant (sp) to the monarchy is not to be lesser; but rather to give one's self with humility into the service of someone else, and in this case, usually something considered divine, i.e. the monarchy. And, anyone within a society in the East that is like this but does not follow it are seen as sad and empty, such as the ronens of samurai Japan, who were samurai without loyalty to a lord.

Through math the Greeks determined the universe is ordered. I Ching is about an order universe. I think the east has put much importance on wisdom. How is this wisdom gained without science? Dang, these are meaty questions and could be very important to managing our politics today. I don't have answers.

:) I'm simply glad you're asking and thinking. Not that I have all the answers, but I can try. In the West, reason and knowledge and the individual self and ego are placed at the front; with our emphasis on success, power, money, passion, emotion, and even equality, we attempt to make ourselves better through will. In the East, however, knowledge for knowledge's sake is seen as foolish, as such things are impractical and without cause. To them, experience is everything, as they are a very practical people, and thus wisdom, and virtue (wisdom in action), are the most important things, as they are gained from experience, and are realistic modes of thinking correctly. This is why Confucianist morality and formality, Taoist harmony and balance, and Buddhist, Hindu and Shinto traditionalism and religiosity have been so huge in the East: it goes along with their fundamental qualities.

[scameter]

This topic may be considered dead to many, but I have actually been considering a few things lately that, I think, are perhaps linked to it. I have recently read that Muhammed, the founder of Islam, at age 5o had sex with a girl of 9. It was recorded, as well as in other places, in a Muslim account, and was treated with absolutely no discontent or disgust, by the girl, her parents or the Muslim writers. Guatama (sp) Buddha left his wife and child that he had when he was prince to go and become the Buddha, essentially, because he had recognized the suffering of his people. In the Old Testament, which is considered both Christian and Jewish, one story illustrates how a man's two daughters had sex with him, for a reason that I forgot, but they did this nonetheless; it also accounts many rather unfair convictions by God unto his people, such as in the issue of Cain and Abel, where God simply asked for gifts to be given to him, and Abel brought a sheep because he was a shephard, and Cain brought vegetables because he was a farmer, and God punished Abel, and then further cursed him when Cain felt anger and enacted his revenge on his brother. These accounts are religious: they are done by people considered religious, in religious books and documents, and have not been considered bad by most people in the past and are ignored by practitioners of the religions today. In religion, many things are ignored that could possibly fragment the dogma: for instance, in the Bible/Torah, there are two totally seperate accounts of the Bible, in which the first seems extremely scientific, having no Eden, Adam, Eve, sin, etc., and the second giving all of that, and also the other issues I brought up previously regarding religions' historical representatives/creators. Because of people's following, choicefully, of religious philosophies, oppression, irrationality, death, and much unneeded hatred has come about. But, religion is not the only bringer of these sorts of things: it would seem, in history and currently but only now disapproved of by people, people have done many horrible things, such as murder, child molestation, abandonment of one's family, etc. And, many of these things have not been seen as bad for many centuries, many of which not until around the 1970s, such as the marriage of a child under 18, which was legal before around the 70s and 80s, from what I can tell (as an example, Jerry Lee Lewis married a 13 year old, which wasn't illegal then), in almost all countries. And, religions do not see such things, generally, as wrong either; and yet, they do see things such as murder, homosexuality, tattoos and similar things, many of which are very trivial and/or accepted in certain circumstances. Why is it that we have changed? I came to the conclusion, based on my limited knowledge of politics, culture and history, that people have changed of late in their views due to the incredible rise of the philosophies of individualism, freedom, consent/choice and realistic rationality. These types of things, of course, have always existed, but in extremely varying degree; until around the 18th century, they were almost invisible. But, at this time, it seems, the monarchies of governments, particularly those of Europe, were so oppressive that their people rebelled, this being fueled by the democratic philosophy of thinkers in those nations, such as the English colonies/America and France. These traits were then totally enforced in these two countries, but not forcefully but rather by the enjoyed choice of these nations' people, and the traits were then so admired by the peoples of other nations that they were taken, in varying degrees, by them, such as England, Germany, Russia, Italy, and even many Asian and African nations. Although, it seems, communism and political instability, in the case of South America and Africa, has limited this progress; thankfully, Russia got out of it. This is, indeed, I think, why science has been able to progress so much, and why humanitarianism has become so huge in the past half century. It has been allowed to freely progress, without the constraint of irrational religion and cultural traditions and philosophies.