Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts, Uncategorized

On Democracy, an Index

by Dave Seng

The democracy series was a large project, so I decided to collect all the links and post them here in a kind of index. The hope is to organize the entire series and allow easier discovery of the posts. I also posted the works cited here as a helpful resource.

A final thought. I hope the series has been helpful in coming to terms with what a democracy actually is and why America is no longer one. It has become fashionable in some circles to claim that there is an inherent extreme individualism in the Western definition of democracy that is to blame for the decline of democratic societies in the West. Although it is true that many such as Locke did emphasize a kind of individualism, an unbridled or unrestricted individualism was never part of the Western idea of democracy. This should be clear from reading the Greeks and Roman (primarily Stoic) presentations of consensual representation. When things go bad (and they certainly are today) often it is because the fundamentals have been forgotten or rejected.

The posts:

On Democracy, Part One can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Two can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Three can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Four can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Five can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Six can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Seven can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Eight can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Nine can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Ten can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Eleven can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Twelve can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Thirteen can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Fourteen can be found here.

Works cited:

Adler, Mortimer. Adler’s Philosophical Dictionary. New York: Scribner, 1995.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 9, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

— Politics, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 9, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Euripides, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes., Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 5, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Goodwin, Gerald, Richard Current, Paula A. Franklin. A History of the United States. 2nd ed. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1985.

Herodotus, The History of Herodotus, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 6, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Homer. Iliad. Trans. by Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin Books, 1991.

Hutchins, Robert. The Great Conversation: A Reader’s Guide to Great Books of the Western World. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1994.

Kagan, Donald. Pericles of Athens And The Birth of Democracy, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991.

Lukacs, John. Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 11th ed.

Miller, Ed. Questions That Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 1996.

Pascal, The Provincial Letters, Pensees, Scientific Treatises, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 33, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Plato, The Republic,tr. Francis MacDonald Cornford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1945.

“Stoicism.” Encyclopedia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD 5 July 2006.

The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Ed. Hammond, N.G. L. and H.H. Scullard. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization. Ed. by Hornblower, Simon and Anthony Spawforth. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998.

Thucydides. The History of The Peloponnesian War, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 6, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Woodruff, Paul. First Democracy: The Challenge of An Ancient Idea. New York: Oxford University Press.

Consensual Government, Education, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Ten

by Dave Seng

The palm of courage will surely be adjudged most justly to those, who best know the difference between hardship and pleasure and yet are never tempted to shrink from danger. — Pericles of Athens

Part nine can be found here.

Historians and political philosophers have wondered exactly how educated the Athenian citizens were during the time of Solon or Pericles. Plato himself saw democracy as the rule of the ignorant. While a democracy based on the rule of the uneducated, would clearly be a disaster, it is unclear that Athens fits this description. In his famous funeral oration, Pericles calls Athens the “school of Hellas”1 (the school of all Greece). He states that education was offered to all foreigners even when it hurt Athenian national interests. He also explains that the average citizen was able to both pursue industry and be involved in the affairs of the state. The citizen was competent and educated enough to do both. Pericles tells us,

Our public men have, besides politics their private affairs to attend to, and our ordinary citizens, though occupied with the pursuits of industry, are still fair judges of public matters; for unlike any other nation, regarding him who takes no part in these duties not as unambitious but as useless. 2

In Periclean Athens, the educated citizen was required to take part in the governance of the city and his education was such that allowed him to be a competent judge in state matters. Pericles goes on to say, “We Athenians are able to judge all events and … instead of looking on discussion as a stumbling-block in the way of action, we think it an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all.”3 An important part of Athenian education was dialectic in nature. Socrates with his students, would ask important questions, seek definitions, and rationally reflect on answers along with his students through a process of discussion. Athenian students would actively study the art of rhetoric (public speaking), memorize the works of Homer, and read poetry in public (as Herodotus did). This form of education not only prepared the student for public speaking and debate but also gave him a sense of his own history. Public speaking, debate, and discussion are essential elements of any democracy. Also, it is unlikely that many fools or incompetents played a significant role in public affairs, perhaps no more so than today.4 If a citizen attended no more than half the minimum number of yearly sessions, he would still hear twenty sets of debates by the ablest people in the state, chiefly elected officials or those formerly holding elective office, the leading politicians in all factions, and a considerable number of experts on a variety of subjects. Moreover, these were true debates in which it was impossible to hold prepared remarks.5 This would have led to an incredible education in itself. Many in the audience would have been previous officeholders and could draw from their experience, knowledge, and education to judge the debates.

The next post will explore the classical influence of the American founding.

1 Thucydides. The History of The Peloponnesian War, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 6, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 397.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Kagan, Donald. Pericles of Athens And The Birth of Democracy, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991), 59.

5 Ibid.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Five

by Dave Seng

Part four can be found here.

Aristotle is important to the history of democracy in many ways. Here, an examination of some of his most important contributions is in order. Aristotle contributed to the development of democracy by arguing for a greater role of the middle class in consensual government, a robust view of natural law, and a belief that institutions shape the civic virtues and values of the citizenry. Aristotle had a high view of the state, as is clear from the opening lines of his Politics. The state is, in fact, the most encompassing of human institutions and strives for the highest good for the human being, whom Aristotle called not only a “rational animal” but also a “political animal.”1 Aristotle explains his fundamental point of departure in the opening passage of his Politics,

Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other and at the highest good.2

Aristotle rejected Plato’s utopian idealism, intellectual elitism, and communism. He also maintained a healthy and realistic fear of what he called “extreme democracy” (mob rule, again). But he nevertheless believed that some kind of democracy was possible and believed that the middle class was able to play a part in consensual democratic government under the rule of law. After all, he realized that the middle class has a greater stake in the success of the state. Furthermore, Aristotle believed it was possible to create a mutually beneficial government between the aristocratic and middle classes of society. Somehow government must accommodate and make use of the rank and file of the ordinary citizenry with its collective experience, insight, and good sense. Aristotle explains,

The principle that the multitude ought to be supreme rather than the few best is one that is maintained, and, though not free from difficulty, yet seems to contain an element of truth. For the many, of whom each individual is but an ordinary person, when they meet together may very likely be better than the few good, if regarded not individually but collectively, just as a feast to which many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse. For each individual among the many has a share of virtue and prudence, and when they meet together, they become in a manner one man, who has many feet and hands, and senses; that is a figure of their mind and disposition.3

Aristotle believes that shared rule between the many and the few is possible. Even so, he is aware that democracy has its problems. He understands the real danger of the tyranny of the majority and rejects populism. He also understands the degenerative character of human nature. Aristotle, however, thinks that the greater danger lies in keeping the many out of political rule. He seeks a balance between the rule of the few (in his understanding the best citizens) and the many. He tells us,

There is still a danger in allowing them [the many] to share the great offices of state, for their folly will lead them into error, and their dishonesty into crime. But there is a danger also in not letting them share, for a state in which many poor men are excluded from office will necessarily be full of enemies. The only way of escape is to assign to them some deliberative and judicial functions. For this reason Solon and certain other legislators give them the power of electing to offices, and of calling the magistrates into account, but they do not allow them to hold office singly. When they meet together their perceptions are quite good enough, and combined with the better class they are useful to the state (just as impure food when mixed with what is pure sometimes makes the entire mass more wholesome than a small quantity of the pure would be), but each individual left to himself, forms an imperfect judgment.4

Part of Aristotle’s political project was to discover a way the middle class could share power with the aristocracy. In Aristotle, we begin to see the Western value of the many and shared consensual government. He does not believe the many should obtain every single office in the state, but they should have deliberative and judicial functions for the purposes of legal recourse and to hold magistrates accountable. Aristotle understood the state would have a stronger stability when citizens shared power and were responsible for the success of the state. On the other hand, he understood the temptation of human nature to devolve into a crass extreme democracy, clash of wills, and mob rule. Aristotle’s solution to this problem was to formulate a conception of natural law.

Natural law points to the general and universal rules of conduct, both personal and social, derived from nature, which is conceived as rationally ordered.5 Natural law is also known from human nature (human nature being a phenomenon in the world more generally). One of Aristotle’s most important contributions to political thought is his understanding of natural law as the foundation of all social and political institutions. In his Ethics, Aristotle distinguished between conventional law, or law that is established by general agreement, and natural law, which is derived directly from the natural order of the world and from built-in tendencies of human nature.6 Again, here is a connection between metaphysics, epistemology and social-political thought. Aristotle finds in the universe fixed essences in the particulars of this world. He believes that these fixed essences of things define the orderliness and lawfulness of the cosmos, and can be rationally inducted, articulated, and useful to all areas of life including the structures of our political institutions.

Along with other fundamental principles, the foundation of our social and political life is rooted in human nature. This is why in his Politics, Aristotle is profoundly concerned with the civic virtues and character of the individual citizen. The character of our or social and political life is based in the very nature of things and our political institutions simply reflect human nature. For Aristotle, his statement that “man is a political animal” is as much a statement about actual human nature as is “man is a rational animal.” The basic principles of social existence and institutions are not, therefore, “up for grabs”; rather, they up for rational discovery, expression, and application.7

Aristotle also realizes, however, that the state is in some sense “a creation of nature” and is prior to the individual and necessary for the cultivation of civilization and human virtue. (In Aristotle’s view it is the role of the state and civil institutions to create civic virtue among its citizens.) However, there is a sense that the state is prior to the individual simply because the state is a creation of human nature and a social instinct has been implanted into humanity to form governments and states. He explains,

Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the

Tribeless, lawless, hearthless one,

whom Homer denounces – the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war; he may be compared to an isolated piece at draughts.

… The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole. But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue , which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society.8

History certainly illustrates the concept of human nature and “that man separated from law and justice is the worst of all.” Aristotle is not the only thinker in Western thought to be persuaded with the idea of natural law. Natural law theory has been embraced by thinkers as diverse as the Greek and Roman Stoics to St. Thomas Aquinas in the middle ages, and John Locke in the early modern era.9 Natural law theory serves to bolster democracy by providing a legal foundation for all human action and behavior. The Greeks had a profound respect for the rule of law and believed that the idea of law itself was a gift from the gods.

1 Miller, 498.

2 Aristotle, Politics, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 9, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 445.

3 Ibid., 479.

4 Ibid.

5 Miller, 585.

6 Ibid., 494.

7 Ibid., 500.

8 Aristotle, Politics, 446.

9 Aristotle, Stoic thought, and others have shared the general view of reality that social and political values are built into the world and human nature from the start. Natural law theory was also rediscovered during the renaissance.