Preview of the Natural Politic Order (Updated)
“The society we have described can never grow into a reality or see the light of day, and there will be no end to the troubles of states, or indeed, my dear Glaucon, of humanity itself, till philosophers are kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands, while the many natures now content to follow either to the exclusion of the other are forcibly debarred from doing so. This is what I have hesitated to say so long, knowing what a paradox it would sound; for it is not easy to see that there is no other road to happiness, either for society or the individual.” — Plato, “The Republic”
2000 years later and the old problem is still not solved, we struggled, we tried, but we are still trapped in the same antinomy of misery. It was with this old problem of humanity that my journey for understanding started, the creation of a better world was my intention, solving this old problem the task I set before me.
The goal Plato, and many before and after him, could not reach, was the symbiosis of freedom and stability, the formula for an enlightened society. Prior attempts to reach this symbiosis created only chimeras, unfinished constructs, no-places, utopias, and all those incomplete symbiosen were either never realized or ended in chaos and/or tyranny. In monoistic political systems, with the exception of local small scale forms of organization, an exception for which the explanation will fallow later on, there exists a strict antinomy between freedom and stability. This is not just by accident but has it’s roots in the human nature, more precise, in the antinomy between our consciousness and our instincts. It’s this antinomy between the elements of humanity and animality within us, this eternal fight, which is the real problem standing in the way of every free society. Like the fellow metaphysician Proudhon noticed; “man’s life is a permanent war, war with want, war with nature, war with his fellows, and consequently war with himself.” Overcoming this antinomy, in the political systems govern our lives and in ourselves, is the key to evolve, the key to a better world. It’s likely that this antinomy within is the very reason humans started to believe in the existence of a soul in the first place, the concept of a “soul” is most likely nothing but an attempt to explain the existence of opposing elements within us, the concept of “good and evil” nothing but a childish attempt to describe the conflict between them. Evolution, consciousness, early man was equally ignorant about those things and so they connected the elements of humanity, the pure, with the “divine”, and those elements of animality, the inpure, with the mortal.
The symbiosis of freedom and stability, the way out of the anytinomy, is most likely the very task with which the field of political thought started in Europe so long ago. The Natural Politic Order in an attempt to arrive at this symbiosis by merging elements of a special form of aristocracy; rule of the wise, with democracy; rule of the majority, into an dynamic, in the sense of non-static and highly adjustable, Enlightened Republic. By merging elements of both systems it appears possible, reality always has the last word on this matter, to overcome most of the faults these systems have alone and thus get the key to solve one of the oldest problems in the field of political science, the key to a better world. The fellow Prussian metaphisician Immanuel Kant conceived the situation very similar in his essay “The Natural Principle of the Political Order”; “It is only in a civil society which possesses the greatest liberty, and which consequently involves a thorough antagonism of it’s members-with, however, the most determination and guarantee of the limits of this liberty in order that it may coexist with the liberty of others-that the highest purpose of nature, which is the development of all her capacities, can be attained in the case of mankind.”
Most before me failed because they made externals responsible for the instability in human societies, an instability which is really based on something within. Others failed because they tried to suppress the human consciousness so to basically get “human-animals”, humans reduced to a much lower level of awareness, and thus in extension, a much lower level of existence. The later only created tyrannies, and since a lack of freedom cripples development, most of them were historically either overrun by more advanced people, or became backward places void of progress and freedom. The first Soviet Union was such a place. Than there are still the anarchists, their systems and ideas are not bad and point into the right direction, but is the multitude of man truly ready yet to life completely on their own? I doubt it. It’s a matter of fact that most domesticated animals require a process of transition before it’s possible to release them back into the wilderness, the domesticated life simply made them loose most of the abilities and skills required to live on their own. Why should it be different with man? The Natural Political Order is meant as a vehicle of transition, an attempt to solve the likely most difficult problem in the area of politics, another point in which Immanuel Kant agreed with me in his essey on the natural principle of the political order; “The difficulty which the mere idea of this problem brings into view, is that man is an animal, and if he lives among others of his kind he has need of a master. For he certainly misuses his freedom in relation to his fellow man; and, although as a rational creature, he desires a law which may set bounds to the freedom of all, yet his own selfish animal inclinations lead him whatever he can, to except himself from it. He, therefore, requires a master … Where, then, does he obtain this master? Nowhere but in the human race. But this master is an animal too, and also requires a master. .. This problem, is, therefore, the most difficult of it’s kind; and, indeed, it’s perfect solution is impossible.”
It’s his nature, the selfish animal impulses and desires, which lead man to do bad to his fellow man. To overcome this, a form of organization, political and economical, would be required which leaves enough freedom, space, for the consciousness to develop while offering enough checks of balance to keep the animal impulses in check, a symbiosis of freedom and stability.
That was a small part from the introduction of my current project, The Natural Politic Order, it’s my attempt to solve Plato’s problem. I’m currently far from being done yet but the part of the intro above and 4 proposition anyone is welcome to disprove, if possible, I can offer as preview. Keep in mind that they are not final yet.
“Antinomy” describes a state of being struggling for progress.
Antinomy, literally counter-law, means opposition in principle or antagonism in relation. The term describes the struggle between the forces of progress and preservation, two opposing forces always tending to mutual destruction. In the human mind the same kind of relationship exists between our consciousness and our desires and instincts, the elements of humanity and animality within us. The relationship between what is usually called “the left” and “the right” for example is also such an antinomy. A change always requires to give something up in order to gain something new, in order to become semi-rational beings we had to give up parts of our animality, in order to become adults we had to leave our childhood behind, and in order to become educated we had to leave ignorance behind. The term “antinomy” describes is the state of being between changes, the struggle, the “inbetween”. Existence is a constant battle between the forces progress and preservation, thesis and anti-thesis. In cases when the forces of progress and preservation are equally in force, something similar to an equilibrium is formed and the road to progress blocked. This principle by the way is sometimes used to fight fire in forests, by causing another fire, an opposing force, it’s sometimes possible to block the main fire from making progress by creating an antinomy between both.
Antinomy is a state of being in want of progress, discovering an antinomy means discovering a possibility for progress, for change. The antinomy between the elements of humanity and animality within us is therefore a clear indicator that human developing is far from being done yet, humanity is the negation of animality and our journey to become fully rational beings has just started.
Freedom is the matter of what constitutes humanity within us, moving forward the cognition of the necessity.
Freedom, one of those terms so common and yet so undefined. I define freedom as the liberation from a state of mere servitude, external or internal. Freedom requires free will, and free will requires freedom from the tyranny of instincts and desires. It’s plain therefore that animals are not free, and so in order to gain a little freedom, life had to develop, to move on. The process of emancipation historically started with the development of what we call “consciousness”, the development of a consciousness was the key to unlock the first door on the long road to freedom, the liberation from the servitude of a mere thing. Mammals were the first beings to develop a consciousness of their own, the first to overcome the state of a mere thing. It was a long journey from the first mammals with consciousness, the first beings partly aware of their own existence, to the ancient Greek philosopher, the highest manifestation of consciousness and awareness humanity reached so far. Without a consciousness there can exist no awareness, no freedom, a being without a consciousness is therefore only a thing. But awareness is a two edged sword, for early man is was curse and blessing at once. For with higher levels of awareness early man slowly became aware of his own misery, his servitude to nature, his lack of freedom. Awareness can be painful! Modern man consumes all kind of drugs to gain some freedom from it! Others, like the Buddhists for example, seek for nothingness, the state of mind of a mere thing, a state totally void of awareness, to escape this antinomy of misery. A being without awareness maybe only a thing, but a mere thing at least remains unaware of it’s own misery, it’s servitude, it’s lack of freedom. Therefore we do not even use terms like “misery” when things without awareness are concerned.
So here was early man, ignorant and void of knowledge, but painfully aware of his own misery. While his level of consciousness and intelligence made him superior to all other animals, it also made him suffer far more. Basically every day in the life of a man constitutes an almost endless amount of battles, this war between the elements of humanity and animality within us is going on ever since man became consciousness of himself. It’s this suffering, this state of injustice, that is moving human society ever since. We are neither fish nor meat, neither rational nor irrational, but something inbetween. And it’s this being inbetween what is the cause of all our misery. Moving forward is the cognition of the necessity because only by moving forward, by overcoming the antinomy within, man may ends his misery. The ancient Greek philosopher were among the first which acknowledged that fact, they were well aware that man is far less than what he should be. The majority of man, no to mention the whole opposite sex, has yet to reach the level of awareness of a philosopher, the logical next step in human development. Developing a consciousness opened Pandora’s box and now we have to finish the journey we started, or to suffer forever.
Freedom is the motor of human progress.
By looking back at human history it’s clear that freedom is the essence behind our development. Like Aristotle, another fellow metaphisician, already noticed a long time ago; “Man, in order to think, in order to feel himself free, in order to become man, must be freed from the material cares of daily life.” Both, mans own development and the development of society, required leisure, the freedom from the tyranny of necessity. The first major place in human development was ancient Egypt, for in ancient Egypt the priestly caste was allowed to be at leisure, and so, based on the freedom from the tyranny of necessity the priestly caste enjoyed, most of the first sciences, like the arts of mathematics and construction for example, were first discovered there. Basically it’s all about the fact that the mind in order to put it’s capacity to use for higher matters, higher in the sense of above the mere necessity, requires freedom from all those lower things which try to keep it contented with lower matters; instincts, desires, the mere necessity of survival. Factors like competition and starvation, ya misery in general, historically keeped people from developing by keeping them focused only on lower matters. The way of life is as much a factor in development as are the abilities given by nature, without freedom only focused on lower matters, mere necessity, even the most gifted are unlikely to cultivate much understanding, let alone create progress. The main reason that some people did not develop at all, or did not develop much, was and still is a lack of freedom. In Africa for example the multitude of man never reached freedom from their desires and instincts and so they never came into a position to content themself with higher matters and so they basically did not develop at all. Culture, religion, science, art, written language, those are all higher matters for they are above the mere necessity for human survival.
Freedom, external and internal, is at once motor and product of human progress, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. Denying people their freedom constitutes a crime against life itself since it effectively denies them the chance of progress, next to reproduction the main goal of life itself.
Man is only truly free, or to be more precise, as free as he can be, among equally free man.
This point is a huge problem for any free society, man are not so equal in all areas and sometimes those lacking in some on them deny others their freedom simply by being non-equal. As things stand, I’m a European proletarian slave which has to pay the prize for his own slavery, and the reason for this is simply, it’s those morons not equal to me which are so easily fooled most of the time. They are told that giving up the very freedom and independence their forefathers gave their life for is a good thing and they believe it. And it’s not just those stupid and ignorant, it’s also those “developing people” from developing nations, people which usually lack self control to such a degree that to contain them, surveillance, prisons, and all kinds of evils are required. Society has to work with the smallest common nominator and forcing developed people to life by third world standards is therefore tyranny. It’s like putting an adult student in Kindergarten and to force him to live the same life by the same rules as the children do. Even if he would not went crazy, violent, or depressive, that he develops in any direction but backwards would be extreme unlikely. For children it’s ok to live like children, for adults it is not.
I consider boarders as a much better choice than babylonianism, small and independent nations to be much better places than Orwellian super states void of freedom. “Equality” and “freedom” are arguments more in favor of boarders and separation than they are against it.
~ by metadave on December 3, 2007.
Posted in Anarchism, Education, Enlightenment, Philosophy/Metaphysics, Science, Solutions
Tags: Ancient Greece, Anti-Democracy, Athens, Democracy, Humanity, justice, Nature, Philosopher, philosophy, Plato, skeptikosexaminer, Society, The Republic