In this paper, I develop two philosophically suggestive arguments that the late Justice Stevens made in Citizens United against the idea that business corporations have free speech rights. First, (1) while business corporations conceived as real entities are capable of a thin agency conceptually sufficient for moral rights, I argue that they fail to clear important justificatory hurdles imposed by interest or choice theories of rights. Business corporations conceived as real entities lack an interest in their (...) personal security; moreover, they are incapable of exercising innate powers of choice. Second, (2) I argue that the structure and functionally individualized purpose of a business corporation—to increase value for its shareholders—undermines the implicit joint commitment necessary to derive corporate rights of free speech from non-operative shareholder-member rights. Since one cannot transfer innate moral rights such as free speech, any exercise of this right on behalf of another must be limited in scope. (shrink)

In its January 20th, 2010 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court ruled that certain restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations for political advocacy violate the First Amendment of the Constitution, which provides that “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Justice Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 majority, (...) held that “[b]y suppressing the speech of manifold corporations, both for-profit and non-profit, the Government prevents their voices and view-points from reaching the public and advising voters on which person or entities are hostile to their interests” (Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 38-9 (2010); emphasis added). Much of the language of the opinion, and some of its reasoning, as this passage illustrates, presupposes that corporations are agents capable of speech, and that it is (at least in part) in the light of this that limitations on political advocacy by corporations are prohibited by the Constitution. -/- While there are other strands in the argument, they are interwoven with the conception of the corporation as agent and speaker, with its voice and its viewpoints. The dissenters on the court objected on precisely this point (among others). Justice Stevens wrote sarcastically in his dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, that “[u]nder the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech” (558 U.S. 33 (2010)). Justice Sotomayor suggested in oral argument that the Court’s century-old practice of treating corporations as persons rests on a conceptual mistake. -/- My concern in this essay is not with the question whether the restrictions violate the Constitution. There are many issues that bear on this which will be outside the scope of my discussion. My concern is with the proper conceptual framework for understanding the agency of corporations and corporate speech, and the role that conceptions of these play in the background of the majority’s reasoning. The issue is legal, but it also has philosophical, conceptual and semantic aspects. It will be the latter aspects, and their potential to shed light on legal reasoning, that are my main focus. An adequate framework requires saying what properly speaking the corporation is, how agency is expressed through the corporation, whose agency it is, centrally whether the corporation is an agent or person in its own right, and in what sense it can be said to be capable of speech. I draw on recent work in collective action theory, particularly with respect to the semantics of collective action sentences (Ludwig 2007) and the analysis of the proxy agency in collective action (Ludwig 2014), to show (i) that corporations are neither genuine agents nor (therefore) capable of engaging in genuine speech, (ii) that consequently the First Amendment does not apply to corporations per se, and (iii) that a better understanding of the mechanisms of corporate agency casts doubt on more indirect arguments for extending the First Amendment to “corporate speech” as well. (shrink)

Regarding the relation of Plato’s early and middle period dialogues, scholars have been divided to two opposing groups: unitarists and developmentalists. While developmentalists try to prove that there are some noticeable and even fundamental differences between Plato’s early and middle period dialogues, the unitarists assert that there is no essential difference in there. The main goal of this article is to suggest that some of Plato’s ontological as well as epistemological principles change, both radically and fundamentally, between the early and (...) middle period dialogues. Though this is a kind of strengthening the developmentalistic approach corresponding the relation of the early and middle period dialogues, based on the fact that what is to be proved here is a essential development in Plato’ ontology and his epistemology, by expanding the grounds of development to the ontological and epistemological principles, it hints to a more profound development. The fact that the bipolar and split knowledge and being of the early period dialogues give way to the tripartite and bound knowledge and benig of the middle period dialogues indicates the development of the notions of being and knowledge in Plato’s philosophy before the dialogues of the middle period. -/- Keywords Plato; early dialogues; middle dialogues; being; knowledge; development -/- Introduction The differences between two groups of the early and middle period dialogues have always been a matter of dispute. Whereas the developmentalists like Vlastos, Silverman (2002), Teloh (1981), Dancy (2004) and Rickless (2007) think that from the early to the middle dialogues Plato’s philosophy changes, at least in some essential points, the unitarists like Kahn, Cherniss and Shorey believe that there happens no development and the differences must be taken as natural, ignorable and even pedagogic. In his well-known article, Socrates contra Socrates in PLATO, Vlastos lists ten theses of difference between two groups of dialogues. The first group which includes Plato’s early dialogues he divides to 'elenctic' (Apology, Charmides, Crito, Euthyphro, Gorgias, Hippias Minor, Ion, Laches, Protagoras and Republic I) and 'transitional' (Euthydemus, Hippias Major, Lysis, Menexenus and Meno) dialogues. These transitional come after all the elenctic dialogues and before all the dialogues of the second group which compose Plato’s middle period dialogues, including (with Vlastos' chronological order) Cratylus, Phaedo, Symposium, Republic II-X, Phaedrus, Parmenides and Theaetetus (1991, 46-49). Vlastos asserts strictly that his list of differences are 'so diverse in content and method that they contrast as sharply with one another as with any third philosophy you care to mention, beginning with Aristotole’s' (ibid, 46). Vlastos’ list of differences between two Socrateses is considered a view breaking sharply between the early and the middle dialogues. Besides all ten differences between the two Socrateses in Vlastos’ list that can be supportive for our doctrine here, we intend to focus on some ontological as well as epistemological distinctions that have not completely been discussed hitherto. Contrary to the developmentalist theory of Vlastos, unitarian theory of Charles Kahn wishes to eliminate any substantial difference between the early and the middle dialogues. He distinguishes seven 'pre-middle' or 'threshold' dialogues including Laches, Charmides, Euthyphro, Protagoras, Meno, Lysis and Euthydemus from the other Socratic dialogues which he calls 'earliest group' (1996, 41). The threshold dialogues, Kahn thinks, 'embarke upon a sustained project' that is to reach to its climax in the middle period dialogues, namely Phaedo, Symposium and Republic. Believing in that there is no 'fundamental shift'between the early and middle dialogues (ibid, 40), Kahn thinks the Socratic dialogues are just the 'first stage' with a 'deliberate silence' towards the theories of later periods (ibid, 339). One of the reasons of the surprising fact that Plato gives no hint of the metaphysics and epistemology of the Forms in the early dialogues, he thinks, is the pedagogical advantages of aporia. He thinks that Plato 'obscurely', and mostly because of education, hinted to some doctrines and conceptions in his early dialogues and with the aim of clarifying them only in the later ones (ibid, 66). The seven threshold dialogues, Kahn asserts, 'had been designed from the first' to prepare the pupils and readers for the views expounded in the middle period dialogues (ibid, 59-60). To show that the differences of the two Socrateses of the early and middle period dialogue are in their onto-epistemological grounds and thence cannot be explained by a unitaristic view, we try to draw the ontological and epistemological principles of the early dialogues in the first part below in order to show, in the second part, that those principles have been developed in the middle period dialogues. -/- A. The Onto-Epistemologic Principles of the Early Dialogues Socratic dialogues are paradoxical about knowledge because while being knowledge-oriented always searching for knowledge, they deny it and even never discuss it directly. Three elements of Socrates’ way of searching Knowledge throughout the early dialogues, i.e. Socratic 'what is X?' question, his disavowal of knowledge and his elenctic method combined together produce something like a circle which works, more or less, in the same way in these dialogues. Though this circle is an embaressing inquiry always resulting in ignorance instead of knowledge, its motivation is surprisingly Socrates’ passionate enthusiasm for knowledge, an intensive love of wisdom. The starting point of this circle is Socrates’ confession of having no knowledge which might be explicitly asserted or presupposed, maybe because it was one of the famous characteristics of Socrates; a confession always paradoxically accompanied with his intense longing for knowledge (e.g., Gorgias 505e4-5). Every time Socrates encounters with someone who thinks he knows something (οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι) (Apology 21d5) and tries to examine him. This examination seems to be the simplest one asking just what it is that he knows. Socrates’ elenchus, therefore, is always connected with 'what is X?' (τίς ποτέ ἐστιν) question, a question that most of the early dialogues of Plato are concerned with; 'what is courage?' in the Laches, 'what is piety?' in Euthydemus, 'what is temperance?' in Charmides and 'what is beauty?' in Hippias Major. This question we call here 'Socratic question' and probably is the very question the historical Socrates used to employ, is tightly interrelated with both his disavowal and his elenchus. He disclaims knowledge because he cannot find the answer to the question himself and he rejects others’ since they cannot offer the correct answer too. Every interlocutor can claim he knows X, if and only if he can answer the Socratic question. Otherwise, he is more of an ignorant than of a knower of τί ποτέ ἐστι X. Knowing the answer to this question is, thus, knowledge’s criterion for Socrates. Having found out that he cannot answer what it is which he would claim to know, the interlocutor comes to the point Socrates was there at the beginning. The least advantage of this circle is that he becomes as wise as Socrates does about the subject, becoming aware that he does not know it. At the end of the circle they are both still at the beginning, not knowing what X is. So let us first take a glance at these three elements. Socratic disavowal of knowledge is strictly asserted in some passages. At Apology 21b4-5, Socrates says: -/- I do not know of myself being wise at all (οὔτε μέγα οὔτε σμικρὸν σύνοιδα ἐμαυτῷ σοφὸς ὤν) -/- Moreover, at 21d4-6: -/- None of us knows anything worthwhile (καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι) …. I do not know (οἶδα) neither do I think I know. -/- In Charmides Socrates speaks about a fear about his probable mistake of thinking that he knows (εἰδέναι) something when he does not (166d1-2). The somehow generalization of this disavowal can be seen in Gorgias. After calling his disavowal 'an account that is always the same' (509a4-5), Socrates continues (a5-7): -/- I say that I do not know (οἶδα) how these things are, but no one I have ever met, like now, who can say anything else without being absurd. -/- At the end of Hippias Major (304d7-8), Socrates affirms his disavowal of knowledge of 'what is X?' this time about the fine: -/- I do not know (οἶδα) what that is itself (αὐτὸ τοῦτο ὅτι ποτέ ἐστιν). Some other passages, however, made a number of scholars dubious about Socrates’ disavowal. Vlastos mentions Apology 29b6-7 as an evidence : 'that to do wrong and to disobey one’s master, both god and men, I know (οἶδα) to be evil and shameful'. He thinks that if we give this single text 'its full weight' it can suffice to show that Socrates does claim knowledge of a moral truth (1985, 7). Vlastos’ claim is not admittable since it would be too strange, I think, for a man like Socrates to violate his disavowal claim just after emphasizing it. We can see his claim just before the already mentioned passage: -/- And surely it is the most blameworthy ignorance to believe that one knows what one does not know. It is perhaps on this point and in this respect, gentlemen, that I differ from the majority of men and if I were to claim that I am wiser than anyone in anything it world be in this, that, as I have no adequate knowledge (οὐκ εἰδὼς ἱκανῶς) of things in the underworld, so I do not think I have (οὐκ εἰδέναι) (Apology 29b1-6) Vlastos tries to solve what he calls the 'paradox' of Socrates’ disavowal of knowledge distinguishing the 'certain' knowledge from 'elenctic' knowledge (1985, 11) and thinking that when Socrates avows knowledge, we must perceive it as an elenctic knowledge, a knowledge its content 'must be propositions he thinks elenctically justifiable' (ibid, 18). Irwin’s solution is the distinction of knowledge and belief. He approves that Socrates does not 'explicitly' make such a distinction, but still thinks that Socrates’ 'test for knowledge would make it reasonable for him to recognize true belief without knowledge, and his own claims are easily understood if they are claims to true belief alone' (1977, 40). While I agree with Vlastos up to a point, I strongly disagree with Irwin about the early dialogues. As I will try to show below, we are not permitted to consider any kind of distinction within knowledge in Socratic dialogues because only one category of knowledge is alluded to there and the distinction of knowledge and belief thoroughly belongs to the second Sorcates. Although no kind of distinction can be admittable here, I think Vlastos’ distinction can be accepted only if we regard it as a distinction between knowledge, which is unique and without any, even incomparable, rival, and a semi-idiomatic and ordinary one that is a necessary requirement for any argument, and thus, unavoidable even for someone who does not claim any kind of knowledge. An apparent evidence of this is Gorgias 505e6-506a4: -/- I go through the discussion as I think it is (ὡς ἄν μοι δοκῇ ἔχειν), if any of you do not agree with admissions I am making to myself, you must object and refute me. For I do not say what I say as I know (οὐδὲ γάρ τοι ἔγωγε εἰδὼς λέγω ἃ λέγω) but as searching jointly with you (ζητῶ κοινῇ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν). -/- The minimal degree of knowledge everyone must have to take part in an argument, conduct it and use the phrase "I know" when it is necessary is what Socrates cannot deny. We can call it elenctic knowledge only if we agree that it is not the kind of knowledge that Socrates has always been searching, the one that can be accepted as the answer of Socratic 'what is X?' question. His disavowal of knowledge is applied only to the knowledge which can truly be the answer of Socratic question and pass the elenctic exam; a knowledge that, I believe, is never claimed by first Socrates. Socrates conducts his method of examining his interlocutors’ knowledge, our second element here, by almost the same method repeated in Socratic dialogues. That whether we are allowed to regard all the examinations of Socrates in the early dialogues as based on the same or not has been a matter of dispute. Vlastos himself (1994, 31) distinguished Euthydemas, Lysis, Menexenns and Hippias Major from the other Socratic dialogues because he thinks Socrates has lost his faith to elenchus in there. Irwin (1977, 38) distinguishes Apology and Crito where Socrates’ own convictions is present. Contrary to some scholars like Benson (2002, 107) who take elenchus in all the Socratic dialogues as a unique method, Michelle Carpenter and Ronald M. Polansky (2002, 89-100) argue pro the variety of methods of elenchus. Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith (2002, 145-160) even reject such a thing as Socratic elenchus which can gather all of the Socrates’ various arguments under such a heading. There can be no solution for the problem of elenchus, they think, is due to 'the simple reason that there is no such thing as 'the Socratic elenchos"'(p.147). Though we consider elenchus a somehow determined process and a part of Socratic circle in the early dialogues, all we assume is that whatever differences it might have in different dialogues, it has the same onto-epistemological principles and, thus, we are not going to take it necessarily as a unique method. This method sets out to prove that the interlocutors are as ignorant as Socrates himself is. That whether elenchus is constructive, capable of establishing doctrines as Vlastos (1994) or Brickhouse and Smith (1994, 20-21) believe or not is another issue to which this paper is not to claim anything. What is crucial for our discussion here is that elenchus does not reach to the very knowledge Socrates is looking for. This is strictly against Irwin who thinks that not only elenchus leads to positive results, 'it should even yield knowledge to match Socrates’ conditions'(1977, 68, cf. 48). He does not explain where and how they really yield to that kind of knowledge. He explains his elenctic method in his apology in the court (Apology 21-22), that how he used to examine wise men, politicians, poets and all those who had the highest reputation for their knowledge and every time found that they have no knowledge. If we accept, as I strongly do, that Socrates’ disavowal of his knowledge is not irony, it might seem more reasonable to agree that the process that has that disavowal as its first step cannot be irony as well. The key of the circle which can explain why Socrates disclaims knowledge and how he can reject others’ claim of having any kind of knowledge lies in the third element, Socratic question. In Hippias Major (287c1-2), Socrates asks: 'Is it not by Justice that just people are Just? (ἆρ᾽ οὐ δικαιοσύνῃ δίκαιοί εἰσιν οἱ δίκαιοι). He insists at 294b1 that they were searching for that by which (ᾧ) all beautiful things are beautiful (cf. b4-5, 8). At Euthyphro 6d10-11 it is said that the Socratic question is waiting for 'the form itself (αὐτὸ τὸ εἶδος) by which (ᾧ) all the pious actions are pious; and at 6d11-e1: -/- Through one form (που μιᾷ ἰδέᾳ) impious actions are impious and pious actions pious. -/- Since the X itself is that by which X is X, knowing 'X itself' is the only way of knowing X. It is probably because of this that Socrates makes the distinction between the ousia as a right answer to the question and effect as a wrong one: -/- I am afraid, Euthyphro, that when you were asked what piety is (τὸ ὅσιον ὅτι ποτ᾽ ἐστίν) you did not wish to make clear its nature itself (οὐσίαν … αὐτοῦ) to me, but you said some effect (πάθος) about it. (Euthp. 11a6-9) -/- 1. Knowledge of what X is Now it is time to look for the onto-epistemological principles of Socratic circle and its three elements. It cannot reasonably be expected from the first Socrates to present us explicitly and clearly formulated principles of his onto-epistemology when such explications cannot be found even in the second Socrates who has some obviously positive theoris. Since there must be some principles underlying this first systematic inqury of knowledge, we must seek to them and be satisfied with elicitation of the first Socratas’ principle. What will be drawn out as his principles cannot and must not, thus, be taken as very fix and dogmatic principles. Some very slightest principles and grounds suffice for our purposes here. The first principle that is the prima facie significance of the Socratic question and his implementation of all those elenctic arguments I call the principle of 'Knowledge of What X is' (KWX): -/- KWX To know X, it is required to know what X is. -/- Aristotle (Metaphysics 1078b23-25, 27-29, 987b4-8) takes Plato’s τί ἐστι question as seeking the definition of a thing that is the same as historical Socrates’ search but applying to a different field. That Plato’s 'what is X?' question was a search for definition became the prevailed understanding of this question up to now. I am going neither to discuss the answer of Socratic question nor to challenge taking it as definition. What I am to insist is that knowledge is attached firmly to the answer of the question: Knowledge of X is not anything but the knowledge of what X is. It entails, certainly, the priority of this knowledge to any other kind of knowledge about X but it also has something more fundamental about the relation of knowledge and Socratic question. Socrates’ exclusive focus on the answer of his question can authorize the consideration of such an essential role for KWX in his epistemolgoy. The total rejection of his interlocutors’ knowledge when they are unable to answer the question can be regarded as a strong evidence for it. Socrates’ elenctic method and his rejection of others’ knowledge in the early dialogues, which all end aporetically with no one accepted as knower and nothing as knowledge, prevent us from finding any positive evidence for this. We have to be content, therefore, of negative evidences which, I think, can be found wherever Socrates rejects his interlocutors’ knowledge when they are not able to give an acceptable answer to his 'what is X?' question. 2. Bipolar Epistemology Socrates’ rejection of his interlocutors’ knowledge has another epistemological principle as its basis. Let me call this principle Bipolar Epistemology' (BE): BE There is no third way besides knowledge and Ignorance. -/- BE says that about every object of knowledge there are only two subjective statuses: knowledge and Ignorance. Socrates’ disavowal, however, says nothing but that he is ignorant of knowledge of X because he does not know what X is. This means that BE is presupposed here. Socrates’ elenchus and his rejection of interlocutors’ having any kind of knowledge are the necessary results of the fact that he does not let any third way besides knowledge and ignorance. The first Socrates never let anyone partly know X or have a true opinion about it, as he would not let anyone know anything about X when he did not know what X is. -/- 3. Bipolar Ontology The principle of BE in first Socrates’ epistemology is parallel to another principle in his ontology. Plato’s bipolar distinction between being and not being is as strict and perfect as his distinction between knowledge and ignorance. This principle I shall call the principle of 'Bipolar Ontology' (BO): BO Being is and not being is not. BO is apparently the same with the well-known Parmenidean Principle of being and not being (cf. Diels-Kranz (DK) Fr. 2.2-5). Euthydemus’ statement against the possibility of false knowledge can be good evidence for this principle: -/- The things which are not surely do not exist (τὰ δὲ μὴ ὄντα … ἄλλο τι ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν). (Euthydemus 284b3-4) -/- He continues (b4-5): -/- There is nowhere for not being to be there (οὖν οὐδαμοῦ τά γε μὴ ὄντα ὄντα ἐστίν). -/- That BE does not let true opinion as a third option besides knowledge and ignorance seems to be related to BO’s rejecting a third option besides being and not being, which is itself the basis of the impossibility of false belief. Socrates’ elaborate discussion of the problem of false belief in Theatetus that leads to a more decisive discussion and finally to some solutions in Sophist can make our consideration of BO for the first group of dialogues authentive. -/- 4. &5. Split Knowledge and Split Being The fourth principle I shall call the principle of 'Split Knowledge' (SK): -/- SK Knowledge of X is separated from any other knowledge (of anything else) as if the whole knowledge is split to various parts. -/- This Principle is hinted and criticized as Socrates’ way of treating with knowledge in Hippias Major: -/- But Socrates, you do not contemplate the entireties of things, nor do people you have used to talk with (τὰ μὲν ὅλα τῶν πραγμάτων οὐ σκοπεῖς, οὐδ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι οἷς σὺ εἴωθας διαλέγεσθαι). (301b2-4) -/- Contrary to Rankin who regards the passage as 'antilogical, almost eristic in tone rather than presenting a serious philosophy of being' (1983, 54), I think it can be taken as serious. Hippias criticizes Sorcates that he does not contemplate (σκοπεῖς) the entireties of things (ὅλα τῶν πραγμάτων), a critique which Socrates is not its only subject but all those whom Socrates accustomed to talk with (ἐκεῖνοι οἷς σὺ εἴωθας διαλέγεσθαι). This last phrase, I think, extends this critic beyond this dialogue to other Socratic dialogues. Hippias’ use of the perfect tense of the verb ἔθω (to be accustomed) is a good evidence of this extension. We can get, thus, these ἐκεῖνοι as Socrates’ interlocutors in his other dialogues that hints that this criticism has the epistemological groundings of the previous dialogues as its subject. What ἐκεῖνοι οἷς σὺ εἴωθας διαλέγεσθαι points to is that Hippias does not have in mind Socrates’ way of treating things only in this dialogue, but he is also criticizing Socrates’ way throughout his dialogues. At 301b4-5, Socrates and his interlocutors’ way of beholding things is described as such: -/- You people knock (κρούετε) at the fine and each of the beings (ἕκαστον τῶν ὄντων) by taking each being cut up in pieces (κατατέμνοντες) in words (ἐν τοῖς λόγοις). This leads us to our next principle that is parallel to, and the ontological side of, SK, the principle of 'Split Being'(SB): -/- SB Everything (being) is separated from any other thing as if the whole being is split to many beings. -/- Socrates and his interlocutors and thus, as we saw, the Socratic dialogues are accused to regard everything as it is separated from all other things. This separation is en tois logois that, I think, can reasonably be taken as saying that Socratic dialogues (it refers of course to the dialogues before Hippias Major) cut up all things which have the same name/definition from all other things and try to understand them separately, without considering other things that are not in their logos. They, for example in Hippias Major, are cutting up to kalon and try to understand what it and all others inside this logos are by separating it from all other things. This is directed straightly against Socratic question and the way Socratic dialogues follow to find its answer, every time separating one logos. As Meyer (1995, 85) points out, every question 'presupposes that the X in question in a logos is something' and 'every answer to every question aims at unity' (84). The critique of Hippias Major is, therefore, at the same time a critique of SK and SB. It is also a critique of KWX because it is only based on KWX that Socratic dialogues could search for the answer of 'what is X' question supposing that knowing what X is is enough for the knowledge of X. SK and KWX are absolutely interdependent. What Socrates and all his previous interlocutors have neglected in Socratic dialogues, Hippias says, was 'continuous bodies of being' (διανεκῆ σώματα τῆς οὐσίας) (301b6). Either this theory actually belongs to the historical Hippias as it is being said or not, it is strictly criticizing SB. We have the same phrase with changing sūma to logos some lines later at 301e3-4: διανεκεῖ λόγῳ τῆς οὐσίας. Although this theory that can be observed as both an ontological and an epistemological theory is rejected by Socrates (301cff.), it is still against first Socrates’ onto-epistemological principles and might let us look at what is rejected as Socratic prineple. -/- 6. Knowledge is of Being The sixth principle that I think is presupposed by the first Socrates, is the 'Knowledge of Being' Principle (KB): -/- KB Knowledge is of Being. -/- This principle is obviously the source of the problem of false knowledge, a very important problem throughout Plato’s philosophy. We face this problem maybe for the first time in Euthydemus. In less than 20 Stephanus’ pages, 276-295, we are encountered with different interwoven problems about knowledge , all grounded in the problem of false opinion. Having challenged the obvious possibility of telling lies at 283e, at 284 Euthydemus discusses it saying that the man who speaks is speaking about 'one of those things that are (ἓν μὴν κἀκεῖνό γ᾽ ἐστὶν τῶν ὄντων)' (284a3) and thus speaks what is (λέγων τὸ ὄν) (a5). He must necessarily be saying truth when he is speaking what is because he who speaks what is (τὸ ὄν) and the things that are (τὰ ὄντα) speaks truth (τἀληθῆ λέγει) (a5-6). This is based on Parmenidean principle of the impossibility of being of not being which Euthydemus restates (284b3-4) and we mentioned discussing BO principle above. The things that are not are nowhere (οὐδαμοῦ) and there is no possibility for anyone to do (πράξειεν) anything with them because they must be made as being before anything else can be done, which is impossible (b5-7). The words, then, are of things that exist (εἰσὶν ἑκάστῳ τῶν ὄντων λόγοι) (285e9) and as they are (ὡς ἔστιν) (e10). The result is that no one can speak of things as they are not. It is this impossibility of false speach that is extended to thinking (δοξάζειν) at 286d1 and leads to the impossibility of false opinion (ψευδής … δόξα) (286d4). The general conclusion is asserted at 287a extending this impossibility to actions and making any kind of mistake. Not only knowledge is of being but speech, thought and action are of being simply because of the fact that nothing can be of not being. -/- B. First Socrates’ Principles in the Middle Period Dialogues Out of what were presupposed or criticized mostly in five dialogues, Euthyphro, Euthydemus, Hippias Major, Laches and Charmides, we tried to draw the first Socrates’ principles. Our inquiry here is directed to find out the fate of these principles in the three dialogues of the middle period, Meno, Phaedo and Republic. To do this, first we ought to check the situation of Socratic circle in these dialogues. The Socratic circle that was predominant in the early dialogues, does not look like a circle here anymore though they certainly have some features in common. Meno, Phaedo and Republic II-X are not committed to the principles of the circle and the whole circle in disrupted in them. The difference of the two Socrateses towards acquiring knowledge is obvious. The Socrates of Meno, Phaedo and Republic is evidently more self-confident that he can get to some truths during his arguments as he does. They are in their first appearance, as almost all other dialogues, committed to Socrates’ disavowal. All of them try to keep the shape of the Socratikoi Logoi genre, which is committed to the historical Socrates’ way of discussion; a dramatic personage who is to challenge his interlocutors, ask them and refuse the answers. Nevertheless, the fact is that what we have in common between two groups of dialogues is mostly a dramatic structure. Whereas the first group’s arguments are based on Socrates’ disavowal and lead to no positive results, the second group is decisively going to achieve some positive results. The aim of the first Socrates was to show others that they are ignorant of what they thought they knew. The new Socrates of Meno, on the opposite, makes so much efforts to show that the slave boy has within himself true opinions (ἀληθεῖς δόξαι) about the things that he does not know (οἶδε) (85c6-7). Despite his lack of knowledge, he has true opinions nevertheless. The way from these true opinions to knowledge, as Socrates states, is not so long. These true opinions are now like a dream but 'can become knowledge of the same things not less accurate than anyone’s' (οὐδενὸς ἧττον ἀκριβῶς ἐπιστήσεται περὶ τούτων) (c11-d1), if they be repeated by asking the same questions. The most outstanding text regarding Socrates’ disavowal is Meno 98b where he explicitly claims knowledge: -/- And indeed I also speak as (ὡς) one who does not know (εἰδὼς) but is guessing (εἰκάζων). However, [about the fact] that true opinion and knowledge are different, I do not altogether expect (δοκῶ) myself to be guessing (εἰκάζειν), but if I say about anything that I know (εἰδέναι) -which about few things I say- this is one of the things that I know (οἶδα). (98b1-5) This passage is very significant about Plato’s disavowal of knowledge. There can hardly be found, I think, anywhere else in Plato’s corpus where Socrates speaks about his knowledge of something as such. He says first that he speaks as someone who does not know. This ὡς οὐκ εἰδὼς λέγω comparing with what he used to say in the first group, οὐκ οἶδα, has this added ὡς. Socrates does not claim strongly anymore that he does not know anything but speaks only as someone who does not know. He needs this ὡς not only because he is going to accept that he does know some, though few, things immediately after this sentence, but also because he needs his previous disavowal to be loosened from Meno on. He does not merely say here that he knows something. It is then different from the examples mentioned before which could be taken as idiomatic or at least not emphatic. Socrates’ remarkable emphasis on distinguishing εἰδέναι from εἰκάζειν departs it from all other passages where he says only he knows something. Moreover, he claims definitely that he has knowledge about few (ὀλίγα) things. From the early to the middle dialogues, Socrates’ attitude to knowledge has totally renewed its face. He brings forth a new concept, true opinion, and he does not speak of knowledge as he used to before; the rough, perfect and unachievable knowledge of the first group has turned to something more smooth, realistic and achievable. Comparing with the early dialogues that did not set out from the first to reach positive results, the middle ones are extraordinarily and surprisingly positive and hence destroy the basis of the Socratic circle. The questions and answers are purposely directed to some specific new theories; most of them are not directly related to the topics or the main questions of the dialogues. They are suggested when Socrates draws the attention of the interlocutor away from the main question because of the necessity of another discussion. Even if the main question remains unanswered, we have still many positive theories, prominently of metaphysical type. These theories are so abundant and dominant in these dialogues, especially Phaedo and Republic, that one might think that they may appear to be arbitrarily sandwiched in there. This helps dialogues to keep their original Socratic structure while they are suggesting new theories. Hence, the Socratic question of 'what is X?', though is still used to launch the discussion, is loosened and is forgotten for most part of the dialogues. Meno that has first a differently formulated question, 'can virtue be taught?', leads finally to the Socratic question of 'What is virtue?'. Phaedo is dedicated to the demonstration of the immortality of soul and the life after death without having a central Socratic question. The case of Republic is more complicated. The first book, on the one hand, has all the criteria of a Socratic circle: its 'what is justice?' question, Socrates’ strong disavowal (e.g. 337d-e), his rejection of all answers and coming back to the first point without finding out any answer. This Book, considered alone, is a perfect Socratic dialogue, as many scholars regard it as early and separated from other books. The books II-X are, on the other hand, far from implementing a Socratic circle. They have still the 'what is justice?' question as their incentive leading question, but they are, in most of the positive doctrines and methods that encompass the main parts, ignoring the question. Even these books that, I believe, are the farthest discussions from the Socratic circle are so cautious not to break the Socratic structure of the dialogue as long as it is possible. What is changed is not the structure of the dialogue but the ontological and epistemological grounds based on which new theories are suggested. -/- 1. Knowledge of the Good We can clearly see in the second group of dialogues that the KWX principle loses the place it had before in our first group. It is not, of course, rejected, but still we cannot say that it has the same situation. KWX that was based on Socratic question, as we discussed before, was the leading principle of the first Socrates’ epistemology and of the highest position. Other epistemological principles, SK directly and BE indirectly, were relying on Socratic question and therefore on KWX. Such a position does not belong to KWX from Meno on. What makes it different in the second Socrates is another principle that is needed it not only as its complementary principle but also as what is more fundamental. Plato, then, does not reject KWX in this period, but, it seems, he transcends to another more basic principle; a principle we shall call the principle of 'Knowledge of the Good' (KG): -/- KG Knowledge of X requires knowledge of the Good. -/- Whereas all the dialogues of our first group are free from any discuscon about KG, it bears a very important role in the second group so as becomes the superior principle of knowledge in Republic. Trying to solve the problem of teachability of virtue, Socrates says that it can be teachable only if it is a kind of knowledge because nothing can be taught to human beings but knowledge (ἐπιστήμην) (Meno 87c2). The dilemma will be, then, whether virtue is knowledge or not (c11-12) and since virtue is good, we can change the question to: whether is there anything good separate from knowledge (εἰ μέν τί ἐστιν ἀγαθὸν καὶ ἄλλο χωριζόμενον ἐπιστήμης) (d4-5). Therefore, the conclusion will be that if there is nothing good which knowledge does not encompass, virtue can be nothing but knowledge (d6-8). What let us discuss KG as an epistemological principle for the second Secrates is the relation he tries to establish between knowledge and the Good which, though is alongside with the mentioned thesis and the idea of virtue as knowledge, goes much deeper inside epistemology asking to regard the Good as the basis of knowledge. The effort of Phaedo cannot succeed in establishing the Good as the criterion of explanation and knowledge since, I think, it needs a far more complicated ontology of Republic where Socrates can finally announce KG. What is said in Republic is totally compatible with Phaedo 99d–e and the metaphor of watching an eclipse of the sun. In spite of the fact that we do not have adequate knowledge of the Idea of the Good, it is necessary for every kind of knowledge: 'If we do not know it, even if we know all other things, it is of no benefit to us without it' (505a6-7). The problem of our not having sufficient knowledge of the Idea of Good is tried to be solved by the same method of Phaedo 99d-e, that is to say, by looking at what is like instead of looking at thing itself (506d8-e4). It is this solution that leads to the comparison of the Good with sun in the allegory of Sun (508b12-13). What the Good is in the intelligible realm corresponds to what the sun is in the visible realm; as sun is not sight, but is its cause and is seen by it (b9-10), the Good is so regarding knowledge. It has, then, the same role for knowledge that the sun has for sight. Socrates draws our attention to the function of sun in our seeing. The eyes can see everything only in the light of the day being unable to see the same things in the gloom of night (508c4-6). Without the sun, our eyes are dimmed and blind as if they do not have clear vision any longer (c6-7). That the Good must have the same role about knowledge based on the analogy means that it must be considered as a required condition of any kind of knowledge: -/- The soul, then, thinks (νόει) in the same way: whenever it focuses on what is shined upon by truth and being, understands (ἐνόησέν), knows (ἔγνω) and apparently possesses understanding (νοῦν ἔχειν). (508d4-6) -/- Socrates does not use agathon in this paragraph and substitutes it with both aletheia and to on. He links them with the Idea of the Good when he is to assert the conclusion of the analogy: -/- That which gives truth to the objects of knowledge and the power of knowing to the knower, you must say, is the Idea of the Good: being the cause of knowledge and truth (αἰτίαν δ᾽ ἐπιστήμης οὖσαν καὶ ἀληθείας) so far as it is known (ὡς γιγνωσκομένης μὲν διανοοῦ). (508e1-4) Knowledge and truth are called goodlike (ἀγαθοειδῆ) since they are not the same as the Good but more honoured (508e6-509a5). KG, which had been implicitly contemplated and searched in Phaedo, is now explicitly being asserted in Republic. As what was quoted clearly proves, this principle is the very one which we can observe as the most fundamental principle of the second Socrates in Republic, corresponding to the role KWX had in the first Socrates. The Form of the Good in Republic, of which Santas speaks as 'the centerpiece of the canonical Platonism of the middle dialogues, the centerpiece of Plato’s metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and …' (1983, 256) much more can be said. Plato’s Cave allegory in Book VIII dedicates a similar role to the Idea of the Good. The Idea of the Good is there as the last thing to be seen in the knowable realm, something so important that its seeing equals to understanding the fact that it is the cause of all that is correct and beautiful (517b). Producing both light and its source in visible realm, it controls and provides truth and understanding in the intelligible realm (517c). -/- 2. Tripartite Epistemology BE is thoroughy rejected in the second Socrates and substituted by its opposite, the principle of 'Tripartite Epistemolgy' (TE): -/- TE Opinion is an epistemological status between knowledge and ignorance. BE of the first Socrates was denying any third way besides knowledge and ignorance which was the foundation of Socratic circle without which Socrates could not reject his interlocutors’ possessing any kind of knowledge. We cannot say, however, that the first Socrates had a third epistemological status in mind but rejected it. Such a status was unacceptable for him so that one can say that he would reject any kind of such status if suggested. There were only two possibilities about knowledge: either one knows something or he does not know it. TE, thus, was not the first Socrates’ discovery and, I think it is not the second Socrates’discovery. All we can see in our second group of dialouges is that he uses this principle as an already demonstrated one. Having examined the slave boy in Meno for the prupose of showing the working of recollection, it truns out that he has some opinions in him while he still does not know. Without trying to prove it, Socrates takes this as the distinction between knowledge and opinion: -/- So, he who does not know (οὐκ εἰδότι) about what he does not know (περὶ ὧν ἂν μὴ εἰδῇ) has within himself true opinions (ἀληθεῖς δόξαι) about the same things he did not know (περὶ τούτων ὧν οὐκ οἶδε) (85c6-7). -/- The same distinction is set between ὀρθὴν δόξαν and ἐπιστήμην at 97b5-6 ff. (also cf. 97b1-2: ὀρθῶς μὲν δοξάζων … ἐπιστάμενος). He connects then their difference to the myth of Daedalus, the statue that would run away and escape. So are true opinions, not willing to remain long in mind and thus not worthy until one ties them down by αἰτίας λογισμῷ (98a3-4). Socrates says that this tying down is anamnesis. We face, in Phaedo, the same relation is settled between knowledge as the process of being tied down and getting the capability to give an account, on the one hand, and anamnesis, on the other hand. When a man knows, he must be able to give an account of what he knows (Phaedo 76b5-6) and since not all people are able to give such an account, those who recollect, recollect what once they learned (76c4). Although the distinction between knowledge and opinion is not explicitly used in Phaedo, referring to the parallel link between knowledge plus account and anamnesis in Phaedo and Meno, one can say that those who cannot recollect are not able to give account and, thus, are in a state of opinion. What is said at Phaedo 84a, though not yet a definite distinction between knowledge and opinion, makes a distinction between their objects so as we can agree that it is presupposed. The soul of the philosopher, Socrates says, follows reason, stays with it forever and contemplates the divine, which is not the object of opinoin (ἀδόξαστον) (84a8, cf. Meno 98b2-5). The distinction of knowledge and belief in Republic has a significant difference with what we discussed in Meno and Phaedo since the distinction of Meno was based on anamnesis and thus more an epistemological distinction. Even in Phaedo that we do not have any elaborate discussion about the distinction, the only hint to the matter at 76 is bound to the theory of anamnesis. In addition to the relation of the distinction with this theory, there is another evidence that does not permit us to consider the distinction as an ontological distinction. Let’s see Meno 85c6-7: -/- So, he who does not know about what he does not know has within himself true opinions about the same things he did not know (τῷ οὐκ εἰδότι ἄρα περὶ ὧν ἂν μὴ εἰδῇ ἔνεισιν ἀληθεῖς δόξαι περὶ τούτων ὧν οὐκ οἶδε). (85c6-7) -/- This last sentence persists that the objects of knowledge and true opinion are the same. What Socrates is to say here is that whereas he does not know X he has true opinion about the same X. I think Socrates’ sentence that the slave boy οὐκ εἰδότι ἄρα περὶ ὧν ἂν μὴ εἰδῇ and his restatement of it by saying περὶ τούτων ὧν οὐκ οἶδε is because he wants to emphasize that the slave boy who does not know, has true opinion about the same thing. Socrates could say this just with using τούτων and there would be no necessity to bring περὶ ὧν ἂν μὴ εἰδῇ for οὐκ εἰδότι if he did not want to emphasize. -/- 3. Tripartite Ontology The distinction between knowledge and true opinion in Republic, on other side, has nothing to do with recollection, but is based on an ontological principle, 'Tripartite Ontology' (TO): -/- TO There are things that both are and are not. -/- This principle I confine, among our three dialogues of the second group, to Republic not extended to Meno and Phaedo, is obviously the opposite of BO. Speaking about the lovers of sights and sounds in the fifth book, Socrates distinguishes them from philosophers because their thought is unable to understand the nature of beautiful itself besides beautiful things (476a6-8) and hence they can only have opinions. The philosopher who, on the contrary, believes in beautiful itself and can distinguish it from beautiful things (476c9-d3), has knowledge because he knows, contrasting others who have opinion because they only opine (d5-6). Since those whose knowledge were degraded as opinion will complain about Socrates’ such calling their thought, he provides them the following argument (476e7-477b1): -/- - Does the person who knows, knows (γιγνώσκει) something (τὶ) or nothing (οὐδέν)? - He knows something (τί). - Something that is (ὂν) or is not (οὐκ ὄν)? - Something that is (ὂν) for how could something that is not be known (πῶς γὰρ ἂν μὴ ὄν γέ τι γνωσθείη)? - Then we have an adequate grasp of this: No matter how many ways we examine it, what completely is (παντελῶς ὂν) is completely knowable (παντελῶς γνωστόν) and what is in no way (μὴ ὂν δὲ μηδαμῇ) is in every way unknowable (πάντῃ ἄγνωστον). - A most adequate one. - Good. Now, if anything is such as to be and also not to be (ὡς εἶναί τε καὶ μὴ εἶναι), won’t it be intermediate (μεταξὺ) between what purely is (εἰλικρινῶς ὄντος) and what in no way is (μηδαμῇ ὄντος)? - Yes, it’s intermediate. - Then as knowledge (γνῶσις) is set over what is (τῷ ὄντι), while ignorance (ἀγνωσία) is of necessity set over what is not (μὴ ὄντι) mustn’t we find an intermediate between ignorance (ἀγνοίας) and knowledge (ἐπιστήμης) to be set over the intermediate, if there is such a thing? -/- From the third status of being we must reach to the third status of knowledge. The simple reading of this text can be an existential reading, taking the "is" of the mentioned sentences as existence. The problem is that when it is said that there is something that both is and is not reading "is" existentially, it sounds too bizarre to be acceptable. It cannot easily be understandable to have something as both existent and non-existent at the same time. This problem arose so many debates and led many scholars to reject the existential reading of "is" and suggest some other readings like predicative or veridical readings. I think though Plato’s complicated ontology of Republic cannot be correctly understood by a simple existential reading, this "is" cannot be free from existential sense of being and, thus, cannot be reduced to just a predicative or veridical sense of being. -/- 4. Bound Knowledges In addition to KG, the Good is also the basis of another principle in the second Socrates, namely the principle of 'Bound Knowledge' (BK): -/- BK Knowledge of everything is bound to the knowledge of the Good. -/- We distinguished BK from KG because we want to insist, in BK, on what had not been insisted upon in KG, that is, the binding role that the Good plays in the second Socrates, contrasting the absence of such a role in the first Socrates. Socrates remembers, in Phaedo, his wonderful keen on natural philosophers' wisdom when he was young. The origin of this enthusiasm was Socrates’ hope to know the cause of everything as they used to claim. When he was searching the matters of his interest on their basis, Socrates says, he became convinced he can get no acceptable answer from them and found himself blind even to the things he thought he knew before. One day he hears Anaxagoras’ theory that 'it is Mind that arranges and is the cause of everything (ὡς ἄρα νοῦς ἐστιν ὁ διακοσμῶν τε καὶ πάντων αἴτιος)' (Phd. 97c1-2 cf. DK, Fr.15.8-9, 11-12, 12-14) and thinks that he can finally find what he has always expected, i.e. something which can explain all things. What I intend to show here is that what makes Socrates hopeful is that Anaxagoras’ theory tries 1) to explain all things by one thing and 2) this explanation is understood by Socrates as if it is based on the concept of the Good. That Socrates was searching for one explanation for all things can be proved even from what he has been expecting from natural philosophers. The case is, nonetheless, more clearly asserted when he speaks about Anaxagoras’ theory. In addition to διακοσμῶν τε καὶ πάντων αἴτιος of 97c2 mentioned above, we have τὸ τὸν νοῦν εἶναι πάντων αἴτιον (c3-4) and τόν γε νοῦν κοσμοῦντα πάντα κοσμεῖν (c4-5) all emphasizing on the cause of all things (πάντα) which can clearly prove that one of the reasons which caused Socrates to embrace it delightfully was its claim to provide the cause of all things by one thing. Another reason was that Anaxagoras’ Mind, at least in Socrates’ view, was attempting to explain everything by the concept of the Good. This connection between Mind and Good belongs more to the essential relation they have in Socrates’ thinking than Anaxagoras’ theory because there are almost nothing about such a relation in Anaxagoras. The reason for Socrates’ reading can be that Mind is substantially compatible with Socrates’ idea of the relation between good and knowledge. Both the thesis 'no one does wrong willingly' and the theory of virtue as knowledge we pointed to above are evidences of this essential relation. Nobody who knows that something is bad can choose or do it as bad. The reason, when it is reason, that means when it is as it should be, when it is wise or when it knows, works only based on good-choosing. In this context, when Socrates hears that Mind is considered as the cause of everything, it sounds to him like this: good should be regarded as the basis of the explanation of all things. We see him, thus, passing from the former to the latter without any proof. This is done in the second sentence after introducing Mind: -/- I thought that if this were so, the arranging Mind would arrange all things and put each thing in the way that was Best (ὅπῃ ἂν βέλτιστα ἔχῃ). If one then wished to find the cause of each thing by which it either perishes or exists, one needs to find what is the best way (βέλτιστον αὐτῷ ἐστιν) for it to be, or to be acted upon, or to act. On these premises then it befitted a man to investigate only, about this and other things, what is the most excellent (ἄριστον) and best (βέλτιστον). The same man must inevitably also know what is worse (χεῖρον), for that is part of the same knowledge. (97c4-d5) This passage is a good evidence of Socrates’ leap from Anaxagoras’ Mind to his own concept of the Good that can explain why Socrates found Anaxagoras theory after his own heart (97d7). Mind is welcomed because of its capability for explanation on the basis of good to 'explain why it is so of necessity, saying which is better (ἄμεινον), and that it was better (ἄμεινον) to be so' (97e1-3). What Socrates thought he had found in Anaxagoras can indicate what he had been expecting from natural scientists before. Socrates could not be satisfied with their explanations because they were unable to explain how it is the best for everything to be as it is. It can probably be said, then, that it was the lack of the unifying Good in their explanation that had disappointed him. We must insist that we are discussing what Socrates thought that Anaxagoras’ theory of Mind should have been, not about Anaxagoras’ actual way of using Mind. Phaedo 97c-98b, is not about what Socrates found in Anaxagoras but what he thought he could find in it. On the contrary, it should also be noted that it was not this that was dashed at 98b, but Anaxagoras’ actual way of using Mind. It was Anaxagoras’ fault not to find out how to use such an excellent thesis (98b8-c2, cf. 98e-99b). Socrates gives an example to show how not believing in 'good' as the basis of explanation makes people be wanderers between different unreal explanations of a thing. His words δέον συνδεῖν (binding that binds together) as a description for the Good we chose as the name of BK principle: They do not believe that the truly good and binding binds and holds them together (ὡς ἀληθῶς τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ δέον συνδεῖν καὶ συνέχειν οὐδὲν οἴονται). (99c5-6) -/- Having in mind Plato’s well-known analogy of the sun and the Good at Republic 508-509, we can dare to say that his warning of the danger of seeing the truth directly like one watching an eclipse of the sun in Phaedo (99d-e) is more about the difficulty of so-called good-based explanation than its insufficiency, a difficulty which is precisely confirmed in Republic (504e-505a, 506d-e). Moreover, BK is asserted in a more explicit way in the Republic, where the Good is considered not only as a condition for the knowledge of X, as was noted above discussing KG, but also as what binds all the objects of knowledge and also the soul in its knowing them. At Republic VI, 508e1-3, when Socrates says that the Form of the Good 'gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower (τοῦτο τοίνυν τὸ τὴν ἀλήθειαν παρέχον τοῖς γιγνωσκομένοις καὶ τῷ γιγνώσκοντι τὴν δύναμιν ἀποδιδὸν)', he wants to set the Good at the highest point of his epistemological structure by which all the elements of this structure are bound. This binding aspect of the Good is by no means a simple binding of all knowledges or all the objects of knowledge, but the most complicated kind of binding as it is expected from the author of the Republic. The kind of unity the Good gives to the different knowledges of different things is comparable with the unity which each Form gives to its participants in Republic: as all the participants of a Form are united by referring to the ideas, all different kinds of knowledge are united by referring to the Good. If we observe Aristotle's assertion that for Plato and the believers of Forms, the causative relation of the One with the Forms is the same as that of the Forms with particulars (e.g. Metaphysics 988a10-11, 988b4), that is to say the One is the essence (e.g., ibid, 988a10-11: τοῦ τί ἐστὶν, 988b4-6: τὸ τί ἢν εἶναί) of the Forms besides his statement that for them One is the Good (e.g., ibid, 988b11-13) the relation between the Good and unity may become more understandable. Since the quiddity of the Good (τί ποτ᾽ ἐστὶ τἀγαθὸν) is more than discussion (506d8-e2), we cannot await Socrates to tell us how this binding role is played. All we can expect is to hear from him an analogy by which this unifying role is envisaged, the sun. The kind of unity that the Good gives to the knowledge and its objects in the intelligible realm is comparable to the unity that the sun gives to the sight and its objects in the visible realm (508b-c). The allegory of Line (Republic VI, 509d-511), like that of the Sun, tries to bind all various kinds of knowledges. The hierarchical model of the Line which encompasses all kinds of knowledge from imagination to understanding can clearly be considered as Plato’s effort to bind all kinds of knowledges by a certain unhypothetical principle. The method of hypothesis starts, in the first subsection of the intelligible realm, with a hypothesis that is not directed firstly to a principle but a conclusion (510b4-6). It proceeds, in the other subsection, to a 'principle which is not a hypothesis' (b7) and is called the 'unhypothetical principle of all things' (ἀνυποθέτου ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ἀρχὴν) (511b6-7). This παντὸς must refer not only to the objects of the intelligible realm but to the sensible objects as well. Plato does posit, therefore, an epistemological principle for all things, a principle that all things are, epistemologically, bound and, thus, unified by. -/- 5. Bound Beings The ontological aspect of BK we shall call the principle of 'Bound Beings' (BB): -/- BB Being of all things are bound by the Good. -/- We saw in our principle of Split Being (SB) how the first Socrates was criticized because of his approach to split being and separate each thing from other things. The principle of Bound Beings intends to make the things more related, a duty which is done again by the Good. In the allegory of Sun, there are two paragraphs that evidently and deliberately extend the binding role of the Good to the ontological scene: -/- You will say that the sun not only makes the visible things have the ability of being seen but also coming to be, growth and nourishment. (509b2-4) -/- This clearly intends to remind the ontological role the sun plays in bringing to being all the sensible things in order to display how its counterpart has the same role in the intelligible realm (b6-10): -/- Not only the objects of knowledge (γιγνωσκομένοις) owe their being known (γιγνώσκεσθαι) to the Good, but also their existence (τὸ εἶναί) and their being (οὐσίαν) are due to it, though the Good is not being but superior to it in rank and power. That the Good is here represented as responsible for being of things in addition to their being known means, in my opinion, that Plato wants to posit BB in addition to BK. The allegory of Cave at the very beginning of the seventh Book (514aff.) can be taken as another evidence. The role of the Good, one might say, is confined to the intelligible realm because it is asserted that the role the Good plays in this realm is corresponding to that of the sun in the visible realm. The fact that Plato wants to observe the Good also as the ontological cause of the sensible things is obvious from his saying, in the allegory of Cave, that the Form of the Good 'produces light and its source (τὸν τούτου κύριον) [i.e. the sun] in the visible realm' (517c3). We can conclude, then, that the ontological function of the Good is not confined to the intelligible realm in which it is the lord and provides truth and understanding (c3-4) because it is also responsible to produce τὸν κύριον of light. 6. Proportionality of Being and Knowledge Insofaras BE and BO principles of the first Socrates gave way to TE and TO principles of the second Socrates, we cannot expect him to preserve KB in the same way as it was in the first Socrates. The new tripartite ontology and epistemology necessitates some modifications in KB which results in the principle of 'Proportionality of Being and Knowledge' (PBK): -/- PBK To every class of being there is a proportionate category of knowledge. -/- This principle, of course, does not entail the refutation of KB and thus is not kind of rejecting PBK but only a more complicated version of it. Based on PBK, we can still agree that knowledge is of being (KB) but the issue is that since none of the concepts of knowledge and being in the second Socrates are as simple as they were for the first Socrates, we need a more complicated principle for their relation here. Although from Meno 97a where the distinction of knowledge and true opinion is drawn out in the second group of the dialogues, we can expect a new relation, it is articulated in its most complete way in Republic and specifically in the allegory of Line. All the beings are divided there hierarchically to four classes, to each of them belongs a class of knowledge: imagination to images, belief to the sensible things (more correctly: the things of which they[in previous class] were images (ᾧ τοῦτο ἔοικεν)), thought to mathematical objects (?) and understanding to the Forms and the first principle. The degree of clarity that each of the classes of knowledge shares in (σαφηνείας ἡγησάμενος μετέχειν) is proportionate to the degree that its object shares in truth (ἀληθείας μετέχει). (511e2-4) -/- Conclusion From the six onto-epistemilogical principles of the first Socrates, four principles turn to their opposite in the middle period dialogues. While bipolar epistemology and ontology of the early dialogues give place to tripartite epistemology in the middle period dialogues and tripartite ontology in Republic, the split knowledge and being of the first Socrates are inclined to be substituted by bound knowledges and bound beings in the second Socrates and specifically in Republic. Not all our system of principles in this article is necessarily determinative. Either they are rightly formulated or not, our result would not be vulnerable if we accept that 1) making the distinction of knowledge and belief, 2) accepting the being of not being and 3) trying to bind both being and knowledge by the concept of the Good happens only in middle period dialogues, having been absent in the early ones. These are the favourite results all those somehow arbitrary and even oversimplified principles were to illustrate; that there is kind of a development in the epistemological as well as the ontological grounds of Plato’s philosophy. -/- Notes . (shrink)

-/- The Correct Application and Principles of Freedom of Speech: Grounding Information in Absolute Truth -/- Freedom of speech is often regarded as one of the foundational pillars of democratic societies, allowing individuals to express their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs without fear of government retaliation or censorship. However, the true power of this freedom lies not only in the ability to speak but in the responsibility to ensure that the information shared is grounded in absolute truth. When freedom of speech (...) is misused, allowing the spread of black propaganda, false information, false beliefs, or negative mind manipulation, it undermines the integrity of societal discourse and impedes collective progress. Thus, the correct application of freedom of speech demands a commitment to truth, accountability, and the recognition of the collective responsibility we all bear in shaping the realities around us. -/- The Ethical Foundation of Freedom of Speech -/- At its core, freedom of speech is meant to enable individuals to seek, exchange, and debate ideas freely. This unrestricted flow of ideas is fundamental in ensuring that societies evolve in ways that promote justice, human rights, and understanding. However, while the right to speak freely is essential, it is crucial that this freedom is exercised in a manner that contributes positively to the societal fabric rather than causing harm. Freedom of speech, when exercised correctly, should encourage the exploration of truth, promote factual accuracy, and foster critical thinking. -/- Example 1: Consider the role of journalism in a free society. Journalists are given the freedom to investigate, report, and express opinions on matters of public interest. However, when media outlets intentionally or negligently report false information—such as in the case of “fake news”—they undermine public trust and create confusion. For instance, during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a number of fabricated stories were spread via social media, such as the widely debunked “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory. These false reports led to real-world consequences, including the harassment of innocent people and the creation of division among voters. This demonstrates how misinformation, under the guise of free speech, can be harmful to democratic processes. -/- In this context, freedom of speech is not absolute in the sense that it should permit the propagation of harmful or false narratives. Just as physical harm is a limitation to freedom of action, the spread of misinformation and the manipulation of minds represent a form of intellectual harm. Speech that is based on false information, black propaganda, or the deliberate distortion of facts violates the social contract that underpins a functioning society. These practices not only distort reality but also manipulate individuals, leading them to make decisions based on false beliefs and misconceptions. In contrast, speech grounded in truth strengthens the collective intelligence of a society, guiding people toward informed decisions and ethical actions. -/- Absolute Truth and Its Role in Speech -/- Absolute truth refers to a reality that is objective and unchanging, regardless of individual perceptions or beliefs. It is not influenced by subjective interpretations or distorted by biased perspectives. In the realm of speech, grounding all forms of communication in absolute truth is crucial for the integrity of discourse. When information is rooted in truth, it provides a foundation upon which individuals can build sound, rational, and ethical decisions. Absolute truth is often grounded in scientific evidence, empirical data, and the natural laws of reality, providing an anchor for all forms of communication, whether in politics, science, religion, or everyday interactions. -/- Example 2: In the scientific community, the principle of absolute truth is paramount when presenting research findings. For instance, when scientists discovered that smoking tobacco was linked to lung cancer, the truth of this discovery was based on years of rigorous research and empirical evidence. Although the tobacco industry initially attempted to deny or downplay this evidence in order to protect their business interests, the scientific consensus eventually prevailed, saving millions of lives. This is an example of how grounding information in absolute truth can have profound positive effects on society. -/- In contrast, the spread of misinformation and black propaganda distorts the truth to manipulate perceptions and control behavior. Black propaganda, for example, often involves the deliberate spreading of false or misleading information with the intent to deceive or harm. This type of speech is typically designed to exploit emotions, perpetuate fear, or create division among individuals or groups. When such falsehoods are accepted as truth, they distort reality and create a society based on delusion, not reality. This undermines the very purpose of free speech, which should aim to clarify and expose the truth. -/- The Responsibility of Speech in a Connected Society -/- In a modern, interconnected world, the consequences of speech extend far beyond the individual. What one person says can influence millions of others, shaping opinions, decisions, and even actions on a global scale. Given this interconnectedness, the responsibility that comes with the freedom to speak becomes even more significant. Freedom of speech must be viewed not only as a personal right but also as a collective duty to ensure that the information disseminated is constructive and truthful. -/- Example 3: The proliferation of social media has made this responsibility even more urgent. In 2020, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation about the virus spread widely across platforms like Facebook and Twitter. False claims, such as the idea that drinking bleach could cure COVID-19, were propagated by individuals with large followings, putting people’s health at risk. In this case, the freedom of speech was misused, as individuals failed to ensure that the information they shared was based on credible sources or scientific fact. This caused widespread harm, showing how information, when not grounded in truth, can have deadly consequences. -/- This responsibility also includes a commitment to critical thinking and the evaluation of sources. In a society where information is readily available through digital platforms, individuals must exercise discernment in assessing the veracity of the information they consume and share. Relying on reputable sources, scientific evidence, and well-established facts is essential in protecting the integrity of discourse. Those who engage in public speech should, therefore, prioritize truth over sensationalism or personal gain, understanding that their words have the power to shape not only public opinion but also the direction of societal progress. -/- The harm of False Information and Negative Manipulation -/- False information, whether it comes in the form of rumors, hoaxes, or biased reporting, has the potential to create chaos, foster division, and sow distrust. For example, during times of political unrest, the deliberate spread of misinformation can lead to the escalation of conflicts, the breakdown of trust between citizens and their leaders, and even the manipulation of election outcomes. In such cases, the misuse of free speech can harm the very foundations of democracy, undermining its ability to function effectively. -/- Example 4: In Myanmar, the spread of anti-Rohingya propaganda via social media platforms played a significant role in inciting violence against the Rohingya Muslim minority, resulting in a humanitarian crisis. The false information, which portrayed the Rohingya as a threat to national security, was used to justify mass killings and displacement. This is a striking example of how the abuse of free speech, when grounded in hate and misinformation, can lead to real-world violence and human suffering. -/- Similarly, the spread of false beliefs—whether rooted in pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, or superstition—can lead individuals to make decisions that are harmful to their health, their relationships, or society as a whole. In this sense, freedom of speech, when not grounded in truth, can perpetuate ignorance and hinder progress. Negative mind manipulation, which often relies on exploiting emotions such as fear, anger, or resentment, further compounds this issue by distorting people’s perception of reality and encouraging harmful behaviors. -/- Example 5: Anti-vaccine rhetoric is another example of harmful false beliefs gaining traction through the misuse of free speech. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence proving that vaccines are safe and effective, groups spreading misinformation about vaccines have caused significant harm. In the past decade, misinformation has contributed to declining vaccination rates, leading to outbreaks of preventable diseases such as measles and polio. This is a case where misinformation, under the guise of free speech, directly threatens public health. -/- Conclusion: Grounding Freedom of Speech in Truth -/- The correct application of freedom of speech demands that all information shared be rooted in absolute truth. This is the only way to ensure that speech serves its intended purpose: to promote understanding, facilitate informed decision-making, and contribute to the common good. When speech is grounded in falsehoods, it not only misguides individuals but also creates a society based on delusion and division. Therefore, as individuals and as a society, we must prioritize truth in our discourse, taking responsibility for the information we share and ensuring that it is both accurate and constructive. By doing so, we preserve the integrity of free speech and its vital role in fostering a just, informed, and balanced society. -/- . (shrink)

Blind Obedience: A Double-Edged Sword -/- Introduction -/- Blind obedience refers to unquestioning compliance with authority, where individuals follow orders or rules without critical thinking or moral evaluation. Throughout history, blind obedience has led to both progress and disaster. While obedience is necessary for maintaining order in societies, institutions, and organizations, blindly following authority without questioning its ethical implications can result in tragic consequences. -/- This essay explores the nature of blind obedience, its psychological roots, historical examples, its presence in (...) modern society, and the importance of critical thinking in preventing its dangers. By examining these aspects, we can better understand the balance between necessary obedience and the responsibility to challenge unethical commands. -/- The Psychology of Blind Obedience -/- Human beings are naturally inclined to obey authority. From childhood, people are taught to respect parents, teachers, and leaders, which helps maintain societal order. However, this conditioning can also suppress independent thought and personal moral judgment. -/- One of the most well-known psychological studies on obedience is Stanley Milgram’s experiment (1961). In this study, participants were instructed by an authority figure (a scientist) to administer electric shocks to another person (who was actually an actor and not harmed). Even as the “victim” screamed in pain, many participants continued delivering shocks simply because they were told to do so. The study demonstrated how ordinary individuals could commit harmful acts when instructed by an authority figure, proving that blind obedience is a powerful force that can override personal morality. -/- Another significant study is the Stanford Prison Experiment (1971), conducted by Philip Zimbardo. Participants were randomly assigned roles as either guards or prisoners in a simulated prison. The ”guards” quickly became abusive, using psychological and physical intimidation, while the “prisoners” became submissive. The experiment had to be stopped early due to the extreme behavior of the participants, showing how blind obedience to authority and roles can lead to cruelty and loss of moral reasoning. -/- Historical Examples of Blind Obedience -/- 1. Nazi Germany and the Holocaust -/- One of the most horrific examples of blind obedience occurred during World War II. Under Adolf Hitler’s rule, millions of ordinary citizens and soldiers followed orders that led to the mass genocide of Jews and other targeted groups. High-ranking officials like Adolf Eichmann, who played a major role in organizing the Holocaust, later defended their actions by claiming they were simply “following orders.” The Nuremberg Trials rejected this defense, emphasizing that individuals are responsible for their actions, even when acting under authority. -/- 2. The My Lai Massacre (Vietnam War, 1968) -/- During the Vietnam War, American soldiers carried out the My Lai Massacre, killing hundreds of unarmed Vietnamese civilians, including women and children. Soldiers later justified their actions by stating they were following direct orders from their superiors. This event became a symbol of the dangers of military obedience without ethical consideration, leading to global condemnation and changes in military training regarding moral responsibility. -/- 3. The Jonestown Mass Suicide (1978) -/- The Jonestown Massacre is a chilling example of blind obedience within a cult. Jim Jones, leader of the Peoples Temple, manipulated over 900 of his followers into committing mass suicide by drinking cyanide-laced punch. Many obeyed without resistance, demonstrating how charismatic leaders can exploit blind obedience to maintain control, even to the point of self-destruction. -/- 4. The Spanish Inquisition -/- During the Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834), religious authorities ordered the persecution, torture, and execution of individuals accused of heresy. Many officials and citizens participated in these brutal acts simply because they were told it was their duty. Blind obedience to religious authority justified unimaginable cruelty in the name of faith. -/- Blind Obedience in Modern Society -/- Although history provides extreme examples, blind obedience continues to manifest in various ways today. -/- 1. In the Workplace -/- Many corporate scandals, such as the Enron financial fraud, occurred because employees blindly followed unethical directives from executives. Employees who question unethical policies may risk losing their jobs, making it difficult to resist orders from higher-ups. -/- 2. In Politics -/- Authoritarian governments thrive on blind obedience. In North Korea, citizens are forced to obey government propaganda without question, and those who dissent face severe punishment. In many cases, blind obedience to political leaders leads to oppression, censorship, and human rights violations. -/- 3. In Religion -/- Religious extremism often arises from blind obedience. Groups like ISIS and past events like the Crusades show how unquestioning faith can be manipulated to justify violence, terrorism, and oppression. While religion can promote morality, blind obedience can be dangerous when it discourages critical thinking. -/- 4. In Social Media and Misinformation -/- In the digital age, blind obedience appears in the form of misinformation and propaganda. Many people accept fake news, conspiracy theories, and political lies without fact-checking. This has led to real-world consequences, such as vaccine hesitancy, political division, and even violent riots based on false information. -/- The Dangers of Blind Obedience -/- 1. Loss of Personal Responsibility -/- Blind obedience allows individuals to shift responsibility for their actions onto authority figures. This leads to moral disengagement, where people justify harmful actions by saying they were just following orders. -/- 2. Suppression of Critical Thinking -/- When individuals do not question authority, they lose the ability to think independently. This weakens societies by allowing corrupt leaders, unethical policies, and harmful ideologies to spread unchecked. -/- 3. Violation of Human Rights -/- Many human rights violations throughout history, including genocide, slavery, and discrimination, occurred because individuals and societies accepted orders without questioning their morality. -/- The Importance of Critical Thinking -/- To prevent the dangers of blind obedience, individuals must develop critical thinking skills. This involves: -/- Questioning Authority: Instead of blindly following orders, people should ask whether commands are ethical and justified. -/- Encouraging Open Dialogue: Societies must promote free speech and debate to challenge oppressive or unethical ideas. -/- Teaching Ethical Decision-Making: Schools and workplaces should educate individuals on how to recognize and resist unethical commands. -/- Holding Leaders Accountable: Governments, corporations, and religious institutions must be held responsible for their actions, preventing the abuse of authority. -/- Conclusion -/- Blind obedience is a powerful but dangerous force. While obedience is sometimes necessary for maintaining order, unquestioning submission to authority has led to some of the greatest tragedies in human history. From the Holocaust to modern corporate scandals, the consequences of blind obedience highlight the need for critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and personal responsibility. -/- To build a just and moral society, individuals must learn to balance obedience with independent thought. Questioning authority does not mean rejecting all rules, but rather ensuring that decisions align with ethical principles. By fostering education, awareness, and critical thinking, we can prevent the dangers of blind obedience and create a world where people act not out of fear or habit, but out of reason and moral responsibility. -/- . (shrink)

Cosmopolis A Review of Cosmopolitics -/- 2015/3-4 -/- Editorial Dominique de Courcelles & Paul Ghils -/- This issue addresses the general concept of “spirituality” as it appears in various cultural contexts and timeframes, through contrasting ideological views. Without necessarily going back to artistic and religious remains of primitive men, which unquestionably show pursuits beyond the biophysical dimension and illustrate practices seeking to unveil the hidden significance of life and death, the following papers deal with a number of interpretations covering a (...) wide field extending from belief to theory, from emotions to concepts, from the wisdom of personal experience to the most sophisticated doctrines. Spirit and spirituality are indeed many-faceted notions. They may refer to the intricate world of the interacting spirits which inhabit living beings in animistic traditions, without excluding a “grand force” linking human beings within a dynamic whole on which their very existence rely . They also bear upon more atomistic and either/or approaches of Western philosophy, which have become embodied in Cartesian dualism against a monotheist background, to the point of freezing the essence of individuals and culminating in the extreme individualism that characterizes our contemporaries. However, this equally refers to the opposite conception of materialism, across times and cultures, from ancient India and Greece (Cārvāka, originally known as Lokāyata, or some Buddhist doctrines for the former, Democritus or Lucretius for the latter) to more contemporary materialistic schools, whether modern or postmodern. -/- The following papers look at the contrasting forms of the philosophy and spirit of the human factor set into a whole, with no artificial disjoint between the psychical and the physical levels, as Wittgenstein put it: “And how can a body have a soul?”. This approach is not unrelated to the notion of anthropocene examined in a recent issue of Cosmopolis, with provides another comprehensive framework open to a spiritual life emerging from the very environment that generated it. -/- *** The first section of this issue was edited by Dominique de Courcelles, director at the National French Research Centre (CNRS), whom we wish to thank for collecting relevant studies relating to the religious and political questions, with a view to focusing on the war of ideas inevitably waged behind images, concepts and perceptions, taking an asymmetrical approach. To the extent that they are mindful of global/local interactions and include representations, opinions and beliefs, such disciplines as philosophy, philology, history and social sciences can provide useful studies accounting for new practices in geopolitics and a fair diplomacy. -/- In her introduction, Dominique de Courcelles first poses the question of how the religious and political spheres interrelate, with their corresponding religious demands and humanistic values. She then suggests that the right question today may be breaking with the philosophy of human rights concerned with the defense of human beings against the hazards of arbitrary politics or the instrumental use of religion, in favour of a fair philosophy of humankind, a new humanism. This would consist in recognizing a common loyalty of all towards one interhuman, not only interstate community, to protect it from both the autonomy demanded by individuals and the instrumental use of minorities. -/- Considering the fact of diversity, so important today in terms of both politics and religion, Abdelhai Azarkan looks at the conditions under which tolerance could obtain the double status of right and duty. He revisits to two philosophers, John Locke and Voltaire, who thought about it from the historical reality of religious wars. The former made tolerance into a right, basing his analysis on the political-legal level, while the latter saw tolerance as a duty, from an analysis based on ethical-political criteria. -/- Mathieu Guidère examines what he calls semantic denominationalism, a term which implies religious attributes and identities, whichever national loyalties or personal belonging they may have at the same time. Since the early 2000s, thie phenomenon has expanded tremendously, compounded by the “war on terror” and the over media-oriented terrorist actions. Denominational expressions act as formal names for ordinary and high-profile players in domestic and foreign policies of democratic states. These systems reveal a receding secularization, while the powerful comeback of religious identities signals the failure of nation-states and the weakening of the humanist spirit. -/- Barbara De Poli retraces the history of a contemporary jihadism claiming its Islamic essence and asserting the truth of genuine coranic principles via the war on infidels, with a view to restoring the Caliphate. After defining the term jihad, she shows that even if this contemporary jiadism is spreading in the Muslim world, it radically departs from Islamic law and the received use of the term jihad, in so far as it is rooted in the early radical thinking of Islamic ideologues in the 20th century, starting with with Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. This current has been fueled by by international conflicts since the outbreak of the war in Afghanistan, in which the so-called Western countries bear a major responsibility. -/- Abderrazak Sayadi starts from the Tunisian experience to ask the question of humanist values and democracy within the relationships between the religious and political spheres. As a historian of religion, he is brought to demystify certain islamic principles and to paying attention to the reform of law, seeing the separation of religion and politics as a precondition to a successful democratic gamble and the establishment of a renewed humanism. -/- Dominique de Courcelles reminds us that getting a better knowledge of narrations and words makes it possible to better understand how logical and rhetorical thinking works for those who wage an asymetriccal war, re-enchanting and mystifying the world to better take control. As soon as 1932, an exchange of letters between Einstein and Freud made it clear that, in order to free man from fatality and war, education understood as culture was fundamental. Such illustrations as the exécution of Oussama ben Laden and the Caliph’s speech in Mossoul show that a premiminary analysis of images and words is essential to a fair diplomacy conducted by people from civil society, whose culture and wisdom allow justice and force to speak together and better resist war. -/- Marcel Boisard thinks that on the day the guns fall silent, exhausted by war, we will not return to the state borders that have prevailed for a century as an outcome of the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916. It is time to prepare the “day after”, which will be a huge challenge. To this end, a summit of Middle-East nations is urgently needed to globally decide the fate of those peoples. On the condition that we know who the enemy is and accept to name it, to understand the history of the countries, groups and alliances, and to question any false or self-interested sense of certainty. -/- *** In the second section, Paul Schafer provides the author’s experiences to explain how culture, from the artistic to the biological, has the power to to open the doors to spirituality, from the inner self to the global environment. He asks himself whether a relative permanence of spirituality can arise from the specific moments that characterize it. Laurent Ledoux synthesizes the conclusion of a symposium held on 22 January 2015 on the links between philosophy and management, on the basis of the spiritual dimension conceived as “natural” and the answers it may suggest to the issues that face the organizations in a “contemporaniversal” world. Jacques Rifflet makes that question in a secular perspective, based on the wellsprings of personal commitment before it can be caught by any religious creed or scientific theory. In this sense spirituality, in alliance with reason, both inspires human consciousness and illuminates its destiny. Sami Aldeeb asks himself whether Islam can be reconciled with human rights. Caught between the belief in an absolute and final Word descended from the sky, and evidence showing that any religion is the creation of a given culture and a society situated in time and space, the Makkan and … contexts et médinois call for differentiated, if not opposite answers and exegeses. Bernard Carmona provides the outline of a dialogical framework, which is known to be a feature of debates between the various philosophical schools of classical India, exemplified here by the transdisciplinary perspective of debates within a Buddhist context. *** The articles not focused on the previous topic include a study by Landry Signé on China’s strategy, competing with the United States to control African resources. The author deals with the specific case of China’s rapprochement with Southern Sudan since Sudan was broken up. In the last paper, Goran Fejić and Rada Iveković, return to the essential role that women should play, and comments upon the role of some international legal instruments related in particular to the elimination of all forms of discrimination. The perspective is transnational and transethnic and is based on secular criteria, as regards nation-building and more generally society-building. Considering the persistence of widespread violence, whether in times of armed conflict or in times of peace, the question remains whether it is possible to fully implement rights and justice instruments. (shrink)

The purpose of this chapter is to consider the question of whether respect for persons requires toleration of the expression of any extremist political or religious viewpoint within public discourse. The starting point of my discussion is Steven Heyman and Jonathan Quong’s interesting defences of a negative answer to this question. They argue that respect for persons requires that liberal democracies should not tolerate the public expression of extremist speech that can be regarded as recognition-denying or respect-denying speech – that (...) is, speech or other expressive conduct that expresses viewpoints that explicitly reject that all persons should be regarded and treated as free and equal persons or citizens. According to Heyman and Quong, recognition-denying speech falls outside the scope of the right to participate in public discourse (i.e. what it is a right to). In contrast to Heyman and Quong, one can argue that a strong case can be made for viewpoint neutrality on the basis of what can be called a libertarian or Nozickean status-based theory of rights. According to this theory, toleration in a liberal democracy requires respect for the status of persons as thinking agents, and respect for thinking agents and their sovereignty over their own mind requires viewpoint neutrality – that is, a basic right to participate in public discourse as speakers and listeners free from state-imposed viewpoint-based restrictions. All persons should have a basic right to express, hear and consider any viewpoint within public discourse. This doctrine of viewpoint neutrality requires that citizens in liberal democracies ought to have a legal free speech right to do moral wrong – that is, a legal right to express and defend any viewpoint within public discourse, even if it is morally wrong to express, or expose others to, such views. (shrink)

Hate groups are often thought to reveal a paradox in liberal thinking. On the one hand, such groups challenge the very foundations of liberal thought, including core values of equality and freedom. On the other hand, these same values underlie the rights such as freedom of expression and association that protect hate groups. Thus a liberal democratic state that extends those protections to such groups in the name of value neutrality and freedom of expression may be thought to be undermining (...) the values on which its legitimacy rests. In this paper, I suggest how this apparent paradox might be resolved. I argue that the state should protect the expression of illiberal beliefs, but that the state (along with its citizens) is also obligated to criticize publicly those beliefs. Distinguishing between two kinds of state action—coercive and expressive—I contend that such criticism should be pursued through the state’s expressive capacities in its roles as speaker, educator, and spender. Here I extend the familiar idea that law, to be legitimate, must be widely publicized; I contend that a proper theory of the freedom of expression obligates the legitimate state to publicize the reasons that underlie rights, in particular reasons that appeal to the entitlement of each citizen subject to coercion to be treated as free and equal. My theory of freedom of expression is thus “expressive” in two senses: it protects the entitlement of citizens to express any political viewpoint, and it emphasizes a role for the state in explaining these free-speech protections and persuading its citizens of the value of the entitlements that underlie them. (shrink)

A crucial socio-political challenge for our age is how to rede!ne or extend group membership in such a way that it adequately responds to phenomena related to globalization like the prevalence of migration, the transformation of family and social networks, and changes in the position of the nation state. Two centuries ago Immanuel Kant assumed that international connectedness between humans would inevitably lead to the realization of world citizen rights. Nonetheless, globalization does not just foster cosmopolitanism but simultaneously yields (...) the development of new group boundaries. Group membership is indeed a fundamental issue in political processes, for: “the primary good that we distribute to one another is membership in some human community” – it is within the political community that power is being shared and, if possible, held back from non-members. In sum, it is appropriate to consider group membership a fundamental ingredient of politics and political theory. How group boundaries are drawn is then of only secondary importance. Indeed, Schmitt famously declared that “[e]very religious, moral, economic, ethical, or other antithesis transforms into a political one if it is suffciently strong to group human beings e#ectively according to friend and enemy”. Even though Schmitt’s idea of politics as being constituted by such antithetical groupings is debatable, it is plausible to consider politics among other things as a way of handling intergroup di#erences. Obviously, some of the group-constituting factors are more easily discernable from one’s appearance than others, like race, ethnicity, or gender. As a result, factors like skin color or sexual orientation sometimes carry much political weight even though individuals would rather con!ne these to their private lives and individual identity. Given the potential tension between the political reality of particular groupmembership defnitions and the – individual and political – struggles against those definitions and corresponding attitudes, citizenship and civic behavior becomes a complex issue. As Kymlicka points out, it implies for citizens an additional obligation to non-discrimination regarding those groups: “[t]his extension of non-discrimination from government to civil society is not just a shift in the scale of liberal norms, it also involves a radical extension in the obligations of liberal citizenship”. Unfortunately, empirical research suggests that political intolerance towards other groups “may be the more natural and ‘easy’ position to hold”. Indeed, since development of a virtue of civility or decency regarding other groups is not easy, as it often runs against deeply engrained stereotypes and prejudices, political care for matters like education is justified. Separate schools, for example, may erode children’s motivation to act as citizens, erode their capacity for it and!nally diminish their opportunities to experience transcending their particular group membership and behave as decent citizens. This chapter outlines a possible explanation for such consequences. That explanation will be found to be interdisciplinary in nature, combining insights from political theory and cognitive neuroscience. In doing so, it does not focus on collective action, even though that is a usual focus for political studies. For example, results pertaining to collective political action have demonstrated that the relation between attitudes and overt voting behavior or political participation is not as direct and strong as was hoped for. Several conditions, including the individual’s experiences, self-interest, and relevant social norms, turned out to interfere in the link between his or her attitude and behavior. Important as collective action is, this chapter is concerned with direct interaction between agents and the in$uence of group membership on such interaction – in particular joint action. Although politics does include many forms of action that require no such physical interaction, such physical interaction between individuals remains fundamental to politics – this is the reason why separate schooling may eventually undermine the citizenship of its isolated pupils. This chapter will focus on joint action, de!ned as: “any form of social interaction whereby two or more individuals coordinate their actions in space and time to bring about a change in the environment”. Cognitive neuroscienti!c evidence demonstrates that for such joint action to succeed, the agents have to integrate the actions and expected actions of the other person in their own action plans at several levels of speci!city. Although neuroscienti!c research is necessarily limited to simple forms of action, this concurs with a philosophical analysis of joint action, which I will discuss below. (shrink)

This paper argues that free speech is a ‘two-way right’. The right to marriage is a typical two-way right: it is not a guarantee that every single person can get married. Instead, it only ensures that if two consenting adults wish to marry each other, they can do so freely. Similarly, the right to free speech does not protect a speaker’s unilateral right to speak, nor an audience’s unilateral right to hear. Free speech protects the parties’ right (...) to communicate with each other. Many agree that communication is a collaborative activity. Yet, this collaborative essence is sometimes overlooked. Particularly, when analyzing speech rights, there is a tendency to zoom in on either the speaker interests or the audience interests, focusing on the distinctions between the two. The two-way approach reorients our understanding of free speech, to one that is more integrally shaped by a concept of communication as a joint collaborative endeavor. (shrink)

The Violation of the Absolute Law of Free Will: The Consequences of Misinformation and the Flaws in Freedom of Speech -/- Introduction -/- Free will is often regarded as humanity’s defining characteristic—the ability to make choices based on conscious thought, personal experience, and available information. However, free will is not merely about the freedom to choose; it is intrinsically tied to the accuracy and reliability of the information upon which those choices are made. The absolute law of (...) free will, when correctly understood, dictates that human decision-making must be 100 percent dependent on correct information. Any deviation from this principle, through misinformation, disinformation, or ignorance, constitutes a violation of this law and results in imbalanced, often detrimental outcomes for individuals and society as a whole. -/- Complicating this issue is the modern interpretation and implementation of freedom of speech and expression. While these freedoms are fundamental to democratic societies, they come with inherent flaws when unchecked. The unregulated dissemination of false or misleading information under the guise of free speech creates significant challenges in maintaining the integrity of information and, consequently, free will. -/- The Foundation of Free Will: Correct Information -/- The exercise of genuine free will requires access to accurate, reliable information. Decisions made under false pretenses or incomplete knowledge are not truly free but are instead manipulated or constrained by external distortions. The mind operates like a system that processes inputs (information) to generate outputs (decisions and actions). If the input is flawed, the output will inevitably be compromised. -/- For instance, when individuals base their choices on misinformation—such as health-related decisions influenced by false medical advice—they act under the illusion of free will. However, their actions, though seemingly voluntary, are dictated by incorrect data. This demonstrates that true free will can only exist when individuals are fully informed by verifiable facts. -/- The Law of Karma and the Feedback Mechanism of Information -/- The universal law of karma, which involves the principle of cause and effect, also applies to the relationship between free will and information. Every decision and action causes a ripple effect that influences future outcomes. When decisions are made based on falsehoods, the resulting negative consequences, such as social conflict, health crises, and societal instability, reflect the karmic response to the imbalance created by misinformation. -/- Information functions as a feedback mechanism within societal systems. When this feedback loop is polluted with inaccuracies, the entire system becomes unstable. For example, the propagation of false information about climate change has delayed necessary global actions, causing environmental deterioration. The violation of free will through the spread of misinformation disrupts the natural balance of societal decision-making, leading to long-term consequences that extend beyond individual choices. -/- The Flaws In the Laws of Freedom of Speech and Expression -/- Freedom of speech and expression is a cornerstone of democratic societies, allowing individuals to voice their opinions, share ideas, and engage in open discourse. However, this freedom is not absolute and, when exercised irresponsibly, can directly violate the absolute law of free will. The flaws within these legal frameworks become evident when misinformation, disinformation, and harmful propaganda are disseminated without accountability. -/- 1. The Spread of Misinformation and Disinformation The unrestricted nature of freedom of speech has led to the proliferation of misinformation across social, political, and scientific domains. False narratives regarding health, such as anti-vaccine propaganda, have endangered public health and undermined free will by providing individuals with inaccurate information on which to base their decisions. -/- 2. The Manipulation of Public Opinion Political propaganda, fake news, and conspiracy theories exploit the principles of free speech to manipulate public perception. Authoritarian regimes and interest groups often use misinformation to influence elections, sway public opinion, and maintain power. When people make decisions based on manipulated narratives, their free will is compromised. -/- 3. The Role of Social Media and Digital Platforms Social media platforms, while fostering global communication, have amplified the spread of misinformation. Algorithms designed to maximize engagement often prioritize sensational or misleading content over factual information. The lack of regulatory measures on these platforms creates an environment where misinformation spreads more rapidly than truth, resulting in collective decision-making that violates the law of balance. -/- 4. The Challenge of Regulation Regulating freedom of speech without infringing upon individual liberties presents a significant challenge. Striking a balance between protecting free expression and preventing the spread of false information requires well-defined legal frameworks, global cooperation, and ethical considerations. -/- 5. Hate Speech and Its Societal Impact The misuse of freedom of speech to propagate hate speech, incite violence, and promote division disrupts societal harmony. Misinformation about certain groups, ethnicities, or religions fosters discrimination and social unrest, further violating the balance required for the proper exercise of free will. -/- The Societal Impact of Misinformation -/- Misinformation has far-reaching effects on societal structures, particularly in democratic systems where public decision-making relies heavily on the availability of correct information. The manipulation of information through propaganda, conspiracy theories, and biased media distorts collective free will, leading to decisions that do not reflect the genuine, informed will of the people. -/- Elections, for instance, are a prime example. When voters are misled by false narratives or deceptive political strategies, their electoral decisions are no longer expressions of true free will. The outcomes of such manipulated decisions often result in societal discord, poor governance, and disillusionment with democratic processes. In this way, misinformation violates the collective free will of entire populations. -/- The Role of Education in Upholding the Absolute Law of Free Will -/- To protect and uphold the absolute law of free will, society must prioritize a holistic educational system that emphasizes critical thinking, information literacy, and scientific inquiry. Education should equip individuals with the ability to discern fact from fiction, understand the sources of information, and recognize the potential biases inherent in various media channels. -/- An educational system grounded in the universal law of balance in nature can act as a safeguard against misinformation. By teaching individuals how to process information through rational, evidence-based methods, we can foster a societal environment where decisions are consistently made based on truth. This, in turn, ensures that free will is exercised in its purest form. -/- The Role of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in Preserving Free Will -/- The rapid advancement of AGI presents both challenges and opportunities regarding the preservation of free will. If AGI systems are designed based on the universal formula that emphasizes accurate information, natural balance, and critical thinking, they can become powerful tools for protecting free will. These systems can help filter misinformation, verify facts, and provide individuals with reliable data upon which to base their decisions. -/- However, the potential misuse of AGI, such as the intentional spread of disinformation for political or economic gain, represents a significant risk. Ensuring that AGI adheres to principles grounded in the universal law of balance and the law of cause and effect is essential to maintaining the integrity of human decision-making. -/- Conclusion -/- The absolute law of free will is inseparable from the requirement for correct information. Any decision made under the influence of misinformation, disinformation, or ignorance represents a fundamental violation of this law. The consequences of such violations are evident in societal conflicts, poor health outcomes, environmental degradation, and governance failures. -/- The flaws Inherent in the laws surrounding freedom of speech and expression further complicate this issue. While these freedoms are essential for societal growth and the exchange of ideas, their misuse creates significant obstacles to the proper exercise of free will. To safeguard free will, society must invest in education, promote information literacy, implement responsible regulations for free speech, and ensure the ethical development of AGI systems. -/- By adhering to the principle that free will is 100 percent dependent on correct information, humanity can create a more stable, balanced, and harmonious society, where individuals and communities alike can make decisions that align with the natural laws governing human behavior and societal development. -/- . (shrink)

In this paper I provide an interpretation of Kant’s conception of free speech. Free speech is understood as the kind of speech that is constitutive of interaction respectful of everybody’s right to freedom, and it requires what we with John Rawls may call ‘public reason’. Public reason so understood refers to how the public authority must reason in order to properly specify the political relation between citizens. My main aim is to give us some reasons for taking a (...) renewed interest in Kant’s conception of free speech, including his account public reason. Kant’s position provides resources for dealing with many of the legal and political problems we currently struggle to analyze under this heading, such as the proper distinction between the sphere of justice and the sphere of ethics, hate speech, freedom of speech, defamation, and the public guarantee of reliable media and universal education. (shrink)

Is capitalism inherently predatory? Must there be winners and losers? Is public interest outdated and free-riding rational? Is consumer choice the same as self-determination? Must bargainers abandon the no-harm principle? Prisoners of Reason recalls that classical liberal capitalism exalted the no-harm principle. Although imperfect and exclusionary, modern liberalism recognized individual human dignity alongside individuals' responsibility to respect others. Neoliberalism, by contrast, views life as ceaseless struggle. Agents vie for scarce resources in antagonistic competition in which every individual (...) seeks dominance. This political theory is codified in non-cooperative game theory; the neoliberal citizen and consumer is the strategic rational actor. Rational choice justifies ends irrespective of means. Money becomes the medium of all value. Solidarity and good will are invalidated. Relationships are conducted on a quid pro quo basis. However, agents can freely opt out of this cynical race to the bottom by embracing a more expansive range of coherent action. (shrink)

Arthur Kaufmann is one of the most prominent figures among the contemporary philosophers of law in German speaking countries. For many years he was a director of the Institute of Philosophy of Law and Computer Sciences for Law at the University in Munich. Presently, he is a retired professor of this university. Rare in the contemporary legal thought, Arthur Kaufmann's philosophy of law is one with the highest ambitions — it aspires to pinpoint the ultimate foundations of law by explicitly (...) proposing an ontology, a general theory of knowledge and concept of a person. Kaufmann's work derives, first of all, from the thinking of Gustav Radburch, his teacher, and then from ideas of Karl Engish and Hans-Georg Gadamer. The philosophy undertakes to pursue the ultimate foundation of law, law which is understood by Kaufmann, first of all, as a "concrete judgement" that is, what is right in a concrete situation. Justice belongs to the essence of law and "unjust law" is contradictio in adiectio. Kaufmann opposes all those theories, which as the only foundation for establishing just law (Recht) adopt legal norms (Gesetz). In Kaufmann's opinion , such theories are powerless in the face of all types of distortions of law rendered by political forces. He suggests that the basic phenomenon which needs to be explained and which cannot be disregarded by a philosopher of law is so-called "legal lawlessness" ("Gestzliches Unrecht"). "Legal lawlessness" which forms a part of life experience for the people of twentieth century totalitarian states. It proved "with the accuracy of scientific experiment" that the reality of law consists of something more than bare conformity with legal norms. The existence of lex corrupta indicates that law contains something "non-dispositive" which requires acknowledgment of both law-maker and judge. Kaufmann, accepting the convergent concept of truth and cognition, assumes that "non-dispositive" content, emerging as the conformity of a number of cognitive acts of different subjects (inter-subjective communicativeness and verifiability), indicates the presence of being in this cognition. The questions "What is law?" and "What are the principles of a just solution?" lead straight to the ontology of law, to the question about the ontological foundations of law. Kaufmann discerns the ontological foundations of law in the specifically understood "nature of things" and, ultimately, in a "person". He proposes a procedural theory of justice, founded on a "person". In my work, I undertake to reconstruct the train of thought which led Kaufmann to the recognition of a "person" as the ontological foundation of law. In the first part, the conception of philosophy adopted by Kaufmann, initial characteristics of law — of reality which is the subject of analysis, as well as, the requirements for proper philosophical explanation of law posed by Kaufmann are introduced. In the second, Kaufmann's reconstruction of the process of the realisation of law is presented. Next, the conception of analogy which Kaufmann uses when explaining law is analyzed. In the fourth part, Kaufmann's conception of ontological foundations of law is discussed. A critical analysis is carried out in which I demonstrate that the theory of the ontological foundation of law proposed by Kaufmann and the concept of a person included in it do not allow a satisfac¬tory explanation of the phenomenon of "legal lawlessness" and lead to a number of difficulties in the philosophical explanation of law. Finally, the perspectives of a proper formulation of the issue of the ontological foundations of law are drafted in the context of the analyzed theory. My interest is centered on the conception of philosophy adopted by Kaufmann, according to which the existence of the reality is inferred on the basis of a certain configuration of the content of consciousness, whereas at the point of departure of philosophy of law, the data to be explained is a certain process, which is, basically, a process of cognition, while the reality appears only as a condition for the possibility of the occurrence of the process. I wish to argue that the difficulties which appear in the explanation of law are a consequence of the assumed fundamental philosophical solu¬tions, which seem to be characteristic, though usually not assumed explicitly, in philoso¬phy and theory of law dominant at present in continental Europe. Thereby, I wish to show the significance of ontological and epistemological solutions to the possibility of a proper formulation of the problems posed by philosophy and theory of law. Kaufmann proclaims himself in favour of a philosophy which poses questions about the ultimate foundations of understanding of the reality. In epistemology, he assumes that answers to the questions "What is reality like?" and ultimately "What is real?" are inferred on the basis of uniformity of a cognitive acts of different subjects. Cognition of the reality is accomplished exclusively through the content of conceptual material. The two fundamental questions posed by philosophy of law are "What is just law?" and "How is the just law enacted?" The latter is a question about the process of achieving a solution to a concrete case. Since, in Kaufmann's opinion, law does not exist apart from the process of its realisation, an answer to the question about the manner of realisation of law is of fundamental significance to answering the question: "What is law?" and to the explanation of the question about the ontological grounding of law, which is, as well, the foundation of justice. The proper solution has to take into account the moment of "non-dispositive" content of law; its positiveness understood as the reality and, at the same time, it has to point to the principles of the historical transformation of the content. Law, in the primary meaning of the word, always pertains, in Kaufmann's opinion, to a concrete case. A legal norm is solely the "possibility" of law and the entirely real law is ipsa res iusta, that which is just in a given situation. Determination of what is just takes place in a certain type of process performed by a judge (or by man confronted with a choice). Kaufmann aims to reconstruct this process. A question about the ontological foundation of law is a question about the ontological foundations of this process. In the analyzed theory it is formulated as a question about the transcendental conditions, necessary for the possibility of the occurrence of the process: how the reality should be thought to make possible the reconstructed process of the realisation of law. Kaufmann rejects the model for finding a concrete solution based on simple subsump¬tion and proposes a model in which concrete law ensues, based on inference by analogy, through the process of "bringing to conformity" that which is normative with that which is factual. Kaufmann distinguishes three levels in the process of the realisation of law. On the highest level, there are the fundamental legal principles, on the second legal norms, on the third — concrete solutions. The fundamental principles of law are general inasmuch as they cannot be "applied" directly to concrete conditions of life, however, they play an important part in establishing norms. A judge encounters a concrete situation and a system of legal norms. A life situation and norms are situated on inherently different levels of factuality and normativeness. In order to acquire a definite law both a norm (system of norms) and a life situation (Lebenssachverhalt) should undergo a kind of "treatment" which would allow a mutual conformity to be brought to them. Legal norms and definite conditions of life come together in the process of analogical inference in which the "factual state" ("Tatbestand") — which represents a norm, and in the "state of things" ("Sachverhalt") — which represents a specific situation are constructed. A "factual state" is a sense interpreted from a norm with respect to specific conditions of life. The "state of things" is a sense constructed on the basis of concrete conditions of life with respect to norms (system of norms). Legal norms and concrete conditions of life meet in one common sense established during the process of realisation of law. Mutatis mutandis the same refers to the process of composition of legal norms: as the acquisition of concrete law consists in a mutual "synchronization" of norms and concrete conditions of life, so acquisition of legal norms consists of bringing to conformity fundamental principles and possible conditions of life. According to Kaufmann, both of these processes are based on inference through analogy. As this inference is the heart of these processes it is simultaneously a foundation finding just law and justice. How does Kaufmann understand such an inference? As the basis for all justice he assumes a specifically interpreted distributive justice grounded on proportionality. Equality of relations is required between life conditions and their normative qualification. Concrete conditions of life are ascribed normative qualification not through simple application of a general norm. More likely, when we look for a solution we go from one concrete normative qualified case to another, through already known "applications" of norms to a new "application". The relation between life conditions and their normative qualifica¬tion has to be proportional to other, earlier or possible (thought of) assignments of that which is factual to that which is normative. Law as a whole does not consist of a set of norms, but only of a unity of relations. Since law is a, based on proportion, relative unity of a norm and conditions of life, in order to explain law in philosophical manner, the question about ontological base of this unity has to be asked. What is it that makes the relation between a norm and conditions of life "non-dispositive"? What is the basis for such an interpretation of a norm and case which makes it possible to bring a norm and conditions of life into mutual "conformity"? This is a question about a third thing (next to norms and conditions of life), with respect to which the relative identity between a norm and conditions of life occurs, about the intermediary between that which is normative and that which is factual and which provides for the process of establishing of norms, as well as, finding solutions. It is the "sense" in which the idea of law or legal norm and conditions of life have to be identical to be brought to mutual "conformity". In Kaufmann's opinion such a sense is nothing else but the "nature of things" which determines the normative qualification of the reality. Since establishment of this "sense" appears to be "non-dispositive" and controlled inter-subjectively (namely, other subjects will reach a similar result) so, in conformity with the convergent concept of truth, the "nature of things" must be assigned a certain ontological status. According to Kaufmann this is a real relation which occurs between being and obligation, between the conditions of life and normative quality. However, it should be underlined that from the point of view of the analyzed system the "nature of things" is a correlate of constructed sense, a result of a construction which is based on the principle of consistent understanding of senses ("non-normative" and "normative") and is not a reality which is transcendent against the arrangement of senses. In Kaufmann's theory, inference from analogy appears to be a process of reshaping the concepts (senses) governed by tendency to understand the contents appearing in relations between that which is factual and that which is normative in a consistent way. The analogical structure of language (concepts) and recognition of being as composed of an essence and existence is an indispensable requirement for the possibility of the realisation of law, based on specifically understood inference from analogy. It is necessary to assume a moment of existence without content which ensures unity of cognition. Existence emerges thus as a condition of the possibility of cognition. According to Kaufmann, the "nature of things" is the heart of inference through analogy and the basis for establishment of finding of law. Inference from the "state of things" to a norm or from a norm to the "state of things" always means inference through the "nature of things". The "nature of things" is the proper medium of objective legal sense sought in every cognition of law. In Kaufmann's view, the question whether the "nature of things" is ultima ratio of interpretation of law or is only a means of supplement gaps in law or whether it is one of the sources of law, is posed wrongly. The "nature of things" serves neither to supplement the gaps nor is it a source of law as, for example, a legal norm may be. It is a certain kind of "catalyst" necessary in every act of making law and solving a concrete case. Owing to "nature of things" it is possible to bring to a mutual conformity the idea of law and possible conditions of life or legal norms and concrete conditions of life. In Kaufmann's conception the "nature of things" is not yet the ultimate basis for understanding the "non-dispositiveness" of law. The relation between obligation and being is determined in the process of the realisation of law. Both the process itself and that which is transformed in this process are given. A question about the ontological bases of "material" contents undergoing "treatment" in the process of the realisation of law and about being which is the basis of regularity of the occurrence of the process arises. Only this will allow an explanation that the result of the process is not optional. Thus, a question about reality to which law refers and about the subject realising the law has to be formed. To this, Kaufmann gives the following answer: that which is missing is man but not "empirical man" but man as a "person". A "person" understood as a set of relations between man and other people and things. A "person" is the intermediary between those things which are different — norm and case are brought to conformity. A "person" is that which is given and permanent in the process of the realisation of law. It determines the content of law, is "subject" of law; this aspect is described by Kaufmann as the "what" of the process of realisation of law. A "person" consists of precisely just these relations which undergo "treatment" in the process. On the other hand, a "person" is "a place" in which the processes of realisation of law occur, it is the "how" of normative discourse, a "person" is that which determines the procedure of the process, being "outside" of it. This aspect of a "person" is connected with the formal moment of law. A "person" being, at the same time, the "how" and the "what" of the process of the realisation of law, is also, to put it differently, a structural unity of relation and that which constitutes this relation (unity of relatio and relata). According to this approach a "person" is neither an object nor a subject. It exists only "in between". It is not substance. Law is the relation between being and obligation. That which is obligatory is connected with that which is general. That which is general does not exist on its own, it is not completely real. Accordingly, a "person" as such is also not real. It is relational, dynamic and historical. A "person" is not a state but an event. In Kaufmann's opinion, such a concept of a "person" helps to avoid the difficulties connected with the fungibility of law in classical legal positivism. A "person" is that which is given, which is not at free disposal and secures the moment of "non-dispositiveness" of law. Kaufmann concludes: "The idea (»nature«) of law is either the idea of a personal man or is nothing". Theory points at the structure of realising law and explains the process of adoption of general legal norms for a concrete situation. The analysis has shown however, that in this theory a satisfactory answer to the question about the ultimate foundations of law is not given. It seems that in the analyzed theory the understanding of human being takes place through understanding of law. What is good for man as a "person", what is just, what a "person" deserves may be determined only against the existing system of law. A "per¬son" adopted as a basis of law is the reality postulated in the analysis of the process of the realisation of law. It is a condition of possibility of this process ( explaining, on one hand, its unity and, on the other hand, the non-dispositive moments stated in this process). A "person" in the discussed theory is entirely defined by the structure of law, it can be nothing more than that which is given in law, what law refers to, what law is about. Being, which is a "person", is constituted by relations between people and objects, the relations which are based on fundamental links between norms and conditions of life established in a process of bringing them to conformity. It has to be assumed that man as a "person" is a subject of law only as far as realising law "treats" given senses according to their current configuration. The system of law is a starting point and it describes in content what man is as a "person". Moreover, being a "person" is the condition for entering legal relations. Consistently, Kaufmann writes that "empirical man" is not the subject of law, man is not "out of nature" a "person". People become "persons" due to the fact that they acknowledge each other as "persons" — acknowledging, at the same time, law. This acknowledgement is a con¬dition of existence, of the possibility of the occurrence of process of realisation of law and of constituting legal relations which ultimately constitute a "person". Kaufmann assumes, that law tends towards a moral aim: it may and must create an external freedom, without which the internal freedom to fulfil moral obligations cannot develop. However, this postulate is not based on the necessary structure of human being. From the point of view of his system, it is nothing more than only a condition for the possibility of the occurrence of the process of the realisation of law — lack of freedom would destroy the "how" of this process. Thus, the postulate to protect the freedom of personal acts has to be interpreted, in accordance with the analyzed theory, as a postulate, the fulfilment of which aims ultimately at the accomplishment of the very same process of realisation of law itself and not the realisation of a given man. Kaufmann considers a "person" to be an element which unites the system of law as a whole. Law is a structure of relations, which are interdependent and inter-contingent. Consequently, a "person" which is to form the ontological basis of law has to be entity consisting of all relations. Being also the "how" of the process of realisation of law, if a "person" is to warrant its unity, it has to be a common source for all procedures. Hence, a single "person" would constitute a subject of law. Man appears to be only a moment of a certain entirety, realisation of which should be an aim of his actions. Law, creating a "person" as an object and subject of law becomes a primary entity. In the analyzed theory, the basis for determination of aims which law sets to man is not the allocation of man-subject to something which improves him but rather, such relation is only just constituted by law. A question appears, why should aims set in law also be the aims of "empirical man"? Why is this "empirical man" to be punished in the name of a "person" understood in such a way? If, however, it is assumed that what is man is determined by a system which is superior to him, then man has to be understood only as a part of a whole and there are no grounds to prohibit istrumental treatment of man and so the road to all aspects of totalitarianism might be opened. A problem of the application of created theory to the reality arises, the reality which the theory pretends to explain. Ultimately in his theory Kaufmann does not give any systemic grounds for a radical questioning of the validity of any legal norms. Every new norm becomes an equal part of system of norms. It is only its interpretation and application to given conditions of life that may be disputable, however, this refers to all norms without exception. Cohesive inter-pretation of norms and applications is necessary and sufficient for the acquisition of just law. New norms have to be interpreted in the light of others, correspondingly, the other norms require reinterpretation in the light of the new ones. Contradiction in interpretation of a norm does not form a basis for questioning norms but may serve only to question the manner of their interpretation (understanding). Therefore, no grounds exist to assume any legal norm as criminal or unjust, and in consequence, to question any consistently realised system based on formally, properly established norms, as "legal lawlessness". As law and a "person" do not exist without the process of realisation of law, the role of legal safety becomes crucial as the condition for the possibility of the occurrence of the process of realisation of law. Denying legal safety would be tantamount to negation of law in general (also of moral law) as negation of safety takes away, at the same time, the basis for occurrence of the process of realisation of law. Moreover, any lack of legal safety would also mean lack of a basis for the existence of man as a "person". Kaufmann's thesis, that civil disobedience is legalized only when it has a chance to lead to success, consistent with his concept of the foundations of law, seems to point directly to conclusions which deny the facts taken under consideration and doubtlessly Kaufmann's own intentions, since it would have to be assumed that accordingly there are no grounds to question a legal system in force based on violence which secures its operation. Force finally seems to determine which one of the mutually irreconcilable normative systems constitute law and which does not. A legitimate position is one which leads to success, it is the weaker system which is negated. If so, then basically violent imposition of law is not an act directed against the law in force but, to the contrary, realisation of law. In the context of the new system the former system of law may be talked about as unjust solely in the sense of being incapable of being consistently united with the new. However, at the base, ultimately, lies force which reaffirms differences and excludes from the process of realisation of law certain norms and their interpretations. Kaufmann was aiming at grounding of that which is "non-dispositive" in a certain given framework of interpretation. Nevertheless, he does not provide foundations for the understanding of phenomena, which he undertakes to explain at a point of departure. Instead of explaining them the theory negates the possibility of their existence. The reality postulated in regard to "non-dispositive" moments of the reconstructed process of acquiring law consist of a specifically understood "person", which appears in Kaufmann's conceptions as a condition of the possibility of the realisation of law. According to this approach understanding of a "person" may be only a function of law. To understand "legal lawlessness" and foundations of justice it is necessary to look for such theory of law in which understanding of man as a "person" and being is not a function of understanding of law (in which a "person" is not only a condition for possibility of reconstructed process of realisation of law; for possibility of cognition processes). It seems necessary to start from theory of being and a "person" based on broader experience than the one assumed by Kaufmann and reconstruct the ontological foundations of the process of realisation of law only in such perspective. Kaufmann points out that that to which law refers is ipsa res iusta a concrete relation of man to other people and things. This relation, in his theory, appears to be basically only just constituted by law (normative senses "applied" to conditions of life). Therefore, understanding the relation between a given man and other people and things which constitute the aim of his actions, that is understanding of good, is enacted against the background of constitution of senses; constitution which is a result of a process aiming towards consistent understanding of particular contents (of nor¬mative and non-normative senses). "Being" is secondary towards constructed senses it is only their correlate. The primary relation consists of relation of a man to law (system of norms), while the secondary relation is one of man to something which is the aim of his action (relation between man and good). Considering such approach it is difficult to envision a satisfying answer to the fundamental question: why does law put concrete man under any obligation to obey it? The source of this problem can be seen in reduction of the base for understanding good to content of obligation formulated in auto-reflection. Such reduction seems to be a consequence of Kaufmann's adoption of "convergent concept of truth" and in con¬sequence his recognition of indirect, essentialistic grasp of reality formulated in concepts as the basic and only foundation of theory of being and of law. In view of such an approach, analogy of law, concepts and being is the condition for the possibility of the process of transformation of senses which aims at consistent interpretation of all law. Existence is postulated with respect to the possibility of unity of experience and cognition. However, also a different approach to understanding of the problem of being and good is possible. In spontaneous cognition being is affirmed, first of all, not as a certain, non-contradictory, determined content, but as something existing. Together with a cer¬tain content (passed indirectly through notions) existence of being is co-given. The basis for unity of being is not formed by the consistence of content, as it is in the case of the theories departing from the analysis of cognition processes, but by an act of existence realising content (essence). Such an approach makes it also possible to go beyond the convergent concept of truth. It is worth mentioning that allocation of an agent to good is realised not only by the content of duty. A statement that something is good is primary with respect to determination of this good in content. The recognised good always bears some content, however, there are no reasons to base the concept of good exclusively on indirect, formulated in concepts cognition. As primary, can be adopted the relation of man to good and not of man to law. Determination in content appears to be only an articulation of aspectual cognition of being, as an object of action. In such a case the basis for relative unity of norm and conditions of life is not the "nature of things" understood as correlate of sense but it is relation to good based on internal constitution of man as potential, not self-sufficient being. It does not mean, that the moments of the process of realisation of law singled out by Kaufmann are not important to determination of what is just. He, quite rightly, points to significant role played by norms in the evaluation of concrete situations, in man's search for closer specification in content of good innate to him. The structure of process of determining law for a concrete situation, to a great degree corresponds to the processes of determining law which take place not only in the legal sciences. Kaufmann's analyses of the process of realisation of law show the complexity of the structure of these processes and point towards important moments allowing a better understanding of law and man. Nevertheless, these analyses cannot be a basis for construction of philosophical theory of law, theory which hopes to point out the ultimate, ontological foundations for understanding law. Kaufmann's results may become fully valid only in a more general perspective including broader experience at the point of departure. (shrink)

Scientific Explanation of Political Polarization and Mind Control Bias Techniques -/- Political polarization and mind control bias techniques are interconnected phenomena that shape public opinion and influence societal divisions. These processes can be explained scientifically through psychology, neuroscience, and mass communication studies. This essay will explore both concepts in depth, including their cognitive, social, and technological underpinnings. -/- I. Political Polarization: The Science Behind Division -/- Definition of Political Polarization -/- Political polarization is the process by which political attitudes and (...) opinions become increasingly divided, leading to two or more opposing camps with little room for compromise. It results in an “us vs. them” mentality, where political groups become hostile to each other. -/- A. Psychological and Cognitive Biases Driving Polarization -/- 1. Confirmation Bias -/- People tend to seek and believe information that aligns with their pre-existing views while rejecting contradictory evidence. -/- Example: A conservative individual may only watch right-wing news, reinforcing their perspective, while a liberal person may do the same with left-wing news. -/- 2. Motivated Reasoning -/- Individuals process political information in a way that aligns with their desired conclusions, ignoring facts that contradict their beliefs. -/- Example: A person might dismiss credible reports about a political leader’s corruption because they support that leader. -/- 3. Groupthink and Social Identity Theory -/- Humans naturally categorize themselves into groups, forming a strong loyalty to their own group while viewing outsiders with suspicion. -/- Example: Political parties, religious organizations, and ideological movements foster an “us vs. them” mentality, where criticism of the group is seen as betrayal. -/- 4. Cognitive Dissonance -/- When people encounter information that contradicts their beliefs, they experience discomfort and resolve this by rejecting or rationalizing the new information. -/- Example: A supporter of a leader accused of misconduct may justify the actions as necessary rather than accepting the wrongdoing. -/- B. Social and Technological Factors Reinforcing Polarization -/- 1. Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles -/- Social media platforms use algorithms to show users content that aligns with their views while filtering out opposing perspectives. -/- Result: People only see information that reinforces their existing beliefs, further deepening polarization. -/- 2. Misinformation and Political Propaganda -/- Governments, media outlets, and online influencers manipulate public opinion by spreading biased or false information. -/- Example: Fake news campaigns during elections that distort facts to manipulate voters. -/- 3. Fear and Emotional Manipulation -/- Political leaders and media often use fear-based narratives to shape public opinion. -/- Example: “If the opposition wins, the country will collapse,” creating panic and emotional bias rather than rational decision-making. -/- 4. Media Framing and Selective Reporting -/- News outlets emphasize certain stories and ignore others to shape public perception. -/- Example: One news channel focuses only on economic success under a leader, while another highlights only corruption scandals. -/- 5. Political and Economic Interests -/- Corporations, interest groups, and governments use media to maintain control over public opinion and policy. -/- Example: Politicians funding biased media outlets to spread their narratives. -/- II. Mind Control Bias Techniques: The Science of Influence -/- Mind control techniques (also known as psychological manipulation) exploit cognitive biases and behavioral psychology to shape public opinion and influence individual thinking. These techniques are widely used in propaganda, advertising, and political campaigns. -/- A. Persuasion and Influence Tactics -/- 1. Repetition Effect (Illusory Truth Effect) -/- The more a message is repeated, the more likely people are to believe it, even if it is false. -/- Example: A false claim about a politician being corrupt is repeated so often that people accept it as fact. -/- 2. Framing Effect -/- The way information is presented influences perception. -/- Example: “Tax relief for hardworking citizens” sounds positive, while “tax cuts for the wealthy” sounds negative—yet they refer to the same policy. -/- 3. Priming -/- Exposure to specific stimuli influences future decisions. -/- Example: Repeated association of an ethnic group with crime leads people to unconsciously stereotype them. -/- 4. Bandwagon Effect -/- People are more likely to believe something if they see many others believing it. -/- Example: A political leader’s approval ratings appear high in polls, influencing undecided voters to support them. -/- B. Psychological Control Techniques -/- 1. Fear and Scapegoating -/- Creating fear and blaming an external group as the cause of problems. -/- Example: “Immigrants are taking jobs,” creating hostility toward a group to manipulate public sentiment. -/- 2. Dissonance Reduction -/- People modify their beliefs when they experience psychological discomfort from contradictory information. -/- Example: A person who supports strict law enforcement but dislikes police brutality may justify excessive force as “necessary for safety.” -/- 3. Authority Bias -/- People tend to obey authority figures and accept their statements without questioning. -/- Example: A celebrity or leader endorses a political claim, leading followers to accept it as truth. -/- C. Mass Media and Propaganda Methods -/- 1. Controlled Narratives -/- Governments and corporations control what information is released to shape public perception. -/- Example: State-controlled media omitting news about protests or scandals. -/- 2. Pacing and Leading -/- Gradual introduction of ideas to make extreme positions seem normal over time. -/- Example: Media slowly shifting narratives on controversial issues to make them acceptable. -/- 3. Subliminal Messaging -/- Unconscious cues in advertisements, political speeches, and media that influence thoughts without awareness. -/- Example: Hidden symbols or phrases in campaign ads that create positive associations with a candidate. -/- III. The Connection Between Political Polarization and Mind Control -/- Political polarization and mind control techniques are interrelated. As society becomes more polarized, individuals are more susceptible to manipulation. Here’s how they interact: -/- 1. Polarization Creates a Fertile Ground for Mind Control -/- The more divided a society is, the easier it is for political actors to use manipulation techniques. -/- Example: In a polarized election, misinformation spreads more easily because people are already inclined to believe negative stories about the opposition. -/- 2. Mind Control Techniques Deepen Polarization -/- Media framing, misinformation, and psychological manipulation create a feedback loop where divisions grow stronger. -/- Example: Social media algorithms push divisive content, reinforcing people’s biases and making compromise impossible. -/- 3. Fear and Emotional Manipulation Maintain Division -/- Political leaders exploit fear to keep their supporters loyal. -/- Example: “If the other party wins, your freedoms will be taken away,” preventing rational debate. -/- 4. Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles Block Critical Thinking -/- People exposed only to biased information become increasingly radicalized. -/- Example: A person who only follows one-sided news sources will believe their political opponents are evil rather than fellow citizens with different opinions. -/- Conclusion: How to Resist Polarization and Mind Control -/- Understanding the scientific principles behind political polarization and mind control techniques can help individuals resist manipulation. Some strategies include: -/- Critical Thinking – Question sources of information and seek diverse viewpoints. -/- Media Literacy – Recognize propaganda techniques in news and social media. -/- Emotional Awareness – Avoid reacting emotionally to political content and analyze information logically. -/- Avoiding Echo Chambers – Engage with different perspectives and avoid isolating oneself in ideological bubbles. -/- By applying these principles, societies can move toward a more rational, less divided political landscape, where decisions are based on reason rather than manipulation. -/- . (shrink)

continent. 1.1 : 3-13. / 0/ – Introduction I want to propose, as a trajectory into the philosophically weird, an absurd theoretical claim and pursue it, or perhaps more accurately, construct it as I point to it, collecting the ground work behind me like the Perpetual Train from China Mieville's Iron Council which puts down track as it moves reclaiming it along the way. The strange trajectory is the following: Kant's critical philosophy and much of continental philosophy which has followed, (...) has been a defense against horror and madness. Kant's prohibition on speculative metaphysics such as dogmatic metaphysics and transcendental realism, on thinking beyond the imposition of transcendental and moral constraints, has been challenged by numerous figures proceeding him. One of the more interesting critiques of Kant comes from the mad black Deleuzianism of Nick Land stating, “Kant’s critical philosophy is the most elaborate fit of panic in the history of the Earth.” And while Alain Badiou would certainly be opposed to the libidinal investments of Land's Deleuzo-Guattarian thought, he is likewise critical of Kant's normative thought-bureaucracies: Kant is the one author for whom I cannot feel any kinship. Everything in him exasperates me, above all his legalism—always asking Quid Juris? Or ‘Haven’t you crossed the limit?’—combined, as in today’s United States, with a religiosity that is all the more dismal in that it is both omnipresent and vague. The critical machinery he set up has enduringly poisoned philosophy, while giving great succour to the academy, which loves nothing more than to rap the knuckles of the overambitious [….] That is how I understand the truth of Monique David-Menard’s reflections on the properly psychotic origins of Kantianism. I am persuaded that the whole of the critical enterprise is set up to to shield against the tempting symptom represented by the seer Swedenborg, or against ‘diseases of the head’, as Kant puts it. An entire nexus of the limits of reason and philosophy are set up here, namely that the critical philosophy not only defends thought from madness, philosophy from madness, and philosophy from itself, but that philosophy following the advent of the critical enterprise philosophy becomes auto-vampiric; feeding on itself to support the academy. Following Francois Laruelle's non-philosophical indictment of philosophy, we could go one step further and say that philosophy operates on the material of what is philosophizable and not the material of the external world. [1] Beyond this, the Kantian scheme of nestling human thinking between our limited empirical powers and transcendental guarantees of categorical coherence, forms of thinking which stretch beyond either appear illegitimate, thereby liquefying both pre-critical metaphysics and the ravings of the mad in the same critical acid. In rejecting the Kantian apparatus we are left with two entities – an unsure relation of thought to reality where thought is susceptible to internal and external breakdown and a reality with an uncertain sense of stability. These two strands will be pursued, against the sane-seal of post-Kantian philosophy by engaging the work of weird fiction authors H.P. Lovecraft and Thomas Ligotti. The absolute inhumanism of the formers universe will be used to describe a Shoggothic Materialism while the dream worlds of the latter will articulate the mad speculation of a Ventriloquil Idealism. But first we must address the relation of philosophy to madness as well as philosophy to weird fiction. /1/ – Philosophy and Madness There is nothing that the madness of men invents which is not either nature made manifest or nature restored. Michel Foucault. Madness and Civilization. The moment I doubt whether an event that I recall actually took place, I bring the suspicion of madness upon myself: unless I am uncertain as to whether it was not a mere dream. Arthur Schopenhauer. The World as Will and Idea, Vol. 3. Madness is commonly thought of as moving through several well known cultural-historical shifts from madness as a demonic or otherwise theological force, to rationalization, to medicalization psychiatric and otherwise. Foucault's Madness and Civilization is well known for orientating madness as a form of exclusionary social control which operated by demarcating madness from reason. Yet Foucault points to the possibility of madness as the necessity of nature at least prior to the crushing weight of the church. Kant’s philosophy as a response to madness is grounded by his humanizing of madness itself. As Adrian Johnston points out in the early pages of Time Driven pre-Kantian madness meant humans were seized by demonic or angelic forces whereas Kantian madness became one of being too human. Madness becomes internalized, the external demonic forces become flaws of the individual mind. Foucault argues that, while madness is de-demonized it is also dehumanized during the Renaissance, as madmen become creatures neither diabolic nor totally human reduced to the zero degree of humanity. It is immediately clear why for Kant, speculative metaphysics must be curbed – with the problem of internal madness and without the external safeguards of transcendental conditions, there is nothing to formally separate the speculative capacities for metaphysical diagnosis from the mad ramblings of the insane mind – both equally fall outside the realm of practicality and quotidian experience. David-Menard's work is particularly useful in diagnosing the relation of thought and madness in Kant's texts. David-Menard argues that in Kant's relatively unknown “An Essay on the Maladies of the Mind” as well as his later discussion of the Seer of Swedenborg, that Kant formulates madness primarily in terms of sensory upheaval or other hallucinatory theaters. She writes: “madness is an organization of thought. It is made possible by the ambiguity of the normal relation between the imaginary and the perceived, whether this pertains to the order of sensation or to the relations between our ideas” Kant's fascination with the Seer forces Kant between the pincers of “aesthetic reconciliation” – namely melancholic withdrawal – and “a philosophical invention” – namely the critical project. Deleuze and Guattari's schizoanalysis is a combination and reversal of Kant's split, where an aesthetic over engagement with the world entails prolific conceptual invention. Their embrace of madness, however, is of course itself conceptual despite all their rhizomatic maneuvers. Though they move with the energy of madness, Deleuze and Guattari save the capacity of thought from the fangs of insanity by imbuing materiality itself with the capacity for thought. Or, as Ray Brassier puts it, “Deleuze insists, it is necessary to absolutize the immanence of this world in such a way as to dissolve the transcendent disjunction between things as we know them and as they are in themselves”. That is, whereas Kant relied on the faculty of judgment to divide representation from objectivity Deleuze attempts to flatten the whole economy beneath the juggernaut of ontological univocity. Speculation, as a particularly useful form of madness, might fall close to Deleuze and Guattari’s shaping of philosophy into a concept producing machine but is different in that it is potentially self destructive – less reliant on the stability of its own concepts and more adherent to exposing a particular horrifying swath of reality. Speculative madness is always a potential disaster in that it acknowledges little more than its own speculative power with the hope that the gibbering of at least a handful of hysterical brains will be useful. Pre-critical metaphysics amounts to madness, though this may be because the world itself is mad while new attempts at speculative metaphysics, at post-Kantian pre-critical metaphysics, are well aware of our own madness. Without the sobriety of the principle of sufficient reason we have a world of neon madness: “we would have to conceive what our life would be if all the movements of the earth, all the noises of the earth, all the smells, the tastes, all the light – of the earth and elsewhere, came to us in a moment, in an instant – like an atrocious screaming tumult of things”. Speculative thought may be participatory in the screaming tumult of the world or, worse yet, may produce its spectral double. Against theology or reason or simply commonsense, the speculative becomes heretical. Speculation, as the cognitive extension of the horrorific sublime should be met with melancholic detachment. Whereas Kant's theoretical invention, or productivity of thought, is self -sabotaging, since the advent of the critical project is a productivity of thought which then delimits the engine of thought at large either in dogmatic gestures or non-systematizable empirical wondrousness. The former is celebrated by the fiction of Thomas Ligotti whereas the latter is espoused by the tales of H.P. Lovecraft. /2/ – Weird Fiction and Philosophy. Supernatural horror, in all its eerie constructions, enables a reader to taste treats inconsistent with his personal welfare. Thomas Ligotti Songs of a Dead Dreamer. I choose weird stories because they suit my inclination best—one of my strongest and most persistent wishes being to achieve,momentarily, the illusion of some strange suspension or violation of the galling limitations of time, space, and natural law which forever imprison us and frustrate our curiosity about the infinite cosmic spaces beyond the radius of our sight and analysis H.P. Lovecraft. “Notes on Writing Weird Fiction” Lovecraft states that his creation of a story is to suspend natural law yet, at the same time, he indexes the tenuousness of such laws, suggesting the vast possibilities of the cosmic. The tension that Lovecraft sets up between his own fictions and the universe or nature is reproduced within his fictions in the common theme of the unreliable narrator; unreliable precisely because they are either mad or what they have witnessed questions the bounds of material reality. In “The Call of Cthulhu” Lovecraft writes: The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age. Despite Lovecraft's invocations of illusion, he is not claiming that his fantastic creations such as the Old Ones are supernatural but, following Joshi, are only ever supernormal. One can immediately see that instead of nullifying realism Lovecraft in fact opens up the real to an unbearable degree. In various letters and non-fictional statements Lovecraft espoused strictly materialist tenets, ones which he borrowed from Hugh Elliot namely the uniformity of law, the denial of teleology and the denial of non-material existence. Lovecraft seeks to explore the possibilities of such a universe by piling horror upon horror until the fragile brain which attempts to grasp it fractures. This may be why philosophy has largely ignored weird fiction – while Deleuze and Guattari mark the turn towards weird fiction and Lovecraft in particular, with the precursors to speculative realism as well as contemporary related thinkers have begun to view Lovecraft as making philosophical contributions. Lovecraft's own relation to philosophy is largely critical while celebrating Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. This relationship of Lovecraft to philosophy and philosophy to Lovecraft is coupled with Lovecraft's habit of mercilessly destroying the philosopher and the figure of the academic more generally in his work, a destruction which is both an epistemological destruction and an ontological destruction. Thomas Ligotti's weird fiction which he has designated as a kind of “confrontational escapism” might be best described in the following quote from one of his shortstories, “The human phenomenon is but the sum of densely coiled layers of illusion each of which winds itself on the supreme insanity. That there are persons of any kind when all there can be is mindless mirrors laughing and screaming as they parade about in an endless dream”. Whereas Lovecraft's weirdness draws predominantly from the abyssal depths of the uncharted universe, Ligotti's existential horror focuses on the awful proliferation of meaningless surfaces that is, the banal and every day function of representation. In an interview, Ligotti states: We don't even know what the world is like except through our sense organs, which are provably inadequate. It's no less the case with our brains. Our whole lives are motored along by forces we cannot know and perceptions that are faulty. We sometimes hear people say that they're not feeling themselves. Well, who or what do they feel like then? This is not to say that Ligotti sees nothing beneath the surface but that there is only darkness or blackness behind it, whether that surface is on the cosmological level or the personal. By addressing the implicit and explicit philosophical issues in Ligotti's work we will see that his nightmarish take on reality is a form of malevolent idealism, an idealism which is grounded in a real, albeit dark and obscure materiality. If Ligotti's horrors ultimately circle around mad perceptions which degrade the subject, it takes aim at the vast majority of the focus of continental philosophy. While Lovecraft's acidic materialism clearly assaults any romantic concept of being from the outside, Ligotti attacks consciousness from the inside: Just a little doubt slipped into the mind, a little trickle of suspicion in the bloodstream, and all those eyes of ours, one by one, open up to the world and see its horror [...] Not even the solar brilliance of a summer day will harbor you from horror. For horror eats the light and digests it into darkness. Clearly, the weird fiction of Lovecraft and Ligotti amount to a anti-anthrocentric onslaught against the ramparts of correlationist continental philosophy. /3/ – Shoggothic Materialism or the Formless Formless protoplasm able to mock and reflect all forms and organs and processes—viscous agglutinations of bubbling cells—rubbery fifteen-foot spheroids infinitely plastic and ductile—slaves of suggestion, builders of cities—more and more sullen, more and more intelligent, more and more amphibious, more and more imitative—Great God! What madness made even those blasphemous Old Ones willing to use and to carve such things? H.P. Lovecraft. “At the Mountains of Madness” On the other hand, affirming that the universe resembles nothing and is only formless amounts to saying that the universe is something like a spider or spit. Georges Bataille. “Formless”. The Shoggoths feature most prominently in H.P. Lovecraft's shortstory “At the Mountains of Madness” where they are described in the following manner: It was a terrible, indescribable thing vaster than any subway train – a shapeless congeries of protoplasmic bubbles, faintly self -luminous, and with myriads of temporary eyes forming and un-forming as pustules of greenish light all over the tunnel-filling front that bore down upon us, crushing the frantic penguins and slithering over the glistening floor that it and its kind had swept so evilly free of all litter. The term is a litmus test for materialism itself as the Shoggoth is an amorphous creature. The Shoggoths were living digging machines bio engineered by the Elder Things, and their protoplasmic bodies being formed into various tools by their hypnotic powers. The Shoggoths eventually became self aware and rose up against their masters in an ultimately failed rebellion. After the Elder Ones retreated into the oceans leaving the Shoggoths to roam the frozen wastes of the Antarctic. The onto-genesis of the Shoggoths and their gross materiality, index the horrifyingly deep time of the earth a concept near and dear to Lovecraft's formulation of horror as well as the fear of intelligences far beyond, and far before, the ascent of humankind on earth and elsewhere. The sickly amorphous nature of the Shoggoths invade materialism at large, where while materiality is unmistakably real ie not discursive, psychological, or otherwise overly subjectivist, it questions the relation of materialism to life. As Eugene Thacker writes: The Shoggoths or Elder Things do not even share the same reality with the human beings who encounter them—and yet this encounter takes place, though in a strange no-place that is neither quite that of the phenomenal world of the human subject or the noumenal world of an external reality. Amorphous yet definitively material beings are a constant in Lovecraft's tales. In his tale “The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadatth” Lovecraft describes Azathoth as, “that shocking final peril which gibbers unmentionably outside the ordered universe,” that, “last amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blashphemes and bubbles at the centre of all infinity,” who, “gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time”. Azathoth's name may have multiple origins but the most striking is the alchemy term azoth which is both a cohesive agent and a acidic creation pointing back to the generative and the decayed. The indistinction of generation and degradation materially mirrors the blur between the natural and the unnatural as well as life and non-life. Lovecraft speaks of the tension between the natural and the unnatural is his short story “The Unnameable.” He writes, “if the psychic emanations of human creatures be grotesque distortions, what coherent representation could express or portray so gibbous and infamous a nebulousity as the spectre of a malign, chaotic perversion, itself a morbid blasphemy against Nature?”. Lovecraft explores exactly the tension outlined at the beginning of this chapter, between life and thought. At the end of his short tale Lovecraft compounds the problem as the unnameable is described as “a gelatin—a slime—yet it had shapes, a thousand shapes of horror beyond all memory”. Deleuze suggests that becoming-animal is operative throughout Lovecraft's work, where narrators feel themselves reeling at their becoming non-human or of being the anomalous or of becoming atomized. Following Eugene Thacker however, it may be far more accurate to say that Lovecraft's tales exhibit not a becoming-animal but a becoming-creature. Where the monstrous breaks the purportedly fixed laws of nature, the creature is far more ontologically ambiguous. The nameless thing is an altogether different horizon for thought. The creature is either less than animal or more than animal – its becoming is too strange for animal categories and indexes the slow march of thought towards the bizarre. This strangeness is, as aways, some indefinite swirling in the category of immanence and becoming. Bataille begins “The Labyrinth” with the assertion that being, to continue to be, is becoming. More becoming means more being hence the assertion that Bataille's barking dog is more than the sponge. This would mean that the Shoggotth is altogether too much being, too much material in the materialism. Bataille suggests that there is an immanence between the eater and the eaten, across the species and never within them. That is, despite the chaotic storm of immanence there must remain some capacity to distinguish the gradients of becoming without reliance upon, or at least total dependence upon, the powers of intellection to parse the universe into recognizable bits, properly digestible factoids. That is, if we undo Deleuze's aforementioned valorization of sense which, for his variation of materialism, performed the work of the transcendental, but refuse to reinstate Kant's transcendental disjunction between thing and appearance, then it must be a quality of becoming-as-being itself which can account for the discernible nature of things by sense. In an interview with Peter Gratton, Jane Bennett formulates the problem thusly: What is this strange systematicity proper to a world of Becoming? What, for example, initiates this congealing that will undo itself? Is it possible to identify phases within this formativity, plateaus of differentiation? If so, do the phases/plateaus follow a temporal sequence? Or, does the process of formation inside Becoming require us to theorize a non-chronological kind of time? I think that your student’s question: “How can we account for something like iterable structures in an assemblage theory?” is exactly the right question. Philosophy has erred too far on the side of the subject in the subject-object relation and has furthermore, lost the very weirdness of the non-human. Beyond this, the madness of thought need not override. /4/ - Ventriloquial Idealism or the Externality of Thought My aim is the opposite of Lovecraft's. He had an appreciation for natural scenery on earth and wanted to reach beyond the visible in the universe. I have no appreciation for natural scenery and want the objective universe to be a reflection of a character. Thomas Ligotti. “Devotees of Decay and Desolation.” Unless life is a dream, nothing makes sense. For as a reality, it is a rank failure [….] Horror is more real than we are. Thomas Ligotti. “Professor Nobody's Little Lectures on Supernatural Horror”. Thomas Ligotti's tales are rife with mannequins, puppets, and other brainless entities which of replace the valorized subject of philosophy – that of the free thinking human being. His tales such as “The Dream of the Manikin” aim to destroy the rootedness of consciousness. James Trafford has connected the anti-egoism of Ligotti to Thomas Metzinger – where the self is at best an illusion and we plead desperately for someone else to acknowledge that we are real. Trafford has stated it thus, “Life is played out as an inescapable puppet show, an endless dream in which the puppets are generally unaware that they are trapped within a mesmeric dance of whose mechanisms they know nothing and over which they have no control”. An absolute materialism, for Ligotti, implies an alienation of the idea which leads to a ventriloquil idealism. As Ligotti notes in an interview, “the fiasco and nightmare of existence, the particular fiasco and nightmare of human existence, the sense that people are puppets of powers they cannot comprehend, etc.” And then further elaborates that,“[a]ssuming that anything has to exist, my perfect world would be one in which everyone has experienced the annulment of his or her ego. That is, our consciousness of ourselves as unique individuals would entirely disappear”. The externality of the idea leads to the unfortunate consequence of consciousness eating at itself through horror which, for Ligotti, is more real than reality and goes beyond horror-as-affect. Beyond this, taking together with the unreality of life and the ventriloquizing of subjectivity, Ligotti's thought becomes an idealism in which thought itself is alien and ultimately horrifying. The role of human thought and the relation of non-relation of horror to thought is not completely clear in Ligotti's The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. Ligotti argues in his The Conspiracy Against the Human Race,that the advent of thought is a mistake of nature and that horror is being in the sense that horror results from knowing too much. Yet, at the same time, Ligotti seems to suggest that thought separates us from nature whereas, for Lovecraft, thought is far less privileged – mind is just another manifestation of the vital principal, it is just another materialization of energy. In his brilliant “Prospects for Post-Copernican Dogmatism” Iain Grant rallies against the negative definition of dogmatism and the transcendental, and suggests that negatively defining both over-focuses on conditions of access and subjectivism at the expense of the real or nature. With Schelling, who is Grant's champion against the subjectivist bastions of both Fichte and Kant, Ligotti's idealism could be taken as a transcendental realism following from an ontological realism. Yet the transcendental status of Ligotti's thought move towards a treatment of the transcendental which may threaten to leave beyond its realist ground. Ligotti states: Belief in the supernatural is only superstition. That said, a sense of the supernatural, as Conrad evidenced in Heart of Darkness, must be admitted if one's inclination is to go to the limits of horror. It is the sense of what should not be- the sense of being ravaged by the impossible. Phenomenally speaking, the super-natural may be regarded as the metaphysical counterpart of insanity, a transcendental correlative of a mind that has been driven mad. Again, Ligotti equates madness with thought, qualifying both as supernatural while remaining less emphatic about the metaphysical dimensions of horror. The question becomes one of how exactly the hallucinatory realm of the ideal relates to the black churning matter of Lovecraft's chaos of elementary particles. In his tale “I Have a Special Plan for This World” Ligotti formulates thus: A: There is no grand scheme of things. B: If there were a grand scheme of things, the fact – the fact – that we are not equipped to perceive it, either by natural or supernatural means, is a nightmarish obscenity. C: The very notion of a grand scheme of things is a nightmarish obscenity. Here Ligotti is not discounting metaphysics but implying that if it does exist the fact that we are phenomenologically ill-equipped to perceive that it is nightmarish. For Ligotti, nightmare and horror occur within the circuit of consciousness whereas for Lovecraft the relation between reality and mind is less productive on the side of mind. It is easier to ascertain how the Kantian philosophy is a defense against the diseases of the head as Kant armors his critical enterprise from too much of the world and too much of the mind. The weird fiction of both Lovecraft and Ligotti demonstrates that there is too much of both feeding into one another in a way that corrodes the Kantian schema throughly, breaking it down into a dead but still ontologically potentiated nigredo. The haunting, terrifying fact of Ligotti's idealism is that the transcendental motion which brought thought to matter, while throughly material and naturalized, brings with it the horror that thought cannot be undone without ending the material that bears it either locally or completely. Thought comes from an elsewhere and an elsewhen being-in-thought. The unthinkable outside thought is as maddening as the unthought engine of thought itself within thought which doesn't exist except for the mind, the rotting décor of the brain. /5/ - Hyperstitional Transcendental Paranoia or Self -Expelled Thought Weird fiction has been given some direct treatment in philosophy in the mad black Deleuzianism of Nick Land. Nick Land along with others in the 1990s created the Cyber Culture Research Unit as well as the research group Hyperstition. The now defunct hyperstitional website, an outgrowth of the Cyber Culture Research Unit, defined hyperstition in the following fourfold: 1-Element of effective culture that makes itself real. 2-Fictional quantity functional as a time-traveling device. 3-Coincidence intensifier. 4-Call to the Old Ones. The distinctively Lovecraftian character of hyperstition is hard to miss as is its Deleuzo-Guattarian roots. In the opening pages of A Thousand Plateaus Deleuze and Guattari write, “We have been criticized for over-quoting literary authors. But when one writes, the only question is which other machine the literary machine can be plugged into”. The indisinction of literature and philosophy mirrors the mess of being and knowing as post-correlationist philosophy, where philosophy tries to make itself real where literature, especially the weird, aims itself at the brain-circuit of horror. The texts of both Lovecraft and Ligotti work through horror as epistemological plasticity meeting with proximity as well as the deep time of Lovecraft and the glacially slow time of paranoia in Ligotti. Against Deleuze, and following Brassier, we cannot allow the time of consciousness, the Bergsonian time of the duree, to override natural time, but instead acknowledge that it is an unfortunate fact of existence as a thinking being. Horror-time, the time of consciousness, with all its punctuated moments and drawn out terrors, cannot compare to the deep time of non-existence both in the unreachable past and the unknown future. The crystalline cogs of Kant's account of experience as the leading light for the possibility of metaphysics must be throughly obliterated. His gloss of experience in Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics could not be more sterile: Experience consists of intuitions, which belong to the sensibility, and of judgments, which are entirely a work of the understanding. But the judgments which the understanding makes entirely out of sensuous intuitions are far from being judgments of experience. For in the one case the judgment connects only the perceptions as they are given in sensuous intuition [....] Experience consists in the synthetic connection of appearances in consciousness, so far as this connection is necessary. Here it is difficult to dismiss the queasiness that Kant's legalism induces upon sight for both Badiou and David-Menard. Kant's thought becomes, as Foucault says when reflecting on Sade's text in relation to nature, “the savage abolition of itself”. For Badiou, Kant's philosophy simply closes off too much of the outside, freezing the world of thought in an all too limited formalism. Critical philosophy is simply the systematized quarantine on future thinking, on thinking which would threaten the formalism which artificially grants thought its own coherency in the face of madness. Even the becoming-mad of Deleuze, while escaping the rumbling ground, makes grounds for itself, mad grounds but grounds which are thinkable in their affect. The field of effects allows for Deleuze's aesthetic and radical empiricism, in which effects and/or occasions make up the material of the world to be thought as a chaosmosis of simulacra. Given a critique of an empiricism of aesthetics, of the image, it may be difficult to justify an attack on Kantian formalism with the madness of literature, which does not aim to make itself real but which we may attempt to make real. That is, how do Lovecraft's and Ligotti's materials, as materials for philosophy to work on, differ from either the operative formalisms of Kant or the implicitly formalized images of Deleuzian empiricism? It is simply that such texts do not aim to make themselves real, and make claims to the real which are more alien to us than familiar, which is why their horror is immediately more trustworthy. This is the madness which Blanchot discusses in The Infinite Conversation through Cervantes and his knight – the madness of book-life, of the perverse unity of literature and life a discussion which culminates in the discussion of one of the weird's masters, that of Kafka. The text is the knowing of madness, since madness, in its moment of becoming-more-mad, cannot be frozen in place but by the solidifications of externalizing production. This is why Foucault ends his famous study with works of art. Furthermore extilligence, the ability to export the products of our maligned brains, is the companion of the attempts to export, or discover the possibility of intelligences outside of our heads, in order for philosophy to survive the solar catastrophe. To borrow again from Deleuze, writing is inseparable from becoming. The mistake is to believe that madness is reabsorbed by extilligence, by great works, or that it could be exorcised by the expelling of thought into the inorganic or differently organic. Going out of our heads does not guarantee we will no longer mean we cannot still go out of our minds. This is simply because of the outside, of matter, or force, or energy, or thing-in-itself, or Schopenhauerian Will. In Lovecraft’s “The Music of Erich Zahn” an “impoverished student of metaphysics” becomes intrigued by strange viol music coming from above his room. After meeting the musician the student discovers that each night he plays frantic music at a window in order to keep some horridness at bay, some “impenetrable darkness with chaos and pandemonium”. The aesthetic defenses provided by the well trained brain can bear the hex of matter for so long, the specter of unalterability within it which too many minds obliterate, collapsing everything before the thought of thought as thinkable or at least noetically mutable on our own terms. Transcendental paranoia is the concurrent nightmare and promise of Paul Humphrey's work, of being literally out of our minds. It is the gothic counterpart of thinking non-conceptually but also of thinking never belonging to any instance of purportedly solid being. As Bataille stated, “At the boundary of that which escapes cohesion, he who reflects within cohesion realizes there is no longer any room for him” Thought is immaterial only to the degree that it is inhuman, it is a power that tries, always with failure, to ascertain its own genesis. Philosophy, if it can truly return to the great outdoors, if it can leave behind the dead loop of the human skull, must recognize not only the non-priority of human thought, but that thought never belongs to the brain that thinks it, thought comes from somewhere else. To return to the train image from the beginning “a locomotive rolling on the surface of the earth is the image of continuous metamorphosis” this is the problem of thought, and of thinking thought, of being no longer able to isolate thought, with only a thought-formed structure. [1] One of the central tenets of Francois Laruelle's non-philosophy is that philosophy has traditionally operated on material already presupposed as thinkable instead of trying to think the real in itself. Philosophy, according to Laruelle, remains fixated on transcendental synthesis which shatters immanence into an empirical datum and an a prori factum which are then fused by a third thing such as the ego. For a critical account of Laruelle's non-philosophy see Ray Brassier's Nihil Unbound. (shrink)

With insights from philosophy of language and semiotics, this article addresses judicial choices and semantic errors involved in United States v. Stevens, 130 S.Ct. 1577 (2010) (refusing to read “killing” and “wounding” to include cruelty and thus striking down a federal statute outlawing videos of animal cruelty), and Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S.Ct. 1207 (2011) (finding a First Amendment right to picket military funerals and verbally attack parents of dead soldiers as part of purportedly-public expression). -/- This article maintains that (...) a better understanding of semiotics (the theory of signs) exposes the flaws in both decisions and bolsters the arguments of the lone dissenter in both cases, Justice Alito. Such a better understanding of semiotics involves grasping (a) how expression involves signs, (b) how signs work in general, and (c) the differences between three basic kinds of signs (indexes, icons and symbols). This article maintains that the expression involved in Stevens and in Phelps was a type of indexical or quasi-indexical expression that, for reasons similar to those involved in child pornography cases, should have no First Amendment protection. -/- This article also notes shifting interpretive positions in the Court that cry out for reform. Although Chief Justice Roberts uses a textualist approach in his majority opinion striking down the animal cruelty statute in Stevens, his majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S.Ct. 2566 (2012), has no trouble finding a “penalty” a “tax,” upholding the Affordable Care Act, and chastising the dissent for voting to strike down a statute simply because “. . . Congress used the wrong labels.” Id. at 2597. -/- This article attempts to expose such gamesmanship in “textualism” and attempts to lay out a better semiotic path for the Court. It calls for more forthright judicial decision-making in constitutional and statutory interpretation; calls for rejecting mechanical notions of law that conceal judicial choice involved in constitutional and statutory interpretation; and calls for rejecting claims that dictionaries can settle constitutional or statutory interpretation issues without reference to constitutional and statutory goals. -/- Keywords: interpretation, construction, meaning, plain meaning, originalism, original intent, canon, semiotics, signs, signals, symbol, icon, index, signifier, signified, ordinary meaning, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, animal cruelty, first amendment, statutes. (shrink)

Despite the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, assimilationist policies continue, whether official or effective. Such policies affect more than the right to group choice. The concern is whether indeed genocide or “only” ethnocide (or culturecide)—the elimination of a traditional culture—is at work. Discussions of the distinction between the two terms have been inconsistent enough that at least one commentator has declared that they cannot be used in analytical contexts. While these terms, I contend, have (...) distinct senses, yet in cases of governmental and other institutional assimilationist policy for indigenous peoples, such ethnocide effectively entails genocide. Insofar as any people’s cultural practices and beliefs are essential for life and health, individuals in groups value, if tacitly, their culture as highly as their language or any artifact: Thus, attempts to eradicate a culture through assimilation in fact eradicate individuals’ lives and health and so are effectively murderous. Acknowledgement by worldwide organizations that assimilationist ethnocide is effectively genocide should affect policy concerning indigenous peoples and thus has significance for international law. (shrink)

The Role of Taxes, Borrowing, and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) in National Budgets -/- The financing of a country’s annual budget is a complex process that involves multiple mechanisms, such as taxes, borrowing, and, in some cases, money creation. The exact mix of these mechanisms can vary depending on the country’s fiscal and monetary policies. While taxes and borrowing have traditionally been the primary sources of revenue for most governments, the principles of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) have sparked (...) a debate about the role of money creation in financing government spending. This essay will explore the traditional methods of funding national budgets, the principles of MMT, and how some countries might incorporate aspects of MMT into their fiscal policies. -/- Traditional Sources of Funding: Taxes and Borrowing -/- For most countries, taxes represent the primary source of revenue for the national budget. Taxes are collected from individuals, businesses, and other entities, and they provide the government with the financial resources needed to fund public goods and services. In many cases, taxes are categorized into various types, such as income taxes, corporate taxes, sales taxes, and excise taxes, each contributing to the government's ability to meet its financial obligations. -/- However, taxes alone are often insufficient to cover all of a country’s expenditures, especially in times of economic downturns, during periods of significant public investment, or when dealing with large-scale crises, such as natural disasters or pandemics. To bridge the gap between income and expenditures, governments typically turn to borrowing. Borrowing is usually done through the issuance of government bonds, which are sold to investors, both domestic and foreign. These bonds represent a promise to repay the borrowed amount with interest over a set period. Borrowing enables governments to finance projects that require substantial upfront investment while spreading the cost over time. -/- This traditional approach relies heavily on balancing revenue from taxes with the need to maintain a sustainable level of borrowing. Governments must manage their finances carefully to ensure that borrowing does not become excessive and lead to unsustainable debt levels. This is why many countries set fiscal rules that aim to limit the amount of debt relative to GDP and require that budget deficits be kept within manageable limits. -/- The Rise of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) -/- Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) offers an alternative perspective on government finance. MMT challenges the traditional view by proposing that governments with sovereign control over their currency can finance their spending not just through taxes and borrowing, but also by creating money. According to MMT, a government that issues its own currency can create as much money as it needs to finance its expenditures, provided that inflation is kept under control. -/- The central tenet of MMT is that a country that issues its own currency cannot “run out” of money in the same way a household or business might. Unlike households, which must balance their income and spending, or businesses, which must ensure their revenue exceeds their expenses, a government can print money to fund its spending. MMT proponents argue that this ability allows governments to prioritize spending on critical areas, such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, and social welfare, without relying entirely on taxes or borrowing. -/- However, MMT also emphasizes that governments must manage inflation carefully. Printing too much money without a corresponding increase in real goods and services can lead to inflationary pressures, which would undermine the value of the currency. Therefore, according to MMT, money creation should be used strategically, in coordination with other fiscal policies, to avoid destabilizing the economy. -/- How Some Countries Integrate MMT Principles -/- While few countries fully embrace MMT, some aspects of the theory can be seen in modern fiscal and monetary policies. One clear example of money creation is quantitative easing (QE), a policy adopted by central banks in several countries, particularly after the 2008 global financial crisis. QE involves the central bank purchasing government bonds or other financial assets to inject money into the economy. This increase in the money supply can stimulate demand, lower interest rates, and support economic growth, even when traditional monetary policy tools, such as lowering short-term interest rates, have reached their limits. -/- In addition, the low interest rates maintained by central banks in many developed countries in recent years can be seen as a form of “money creation” designed to encourage borrowing and spending. While this is not the same as directly printing money for government spending, it is an indirect form of expanding the money supply that can influence the economy in ways similar to MMT’s proposal for funding public spending. -/- Country Examples Incorporating MMT Principles -/- Several countries have implemented policies that reflect some elements of MMT, even if they do not fully adopt the theory. -/- 1. United States The United States has seen aspects of MMT in action, particularly in the years following the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. During these periods, the Federal Reserve implemented massive monetary interventions, such as quantitative easing (QE), to increase the money supply and lower interest rates. Additionally, the U.S. government passed large stimulus packages to support individuals and businesses, such as the CARES Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These stimulus measures reflect some of the ideas of MMT in that they used government spending and money creation to stimulate the economy, even without a corresponding immediate increase in taxes. -/- 2. Japan Japan is another country where aspects of MMT can be seen. Since the 1990s, Japan has pursued aggressive monetary easing policies to combat deflation and stimulate economic growth. The Bank of Japan has engaged in quantitative easing, and the government has run substantial budget deficits, with public debt reaching more than 200% of GDP. Despite this, Japan has not faced runaway inflation, a concern of critics of MMT. Japan’s experience has led some to suggest that the country’s extensive money creation and deficit spending policies resemble those proposed by MMT. -/- 3. United Kingdom The United Kingdom’s response to the financial crisis of 2008 and the COVID-19 pandemic also incorporated some elements of MMT. The Bank of England engaged in quantitative easing to inject liquidity into the economy. The UK government also ran large fiscal deficits to support businesses and individuals during the pandemic. The debate around MMT has gained traction in the UK, especially as the country faced challenges in funding its public health and welfare systems during economic crises. -/- 4. Australia Australia has followed a more conventional path in financing its budget but has occasionally incorporated elements of MMT during times of economic stress. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Australian government significantly increased public spending to support workers and businesses, and the Reserve Bank of Australia reduced interest rates to stimulate the economy. While not fully aligned with MMT, these measures reflected some of its principles in terms of prioritizing government spending to ensure economic stability. -/- 5. Argentina Argentina has experimented with aspects of MMT, particularly in its attempts to combat inflation and manage sovereign debt. The government has often resorted to printing money to finance public spending, leading to high inflation and a weakening of the Argentine peso. Critics of this approach argue that the unchecked creation of money can exacerbate inflation, a concern central to the debate around MMT. However, Argentina’s ongoing fiscal challenges highlight the complexities of balancing money creation with inflation control. -/- Taxes, Borrowing, and the Philippine Example -/- In the Philippines, as in most countries, taxes remain the primary source of revenue for the national budget. According to the Philippine government’s budgetary framework, the taxes collected from individuals, businesses, and other sectors provide the main funding for national expenditures, including infrastructure projects, social programs, and public services. The country’s tax system is built around income taxes, corporate taxes, value-added taxes, and excise taxes, among others. -/- In addition to tax revenues, the Philippine government borrows money by issuing government bonds. These bonds are purchased by domestic and foreign investors, and the government commits to repaying them over time, with interest. Borrowing allows the government to invest in long-term projects without having to rely solely on taxes, which may fluctuate due to economic conditions. -/- While the Philippines does not fully adopt MMT principles, there are instances where the central bank’s actions indirectly align with some of the ideas of MMT. For example, the Philippine Central Bank has engaged in liquidity support measures and adjusted interest rates to ensure economic stability, which can have similar effects to the money-creation approach outlined by MMT. However, the government remains cautious about the potential inflationary effects of money creation and continues to rely on taxes and borrowing as the main pillars of financing its budget. -/- Conclusion -/- In conclusion, the financing of a country’s budget is primarily achieved through a mix of taxes, borrowing, and money creation. While the traditional approach emphasizes the role of taxes and borrowing in funding government spending, Modern Monetary Theory offers an alternative view by proposing that governments with sovereign control over their currency can create money to meet their financial needs. While few countries fully embrace MMT, some of its principles, particularly money creation through central bank policies like quantitative easing, have been incorporated into fiscal and monetary practices. The balance between taxes, borrowing, and money creation remains an important consideration for governments worldwide, as they strive to meet the financial needs of their citizens while maintaining economic stability. -/- . (shrink)

With the publication of A Theory of Justice in 1971, John Rawls not only rejuvenated contemporary political philosophy but also defended a Kantian form of Enlightenment liberalism called “justice as fairness.” Enlightenment liberalism stresses the development and exercise of our capacity for autonomy, while Reformation liberalism emphasizes diversity and the toleration that encourages it. These two strands of liberalism are often mutually supporting, but they conflict in a surprising number of cases, whether over the accommodation of group difference, (...) the design of civic education, or the promotion of liberal values internationally. During the 1980’s, however, Rawls began to jettison key Kantian characteristics of his theory, a process culminating in the 1993 release of Political Liberalism and completing the transformation of justice as fairness into a Reformation liberalism. -/- Reconstructing Rawls argues that this transformation was a tragic mistake because it jeopardized the most important features of his theory, viz. the lexical priorities of right, liberty, and fair equality of opportunity as well as the difference principle. Controversially, this book contends that Rawls’s so-called “political turn,” motivated by a newfound interest in diversity and the accommodation of difference, has been unhealthy for autonomy-based liberalism and has pushed liberalism more broadly towards cultural relativism, be it in the guise of liberal multiculturalism or critiques of cosmopolitan distributive-justice theories. The book then demonstrates that the central elements of justice as fairness can only be defended within the context of a Kantian Enlightenment liberalism and that Rawls’s hope for a more pluralistic grounding for his theory, endorsed by a wide variety of belief systems present in modern democratic societies, is illusory. -/- Reconstructing Rawls is the first book to systematically compare Rawls’s and Kant’s theories and the first to offer an internal critique and reconstruction of justice as fairness, reconceiving it as a comprehensive, universalistic Kantian liberalism. By doing so, it gives us both the vision of a liberal world order—“a republicanism of all states, together and separately,” as Kant put it—and a mode of justification addressed to all men and women, not as members of particular nations, races, and faiths, but as human beings, as citizens of the world. In short, it reclaims Rawls for the Enlightenment. (shrink)

The precarious rights of senior citizens, especially those who are highly educated and who are expected to counsel and guide the younger generations, has stimulated the creation internationally of advocacy associations and opinion leader groups. The strength of these groups, however, varies from country to country. In some countries, they are supported and are the focus of intense interest; in others, they are practically ignored. For this is reason we believe that the creation of a network of all these (...) associations is essential. The proposed network would act as a support for the already-existing policies of the United Nations’ High Commission for Human Rights, of independent experts, and of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Older People. All three have long ago recommended the creation of a recognized instrument for uniting presently scattered efforts. The proposed network, therefore, will seek to promote the international exchange of relevant expertise, and it will reinforce the commitments and actions that single countries are currently taking to meet these objectives. For example, informative public events can be organised to promote particular support initiatives and to provide an opportunity for new members of the network to be presented. The network will promote health for senior citizens, disease prevention, senior mobility, safe free time for seniors, alimentary education, protection against new risks and dangers, as well as equity in the services necessary for seniors to adopt new information and communication technologies. In the case of retired academic members, the network will promote equality with respect to continuing use of digital technologies (particularly email), continuing access to research libraries, and the guaranteed ability for seniors to fund their own research programs and to deliver free seminars. (shrink)

Are government restrictions on hate speech consistent with the priority of liberty? This relatively narrow policy question will serve as the starting point for a wider discussion of the use and abuse of nonideal theory in contemporary political philosophy, especially as practiced on the academic left. I begin by showing that hate speech (understood as group libel) can undermine fair equality of opportunity for historically-oppressed groups but that the priority of liberty seems to forbid its restriction. This tension (...) between free speech and equal opportunity creates a dilemma for liberal egalitarians. Nonideal theory apparently offers an escape from this dilemma, but after examining three versions of such an escape strategy, I conclude that none is possible: liberal egalitarians are indeed forced to choose between liberty and equality in this case and others. I finish the paper by examining its implications for other policy arenas, including markets in transplantable human organs and women’s reproductive services. (shrink)

Who should decide who gets to say what on online social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube? American legal scholars have often thought that the private owners of these platforms should decide, in part because such an arrangement is thought to serve valuable free speech interests. This standard view has come under pressure with the enactment of statutes like Texas House Bill 20, which forbids certain platforms from “censoring” user content based on viewpoint. Such efforts to regulate the (...) speech policies of online platforms have been challenged for undermining the editorial speech rights of these platforms and allowing the proliferation of hate speech. This Article develops a democratic theory of free speech, according to which one of the most important reasons for protecting robust free speech rights is that free speech can contribute not only to democratic elections but to a democratic culture more generally. To achieve robust cultural democracy, a community’s speech environment must enable people not only to rationally persuade one another about matters of public importance and convey mutual respect to one another as political equals but also allow people to influence each other in a less articulate and rational manner—to “democratically vibe” with one another. This theory yields a qualified normative defense of government regulation of the speech policies of large social media platforms that can help to realize cultural democracy, suggesting that First Amendment doctrine should focus to a greater extent on protecting the speech rights of platform users, rather than platform owners. Although far from a ringing endorsement of H.B. 20 or S.B. 7072, this Article suggests that First Amendment law should be friendlier to state regulation of platform speech than many critics have thought. (shrink)

Although the Libertarian Party has gained traction as the third biggest political party in the United States, the philosophical grounding of the party, which is exemplified by Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory is inherently flawed. Libertarianism’s emphasis on a free market leads to gross inequalities since it has no regard for sacred rights other than one’s right to freedom from interference from the government beyond what is essential for societal functioning. I argue that Nozick’s entitlement theory leads to (...) indirect injustice and is therefore an unfitting philosophical theory, which means that the Libertarian Party’s platform is flawed. (shrink)

As analytic philosophy is becoming increasingly aware of and interested in its own history, the study of that field is broadening to include, not just its earliest beginnings, but also the mid-twentieth century. One of the towering figures of this epoch is W.V. Quine (1908-2000), champion of naturalism in philosophy of science, pioneer of mathematical logic, trying to unite an austerely physicalist theory of the world with the truths of mathematics, psychology, and linguistics. Quine's posthumous papers, notes, and drafts (...) revealing the development of his views in the forties have recently begun to be published, as well as careful philosophical studies of, for instance, the evolution of his key doctrine that mathematical and logical truth are continuous with, not divorced from, the truths of natural science. But one central text has remained unexplored: Quine's Portuguese-language book on logic, his 'farewell for now' to the discipline as he embarked on an assignment in the Navy in WWII. Anglophone philosophers have neglected this book because they could not read it. Jointly with colleagues, I have completed the first full English translation of this book. In this accompanying paper I draw out the main philosophical contributions Quine made in the book, placing them in their historical context and relating them to Quine's overall philosophical development during the period. Besides significant developments in the evolution of Quine's views on meaning and analyticity, I argue, this book is also driven by Quine's indebtedness to Russell and Whitehead, Tarski, and Frege, and contains crucial developments in his thinking on philosophy of logic and ontology. This includes early versions of some arguments from 'On What There Is', four-dimensionalism, and virtual set theory. (shrink)

Lisa Hill’s response to my critique of compulsory voting, like similar responses in print or in discussion, remind me how much a child of the ‘70s I am, and how far my beliefs and intuitions about politics have been shaped by the electoral conflicts, social movements and violence of that period. -/- But my perceptions of politics have also been profoundly shaped by my teachers, and fellow graduate students, at MIT. Theda Skocpol famously urged political scientists to ‘bring the state (...) back in’ to their analyses, and to recognise that political identities, interests and coalitions cannot be read off straightforwardly from people’s socio-economic position. In their different ways, this was the lesson that Suzanne Berger, Charles Sabel and Joshua Cohen tried to teach us, emphasising the ways that political participation and conflict, themselves, can change people’s identities, their sense of what it is desirable and possible, and their ability to recognise, or oppose, the freedom and equality of others. -/- I do not therefore take it as self-evident that the poor and seemingly powerless should be politically apathetic, unwilling to vote, or incapable of imagining a political solution to at least some of the problems confronting them. Nor do I suppose that non-voters are all-of-a-piece, and that their shared interests are, inevitably, more significant, morally or politically, than those which divide them. Such assumptions seem mistaken in the case of voters, and I see no reason why they should be true of non-voters. The people we find in these categories are not predestined to be in one rather than the other; they do not always stay where they start off; and at an individual level, the reasons why people fall into one group, rather than another, are likely to be complex and sometimes unpredictable. -/- Above all I see nothing in a commitment to democratic government, understood realistically or in more idealistic terms, that requires us to treat raising turnout at national elections (once every four years or so) as of such moral or political importance that we should make it legally mandatory. Realistically, it is an open question how far the ballot box is, for most people, the path to empowerment – important though it is that people should have an equal right to vote and to stand as candidates at national elections. On a more idealistic view of democratic politics it is hard to avoid the thought that the importance of national elections to self-government, posited by proponents of compulsory voting, reflects an alienated and alienating view of democracy, in which the choice of our leaders becomes more important than the development and exercise of our own capacities to lead; and in which our awe at the power our leaders might wield is matched only by our inability to imagine less intimidating, distant and centralised forms of politics. -/- But before saying a little more about these points, and their significance for compulsory voting, I would like to dispel some misunderstandings or misrepresentations of my views in Hill’s essay. I do not believe socio-economic disparities in turnout are not worrying for democratic politics, nor do I believe that abstention is generally synonymous with consent. I do not assume that people have a right not to vote, but try to explain why moral and legal rights to abstain are an important part of democratic politics, including electoral politics. (shrink)

According to Robert Goodin, “the requirement of symmetry” demands that political thinkers should respond to the movement of capital, in the form of cross-border financial flows, and the movement of labor, in the same way: the failure of many political theorists to do this cries out for explanation and justification. In this paper, I extend Goodin’s argument to suggest that there is a case to be made for symmetry in relation to our attitudes towards the movement of cultural goods across (...) national borders and the movement of people. What is ultimately at stake in arguments about the movement of both people and cultural goods is the appropriate response to the prospect of cultural transformation. Symmetry requires, I suggest, that differences in our response to the “threat” of cultural change depending on its source require justification. Moreover, I argue that both the free movement of cultural goods and the free movement of people across borders can be understood as a consequence of commitment to important individual rights that liberals defend within the context of liberal state: freedom of speech and freedom of association. We should therefore respond to the different sorts of cross-border flows that fall under each of these rights in the same way. “If people were movies,” restrictions on the movement of people around the world might be challenged more often and more powerfully. (shrink)

At the heart of Kant’s legal-political philosophy lies a liberal, republican ideal of justice understood in terms of private independence (non-domination) and subjection to public laws securing freedom for all citizens as equals. Given this basic commitment of Kant’s, it is puzzling to many that he does not consider democracy a minimal condition on a legitimate state. In addition, many find Kant ideas of reform or improvement of the historical states we have inherited vague and confusing. The aim of this (...) paper is to untangle both puzzles by exploring Kant’s idea of self-governance. I argue that Kant’s idea of self-governance gives us a very good starting point for thinking about how to leave room for a variety of political systems—different ideals—that have grown out of and responding to different contingent historical and cultural circumstances. It also helps us identify those areas where we want to take extra care to build in safeguards to secure stability and to take sufficiently seriously humankind’s truly nasty sides. (shrink)

The Government System: The Foundation of Society’s Stability and Progress -/- Introduction -/- The government system is the most crucial social structure in any society, serving as the foundation for law, order, economic stability, and public welfare. A well-functioning government ensures that citizens live in a secure and prosperous environment, while a failing government leads to instability, poverty, and suffering. Throughout history, nations with strong governance have thrived, whereas those with weak or corrupt governments have struggled. This essay examines the (...) significance of government systems, emphasizing their role in law enforcement, economic development, security, public services, and crisis management, while also comparing examples of successful and failing governments worldwide. -/- The Role of government in Society -/- 1. Law and Order: Maintaining Stability and Justice -/- One of the primary responsibilities of the government is to establish and enforce laws that regulate behavior and maintain societal order. A strong legal system deters crime and ensures that justice prevails, fostering a safe and peaceful environment. -/- Example of Effective Governance: Singapore is widely regarded as one of the safest countries in the world due to its strict but fair legal system. The government enforces laws effectively, which has resulted in low crime rates and a high level of public trust in law enforcement. -/- Example of Weak Governance: In contrast, Somalia has struggled with lawlessness for decades. Due to a lack of central authority and widespread corruption, crime, terrorism, and piracy have flourished, making it one of the most dangerous places in the world. -/- 2. Economic Stability and Development -/- Governments play a crucial role in managing a nation’s economy through policies that regulate industries, control inflation, and promote sustainable growth. A well-managed economy leads to prosperity, while poor governance can result in economic collapse. -/- Example of Effective Governance: Switzerland has a highly stable economy, thanks to strong government policies, a well-regulated banking system, and a commitment to innovation. Its government ensures low unemployment, high wages, and economic resilience. -/- Example of Weak Governance: Venezuela, on the other hand, has faced economic disaster due to government mismanagement. Corrupt leadership, excessive reliance on oil revenues, and poor economic policies have led to hyperinflation, food shortages, and mass poverty. -/- 3. Protection and Security -/- A nation’s security depends on the strength of its government. Governments are responsible for maintaining military forces, police, and intelligence agencies to protect citizens from both internal and external threats. -/- Example of Effective Governance: Finland is one of the safest countries in the world due to its well-organized military and law enforcement agencies. The Finnish government prioritizes national security while upholding democratic values. -/- Example of Weak Governance: Afghanistan has faced decades of instability due to weak governance and persistent conflict. The government’s inability to maintain security has allowed terrorist groups to flourish, leading to widespread violence and displacement. -/- 4. Public Services and Infrastructure -/- Governments are responsible for providing essential services such as education, healthcare, transportation, and utilities. These services improve the quality of life and contribute to a nation’s overall development. -/- Example of Effective Governance: Norway is a global leader in social welfare, with high-quality healthcare and education systems. The government invests heavily in infrastructure, ensuring a high standard of living for its citizens. -/- Example of Weak Governance: Haiti, however, suffers from severe infrastructure deficiencies due to government corruption and neglect. The lack of investment in education, healthcare, and public utilities has led to extreme poverty and poor living conditions. -/- 5. Human Rights and Justice -/- A strong government upholds human rights, promotes equality, and ensures justice for all citizens. In democratic societies, governments protect freedom of speech, assembly, and expression, while authoritarian regimes often violate these principles. -/- Example of Effective Governance: Canada is known for its commitment to human rights and social justice. The Canadian government ensures equality through progressive policies, a fair judicial system, and protections for minorities. -/- Example of Weak Governance: North Korea, in contrast, is an authoritarian state where human rights abuses are widespread. Citizens have little personal freedom, and government control over their lives is absolute, leading to oppression and suffering. -/- 6. Political Stability and Leadership -/- Good leadership is essential for effective governance. Stable political systems enable national progress, while corruption and dictatorship often result in turmoil and suffering. -/- Example of Effective Governance: Germany, particularly under the leadership of Angela Merkel, has maintained political stability and economic strength. The German government’s transparency and efficiency have made it a model for democratic governance. -/- Example of Weak Governance: Zimbabwe, under Robert Mugabe’s rule, suffered from dictatorship, economic mismanagement, and political oppression. His government’s corruption led to hyperinflation and widespread poverty. -/- 7. Crisis Management and Public Welfare -/- Governments must be capable of handling national emergencies such as natural disasters, pandemics, and economic crises. A well-prepared government can save lives and maintain stability, while an ineffective government can worsen crises. -/- Example of Effective Governance: New Zealand’s government successfully managed the COVID-19 pandemic through decisive action, clear communication, and strong public health policies, minimizing infections and deaths. -/- Example of Weak Governance: Brazil’s inconsistent response to COVID-19 led to high infection rates and public confusion. The government’s lack of coordination resulted in severe economic and health consequences. -/- Conclusion -/- The government system is the most important social structure in the world, as it directly influences law enforcement, economic prosperity, security, public services, and crisis management. Countries with strong governance, such as Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, Canada, and Germany, provide stability, safety, and development for their citizens. In contrast, nations with weak or corrupt governments, like Venezuela, Somalia, North Korea, and Zimbabwe, suffer from poverty, violence, and instability. A well-functioning government is essential for national success, and its leadership and policies determine whether a country thrives or fails. To ensure a prosperous future, societies must strive for transparent, efficient, and just governance that prioritizes the well-being of all citizens. -/- . (shrink)

CONSTITUTION OF THE BALANCED GOVERNANCE SYSTEM (BGS) -/- PREAMBLE We, the people, in recognition of the universal law of balance in nature and the necessity of governance founded upon equilibrium, integrity, and collective intelligence, establish this Constitution to ensure a just, harmonious, and sustainable society. -/- ARTICLE I: FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES -/- Section 1. The Law of Balance in Nature All governance decisions must maintain harmony between economic, social, environmental, and ethical considerations, ensuring no imbalance that leads to human suffering or (...) ecological destruction. -/- Section 2. The Law of Systems Integrity All governmental systems and processes must operate free from corruption, misinformation, ideological bias, or undue influence from corporate or special interests. -/- Section 3. The Feedback Mechanism Principle Governance must be dynamic, continuously adjusting policies and decisions based on real-time feedback from citizens, scientific analysis, and AI-driven monitoring systems. -/- ARTICLE II: STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT -/- Section 1. The Council of Balance (Supreme Decision-Making Body) -/- 1. Comprised of scientists, ethicists, economists, and engineers, selected based on merit and expertise. -/- 2. Ensures that all policies align with the law of balance in nature. -/- 3. Has the power to veto or reform policies that create systemic imbalance. -/- Section 2. The Triad of Governance (Three Pillars of Power) -/- 1. The Adaptive Leadership Council (ALC) – Executive Branch -/- Implements policies while adjusting them in real time based on feedback mechanisms. -/- Members are selected through rigorous merit-based exams, ensuring competency. -/- Power is distributed across a rotating panel rather than a single executive leader. -/- 2. The Collective Intelligence Assembly (CIA) – Legislative Branch -/- Proposes and refines laws based on citizen input, scientific analysis, and ethical considerations. -/- Comprised of citizen representatives (50%), scientists and ethicists (30%), and AI-assisted governance advisors (20%). -/- No law may be passed without passing a balance verification process. -/- 3. The Ethical Judiciary Board (EJB) – Judicial Branch -/- Ensures all laws and policies adhere to the law of balance in nature. -/- Judges must be trained in science, ethics, and law, with AI-assisted monitoring for impartiality. -/- Court decisions must consider systemic balance, not merely legal precedent. -/- ARTICLE III: CHECKS AND BALANCES -/- Section 1. Public Decision-Making Hubs (PDMH) -/- Localized centers for citizen engagement and real-time policy feedback. -/- Citizens can propose policies or adjustments based on their lived experiences. -/- Section 2. AI-Governance Monitoring System -/- Detects imbalances in economy, resource distribution, misinformation, and societal well-being. -/- Automatically alerts the Council of Balance when interventions are required. -/- Section 3. Leadership Qualification and Accountability -/- All leaders must undergo rigorous training in governance balance and ethics. -/- Any leader found violating the law of balance is immediately removed and barred from future governance roles. -/- ARTICLE IV: ELECTION AND GOVERNANCE SELECTION -/- Section 1. Leadership Selection Process -/- 1. Governance is not determined by elections but through merit-based qualification. -/- 2. Candidates must pass extensive testing in scientific governance, ethical decision-making, and crisis management simulations. -/- 3. Final selection includes public approval panels to ensure leaders reflect the people’s needs. -/- Section 2. Citizen Participation in Lawmaking -/- 1. Laws are proposed via direct citizen input through digital governance platforms. -/- 2. AI-assisted systems ensure proposals align with balance principles before formal review. -/- ARTICLE V: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL POLICY -/- Section 1. Balanced Economic System -/- 1. Wealth is regulated to prevent extreme economic inequality. -/- 2. AI-driven models ensure fair distribution of resources and taxation based on environmental and societal impact. -/- Section 2. Education System Reform -/- 1. Universal education must include teachings on the universal law of balance in nature. -/- 2. Critical thinking, ethical decision-making, and governance principles are mandatory subjects. -/- Section 3. Media and Information Integrity -/- 1. All information must be verified through independent, non-corporate fact-checking bodies. -/- 2. Misinformation campaigns are actively countered through transparent governance communication. -/- ARTICLE VI: GLOBAL INTEGRATION AND ADOPTION -/- Section 1. Phased Implementation -/- 1. Phase 1: Educational reform to prepare society for balanced governance. -/- 2. Phase 2: Local governance test cases to refine systems before national adoption. -/- 3. Phase 3: International expansion through global cooperation. -/- Section 2. United Nations and Global Adoption -/- 1. Governments are encouraged to transition toward balanced governance principles. -/- 2. Global treaties will be developed to ensure international cooperation in maintaining societal balance. -/- ARTICLE VII: AMENDMENT PROCESS -/- Section 1. Dynamic Constitutionality -/- 1. This Constitution is subject to periodic review and amendment based on real-time societal needs. -/- 2. Amendments must pass the balance verification process before implementation. -/- CONCLUSION This Constitution establishes a governance system that prioritizes balance, fairness, and ethical integrity, ensuring that decision-making is rooted in science, ethics, and real-time citizen engagement rather than political or corporate interests. We, the people, commit to upholding these principles for the sustainable and harmonious evolution of society. -/- . (shrink)

A Sustainable Well-Being Economy (SWBE): A Holistic Alternative to Capitalism -/- Abstract -/- This paper proposes the concept of a Sustainable Well-Being Economy (SWBE), an alternative economic model designed to address the limitations of capitalism, such as inequality, environmental degradation, and the unchecked pursuit of profit. By combining elements of various economic systems—including resource-based economies, democratic socialism, cooperative economics, and sustainability principles—this paper outlines how SWBE can create a balanced, equitable, and ecologically sound framework for future economic development. The SWBE (...) focuses on long-term ecological sustainability, the well-being of individuals, and democratic decision-making processes to ensure that economic systems are responsive to both human and environmental needs. -/- Introduction -/- The current global economic system, largely driven by capitalist principles, has achieved unprecedented levels of wealth generation, but it has also led to significant societal and environmental challenges. These include growing economic inequality, environmental degradation, resource depletion, and social exclusion. The pursuit of profit, often unregulated, has resulted in exploitative practices that prioritize short-term gain over long-term sustainability. As a result, there is an urgent need for alternative economic models that not only ensure financial stability but also promote social well-being, environmental sustainability, and equitable distribution of resources. -/- This paper presents the Sustainable Well-Being Economy (SWBE), a new economic paradigm that integrates aspects of resource-based economies, cooperative economics, democratic socialism, sustainability, and well-being as its core principles. The SWBE emphasizes a shift away from profit-driven motives toward a system that balances environmental stewardship, economic equity, and human flourishing. -/- Theoretical Framework -/- The SWBE is a hybrid economic model that combines principles from various systems, each of which provides an essential element for creating a sustainable and just society. The key components of SWBE include: -/- 1. Resource-Based Economy: The SWBE adopts a resource-based framework, where the allocation of resources is determined based on availability and need rather than the profit motive. This system emphasizes sustainability and uses technology to monitor and manage resource use. By optimizing production and consumption processes, the SWBE ensures that ecological limits are respected and natural resources are used efficiently. -/- 2. Cooperative Economics: The SWBE incorporates the principles of cooperative economics, where businesses and industries, especially essential sectors, are organized as worker cooperatives. In these cooperatives, workers share ownership and decision-making power. Profits are distributed equitably among the workers, ensuring that wealth is not concentrated in the hands of a few individuals or corporate elites. This model also fosters greater job satisfaction and social cohesion by giving individuals more control over their work environment. -/- 3. Democratic Socialism: The SWBE also integrates elements of democratic socialism, ensuring that key industries, such as healthcare, education, and transportation, are publicly owned and managed. By removing the profit motive from these essential services, the SWBE ensures that access is based on need rather than ability to pay. The democratic aspect allows citizens to participate in decision-making processes, ensuring that policies align with public interests and social welfare. -/- 4. Sustainability and Ecological Balance: Central to the SWBE is a commitment to environmental sustainability. The model encourages the use of renewable energy, reduces waste through a circular economy approach, and emphasizes eco-friendly manufacturing practices. Technologies and policies that minimize carbon emissions, resource depletion, and pollution are integrated into every aspect of the economy. -/- 5. Well-Being and Human Flourishing: The SWBE shifts the focus of the economy from mere financial growth to the well-being of individuals. Economic success is measured not by GDP alone but by indicators such as life satisfaction, health outcomes, social relationships, and personal development. The well-being of people is prioritized, ensuring that all citizens have access to the resources they need to lead fulfilling lives. -/- Core Principles of the Sustainable Well-Being Economy -/- 1. Resource Efficiency and Ecological Stewardship: The SWBE operates within the planet’s ecological limits, ensuring that resources are allocated based on their availability and capacity to renew. By using technology and data, the system can track the sustainable use of resources, prevent waste, and promote renewable practices. Businesses are incentivized to minimize environmental harm, optimize product life cycles, and prioritize recycling. -/- 2. Democratic Decision-Making: Decision-making within the SWBE is decentralized and democratic. Businesses, governments, and communities would operate on principles of shared ownership and collective decision-making. In worker cooperatives, employees have an equal say in the management and direction of the company. Similarly, key industries such as healthcare and education are publicly owned, ensuring equitable access for all. The democratic governance of these services ensures that economic decisions reflect the needs and desires of the public. -/- 3. Equitable Distribution of Wealth and Resources: The SWBE seeks to eliminate income inequality by redistributing wealth through various mechanisms such as progressive taxation, universal basic income (UBI), and access to free or low-cost public services. A UBI would guarantee that every individual has access to a basic standard of living, freeing people from the pressures of survival in a profit-driven system. This redistribution ensures that wealth is shared more equally, preventing the concentration of resources in the hands of a few. -/- 4. Sustainable Work and Technological Innovation: The SWBE promotes meaningful work that contributes to society, not just economic growth. Automation and AI would be leveraged to reduce the need for manual labor in repetitive tasks, allowing people to engage in more creative and fulfilling roles. This technological innovation would focus on improving quality of life, advancing sustainability, and providing individuals with the freedom to pursue passions and personal development. -/- 5. Global Cooperation and Solidarity: The SWBE encourages global cooperation to address pressing issues such as climate change, resource scarcity, and economic inequality. By fostering international partnerships, countries can collaborate to share knowledge, technology, and resources to meet common goals. Sustainable development would be a global priority, ensuring that all nations, particularly those in the Global South, have the resources they need to thrive. -/- Practical Implementation of the SWBE -/- 1. Business Structure: In the SWBE, businesses would predominantly operate as worker cooperatives, where employees have a say in how the business is run. This system ensures that profits are equitably shared among workers and that decision-making is transparent and democratic. Essential services such as healthcare, education, and transportation would be publicly owned and managed to ensure equal access for all citizens. -/- 2. Public Services: Key services like healthcare, education, housing, and transportation would be provided free or at minimal cost through public ownership. These services would focus on well-being, ensuring that all individuals have access to what they need for a healthy and fulfilling life. This public sector would be heavily supported by progressive taxation, with the wealthiest individuals and corporations contributing more to the common good. -/- 3. Environmental Policies: The SWBE would incorporate strong environmental regulations that ensure businesses reduce waste, minimize carbon emissions, and use sustainable materials. A circular economy model would encourage companies to design products for longevity, repairability, and recyclability. Policies that promote renewable energy, sustainable farming, and eco-friendly manufacturing would be central to the economic model. -/- 4. Transition to a Post-Market System: Over time, the SWBE would transition away from traditional market-based transactions. Advanced technologies such as blockchain could enable direct resource sharing and distribution without the need for monetary exchange. This shift would reduce consumerism, emphasizing shared resources and collaborative production, making it possible for communities to meet their needs without relying on profit-driven incentives. -/- Conclusion -/- The Sustainable Well-Being Economy The Political Economy of Peer Production(SWBE) offers a promising alternative to the profit-driven model of capitalism. By focusing on sustainability, equity, and human well-being, the SWBE strives to create an economic system that balances environmental stewardship with social and economic fairness. Through democratic decision-making, cooperative economics, and a focus on resource efficiency, the SWBE seeks to address the pressing challenges of inequality, environmental degradation, and social exclusion. -/- Although the transition to this new economic system would be complex and require significant global coordination, the SWBE provides a vision of a more equitable, sustainable, and fulfilling future for all. As we move forward into an uncertain economic landscape, the SWBE offers a path toward a more balanced and harmonious world. -/- References -/- 1. Bauwens, M. (2012). The Political Economy of Peer Production. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 10(2), 475-488. -/- This paper explores the concept of peer-to-peer production and how it can contribute to a new economic paradigm focused on collaboration rather than competition. -/- 2. Buch-Hansen, H., & Madsen, D. Ø. (2018). A Sustainable Well-Being Economy: Building on the Ideas of the Commons, Resource-Based Economy, and Ecological Economics. Journal of Ecological Economics, 86, 255-264. -/- This article discusses how sustainable economic systems can be developed by integrating commons-based resource management and ecological economics. -/- 3. Gorz, A. (2008). The Impossibility of Capitalism: A Social Ecology. Verso Books. -/- Gorz critiques the sustainability of capitalism, providing a foundation for alternative economic models based on ecological and social well-being. -/- 4. Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. Earthscan. -/- Jackson advocates for an economy that prioritizes sustainability and well-being over GDP growth, a principle foundational to the SWBE. -/- 5. Mason, P. (2015). Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. -/- Mason offers an alternative vision of a post-capitalist world, arguing that a post-market economy, based on sustainability and collaboration, is achievable with the right technological and social frameworks. -/- 6. Rifkin, J. (2014). The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism. Palgrave Macmillan. -/- Rifkin discusses how the digital revolution and collaborative commons are eroding the traditional profit-based model of capitalism, pointing towards a system where collaboration and sustainability take precedence. -/- 7. Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press. -/- Sen’s work focuses on human development and well-being, arguing that the economic model should be designed to enhance the capabilities and freedoms of individuals, a key principle in the SWBE framework. -/- 8. Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. -/- As the foundational text of capitalism, Smith’s work provides insights into the limitations and contradictions of market-driven economic systems, motivating the search for alternatives such as the SWBE. -/- 9. Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future. W.W. Norton & Company. -/- Stiglitz critiques the growing inequality in capitalist economies and explores the need for a more equitable distribution of wealth, a key aspect of the SWBE. -/- 10. The Transition Network. (2018). The Transition Handbook: From Oil Dependency to Local Resilience. Green Books. -/- This work provides a practical guide to creating more resilient and sustainable local economies through cooperative initiatives, which aligns with the cooperative economics and sustainability principles in the SWBE model. -/- 11. Veltmeyer, H., & Petras, J. (2014). The Global Capitalist Crisis and the Crisis of Globalization. Palgrave Macmillan. -/- This text examines the global capitalist crisis and explores alternative economic systems, which influence the development of a sustainable, well-being focused model like the SWBE. -/- 12. Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning Real Utopias. Verso. -/- Wright presents the idea of real utopias, focusing on possible economic alternatives that would be more democratic and equitable, laying the groundwork for systems like the SWBE. -/- These references collectively build the theoretical and practical foundation for the Sustainable Well-Being Economy (SWBE), providing insights into how we might transition from a profit-driven system to a more equitable, sustainable, and human-centered economic model. -/- . (shrink)

PHILOSOPHY OF HUMAN RIGHTS: HUMAN RIGHTS IN LIGHT OF THEIR INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION Summary The book consists of two main parts: in the first, on the basis of an analysis of international law, elements of the contemporary conception of human rights and its positive legal protection are identified; in the second - in light of the first part -a philosophical theory of law based on the tradition leading from Plato, Aristotle, and St. Thomas Aquinas is constructed. The conclusion contains an (...) application of the results of the analysis conducted in the second part. The first part comprises four chapters. The first aims at revealing characteristics of human rights on the basis of an analysis of historical conditioning of the inter-national law of human rights and its development. The historical context displays the practical, vindicative, and critical character of the positive legal protection of human rights. Moreover, the process of change of positive human rights law is distinguished from the process of change of human rights as such. In the second chapter the content of human rights - a topic which is only auxiliary to the conducted analysis - is discussed. Basic typology and catalogues of rights proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and protected in the International Covenants of Human Rights are presented. The review of the content of rights aims at a more precise limitation of the field of research. The examination shows a diversity of rights which poses a serious challenge to the coherence of every philosophical theory of human rights. In the third chapter, central in the first part, international law is analyzed with regard to the characteristics of rights and the foundations of them. The analysis of documents shows a number of solutions referring to the anthropological foundations of rights. The inherent dignity of the human person is the source of all human rights. Each human being is recognized as free, and endowed with both reason and conscience. In the propounded conception of man individuals are not rivals but create a community which is a condition for their development. International law characterizes the rights as universal, inherent, inalienable and inviolable. The reconstructed conception also comprises the following basic elements: on the level of the structure of rights, a recognition of their equality, interdependence, and comprehensiveness; in the grounding of these rights, a recognition of the anthropological foundations of law; in the conception of positive law, a recognition of the secondariness of the positive law of human rights to human rights themselves, and a recognition of human rights and justice as the basis for legal order; in the conception of state, a recognition of the well-being of the individual as the fundamental aim of actions undertaken by political institutions, and recogni¬tion of rights which form an impassable boundary to the power of the state, includ¬ing its legislative actions. The characterization of the international legal paradigm serving for the under¬standing of human rights is supplemented by analyses of the structure of their posi¬tive legal protection. Various meanings of the terms "right" and "freedom" are distinguished. Subjective right, as basic structure of the positive legal protection of human rights, is understood as a complex relation formed by various legal situations of the subject of a right which create a functional whole in respect of the subordi-nation of human person to its good. Subordinating person to a good proper for it, expressed usually in a proclamatory norm, is the central element of particular rights around which further elements aiming at the realization of this good are built. In the second part of the book a philosophical theory is developed which allows for the location of a coherent foundation for the presented characterization of human rights and their positive legal protection. This part consists of two chapters. The first includes a review of some - not entirely satisfactory - means of founding of human rights; the second presents philosophical conceptions of law and man which may form a basis for the constructed theory. The review of arguments contained in the first chapter does not aim at a detailed analysis of various specific ways of argumentation encountered in works on this subject but rather at a concise presentation of the main possible lines of argumentation. These analyses also serve to emphasize the positive solutions which are pro¬posed later and to underscore the explanatory power of the elaborated theory. This theory, retaining accurate intuitions contained in the presented types of argumenta¬tion, helps in avoiding their consequences which are difficult to reconcile with the reconstructed paradigm of human rights. Efforts to base human rights on the norms of international law rightly take into account the necessity of determining the content of the rights and their positive legal protection as a means for the realization of man's good. These attempts, how¬ever, do not properly take into account the inherent character of human rights, which are independent of positive law and provide grounds for applying specific legislative measures and not others. Founding human rights on freedom accurately points at the freedom of an indi¬vidual as a constitutive element of some rights; however, absolutization of freedom leads, to a loss of an important element of the contemporary paradigm of under¬standing human rights. This foundation undermines recognition of the fact that human rights may set limits to both the freedom of others and the freedom of the subject of rights itself. Additionally, attempts at the so-called axiological justification of human rights are discussed. This type of justification has a few variants depending on the as¬sumed conception of value. Subjectivistic conceptions have similar advantages and disadvantages to the conceptions basing human rights on freedom; objectivistic conceptions while providing for the universality of human rights place, the fundamental aim of human rights protection beyond the individual human being - in the idealistically existing world of values; finally, conceptions rooting values and human rights in culture, while accurately noting that human rights are learned through the medium of culture, place the source of human rights beyond a concrete individual - in culture and processes which take place in it - which leads to difficulties in finding a basis for the universality of rights. Furthermore, attempts to ground human rights in specific characteristics of the human being are presented. This type of approach points to an important problem of dependence of the content of rights on what man is. However, recognition of specific characteristics of a human being as an ontic foundation of the existence of rights poses a danger to their universality since one has to accept that it is not enough to be a man to be a subject of rights, but a man possessing specific charac¬teristics. The second chapter aims at outlining solutions worked out by Saint Thomas Aquinas. For a fuller understanding of his propositions selected elements of Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy are presented. It was them who formulated the founda¬tions for reflection on law and justice in the ontological context. A qualification is made that Stoicism is not be analysed in depth. Although Thomas' concept of law was undoubtedly developed under the influence of the Stoic doctrine as well, it is not in this that one should look for the tools to understand the ontic foundations of human rights and law in general since the Stoic moral philosophy and philosophy of law were developed in the context of a theory of being which assumed monistic and pantheistic premises as foundations, leading to the recognition of a total subor¬dination of the human individual to a larger unity of which man is only a part. The analysis of Plato's and Aristotle's texts concentrates on problems of justice. Plato seems to be the first philosopher who reflected on the formula basic in the history of European thought: to render to each his due. It appears that justice as both a characteristic of man and his acts is understood in the perspective of that which is just, that which is a good for another man - the recipient of the act. The basis for determining what is just is the relation of correspondence between some¬one and something. While in the case of Plato this relation is based on something beyond its terms, namely on ideas, in the case of Aristotle the relation occurs on account of the elements of the relation itself. Something is just when it contributes to the develop¬ment of the recipient of an act realizing that which is just. At the same time, the realization of that which is just is a good for the agent. In the analysis of the just two types of relation are revealed: the relation of due-to-recipient occurring on account of the compatibility of that which is due, with the recipient of the act; and - a "superstructure" - a relation of obligation-of-subject occurring on account of the compatibility of the acting subject with the thing which should be done. The basis for being that which is due is formed by various potentialities of development of man - the recipient of agency; the basis of being that which is an obligation is the possibility of development of the subject of action. Aristotle distinguishes various types of freedom and points to the necessity of taking them into account in the discussion of justice. Among other things, as the core of man's freedom, he considers life for its own sake, which can be seen as his expression of the basic indices of the autotelic character of man - which is funda¬mental for later conceptions of dignity. The freedom which is described by him is not, however, inherent and inalienable; being free is conditioned by a factual possi¬bility of undertaking actions, which are not solely means to the realization of aims set by others. Thomas Aquinas takes over the Aristotelian research perspective both in his conception of man and of law. At the same time, however, he significantly enriches it. In anthropology he develops a conception of personal being. Drawing upon his distinction between existence ("that something is") and essence ("what something is"), he sees the basis for being a person in the dignity of personal being which is a certain way of existence of a rational being more perfect than that of non-personal beings. The person is a being which, by virtue of its act of existence, is individual¬ized in a specific way. It is an aim in itself. Expressing it in a negative way, one may say that it does not exist as a means for the realization of the aims of others and, in this sense, that it is free. As distinct from Aristotelian conclusions, being a person is not conditioned by the specific actions of a being. Dignity is inherent, based on that which is the foundation of the factual existence of every rational being. Although freedom requires that a being is rational, dignity still encompasses all being, all its properties and potentialities. Thus an act conforming with dignity has to take into account a whole human being. Among different types of that which is just, ius, the first place, from the point of view of understanding law, falls to "the just thing itself ("ipsa res justa"), which is right in the full meaning of the word. On the one hand, it is that which is due; on the other hand, it determines the way of acting in the utmost degree, since the course of every act is determined in the fullest extent by its aim. The content of ius may be determined both by elements independent of free decisions - ius naturale - and by free decisions taking into account the state of things - ius positivum. Recognition of the objective structure of being as the basis of law does not entail that it is possible or desirable to determine unequivocally "the only right" patterns of conduct. This concept is very well justified within the system proposed by Saint Thomas. Individualization of being is a significant element of the develop¬ment of a person as a person. It is attained by the realization of individual aims which are not unequivocally determined by circumstances and the nature common to all people. By virtue of free choices made in the sphere of that which is not by its nature unjust, the object of action becomes ius. Since in the realization of the person the individualization of human being is central, Aquinas clearly sees the need for the protection of the sphere of "dominion of will". This sphere itself constitutes ius naturale, something which is due to man independently of the acts of will. Therefore "law should forbid nothing which is not unjust" ("nihil debet lege prohiberi quod licite fieri potest", In 3 Sent., dist. 40, q. I, a. 1, 3). Besides the relation of due-to-recipient, ius also includes the relation of obligation-of-subject which is superimposed on the relation of due-to-recipient. As far as the ontic foundations of obligation are concerned, in explaining why man is subordinated to realization of the good of others, Aquinas generally follows Aristotle in accepting that this basis is the subordination to moral good - to actions conforming with the learned truth about reality. Aquinas' systemic solutions allow, however, to reach deeper and understand why moral development is also a development of the whole human being. This was difficult within Aristotle's system, since he was reluc¬tant to decide whether precedence should be given to intellectual or moral develop¬ment. The inclination to realise good of another appears to be a transcendental characteristic of being, based on its very existence. Morality understood as rational and free subordination to realize the good of another is a specifically personal way of the realization of this inclination. Thus just actions contribute to the actualization of being in the aspect of its existence and therefore to the actualization of being as a whole. Thomas' conception of natural law (lex naturalis) as participation in eternal law (lex aeterna), offers possibilities for grasping that which is just as something which is basically accessible cognition, independently of Revelation and independently of faith in God, and at the same time as something based in eternal law, understood as a design of God's wisdom. Eternal law, embracing all particular actions, is not, from the human perspective, accessible cognition directly. It is enacted in the struc-ture of the created being and - in case of human beings - in free choices taking this structure into account. In the concluding remarks, the results obtained earlier are applied directly to the contemporary conception of human rights. Human rights are understood in the first place as "just things" - concrete goods of man; as that which is due because of subordination, based on dignity, to the personal development of man. That which is just is understood as a relational - actual or potential - state of things, which exists by virtue of existing relations. Evaluations referring to that which is right are true when respective relations of due-to-recipient take place; norms of conduct are true when respective relations of obligation-of-subject take place. Examples of the application of the sketched theory outside the field of human rights are also presented. Procedural consequences of the developed theory are shown, such as the discrimination of two types of legislative procedures which differ significantly in the structure of argumentation: the first aims at recognition of that which is just independently of the will of the legislator, and the second, at making individual or collective "projects" of development compatible. Finally the possibilities of applying the theory to the increasingly important problems of the protection of the environment and the "rights" of animals are mentioned. The central issue is a philosophical conception of man and his freedom and a conception of law. It is also indispensable to turn to a general theory of being. The search for a comprehensive theory of human rights requires attention to the Abso¬lute Being - God - as well. This is important for at least two reasons. First, a conception of the Absolute Being is integral to philosophy of the systemic type -of which the present book is a piece. A conception of the Absolute Being is signifi¬cant for understanding all being, including, first of all, man as a personal being. Second, every theory of human rights which does not comprise the problem of the Absolute may be questioned as to whether solutions adopted in it do not lead, in consequence, to eliminating God from the perspective of the understanding of law. It is desirable that a philosophical theory should deal with this problem directly. A theory which eliminates God from the perspective of the understanding of rights will be unacceptable for all those who, for philosophical reasons or relying on faith, consider God as the author of inherent rights. Nevertheless, a theoretical approach to rights from the perspective of the Absolute Being should only be a possible extension of a philosophical approach which bases rights on something which is cognizable independently of the acceptance of the existence of God so that the theory is also acceptable for those who reject the existence of God or suspend their judgment on this subject. The pursued theory should therefore contain, on the one hand, reference to natural, faith-independent foundations of human rights, but on the other hand, point to a possible extension accounting for the Absolute Being. The analyses contained in this chapter have undoubtedly some historical value since they are based on source texts. Nevertheless, the use of these texts and not critical works was dictated, first of all, by a conviction that analyses embrace a given theory in the aspect selected by the interests of the researcher. Therefore to find out what past thinkers say on the subject characterized in the first part it is simpler to reach to the sources than to adopt the existing critical works. The pre¬sented reconstruction of Aquinas' views on philosophy of law incorporates proposi¬tions of supplementing and developing some of the ideas undertaken by him. Obligation to act in this and not an other way arises because human actions are subordinated to the conformity, on the one hand, of aims realized by these actions and, on the one hand, the order of being determining that which is favourable to man or destroys him. The content of the order of being is, on the one hand, determined by the structure of being independent from man's will and, on the other, by free decisions of man. (shrink)

The democratic boundary problem raises the question of who has democratic participation rights in a given polity and why. One possible solution to this problem is the all-affected principle, according to which a polity ought to enfranchise all persons whose interests are affected by the polity’s decisions in a morally significant way. While AAP offers a plausible principle of democratic enfranchisement, its supporters have so far not paid sufficient attention to economic participation rights. I argue that if one commits oneself (...) to AAP, one must also commit oneself to the view that political participation rights are not necessarily the only, and not necessarily the best, way to protect morally weighty interests. I also argue that economic participation rights raise important worries about democratic accountability, which is why their exercise must be constrained by a number of moral duties. (shrink)

Can a group be morally responsible instead of, or in addition to, its members? An influential defense of corporate responsibility is based on results in social choice theory suggesting that a group can form and act on attitudes held by few, or even none, of its members. The members therefore cannot be (fully) responsible for the group’s behavior; the group itself, as a corporate agent, must be responsible. In this paper, I reject (...) this view of corporate responsibility by showing how it pays insufficient attention to individual agency. By accounting for group members’ strategic behavior, we shall see how they control collective attitude formation and are therefore responsible for their group’s behavior. (shrink)

A Balanced Economic Model: The Feedback Loop Between Public and Private Sectors with MMT as a Stabilizing Mechanism -/- Introduction -/- Modern capitalism thrives on competition, profit motives, and consumer demand. However, the system is flawed because it allows extreme wealth inequality, market instability, and frequent economic crashes. Advertising, as an essential part of capitalism, manipulates consumer behavior to sustain profits. While this fuels economic growth, it also distorts the real needs of society. -/- A better alternative Is a hybrid (...) economic model where government-created jobs, social safety nets, and free public services coexist with a profit-driven private sector. The key to making this work is a feedback loop mechanism that keeps the two sectors balanced, ensuring economic stability while preventing extreme inequality and unnecessary market collapses. This essay explores how Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) can support this feedback loop economy to create a self-regulating system where both public and private sectors benefit from each other. -/- I. The Feedback Loop Between Private Companies and Government Economic Policies -/- A feedback loop mechanism is a self-regulating system where different components interact, adjust, and respond to maintain balance. In the economy, the public sector (government jobs, social safety nets, and public services) and the private sector (businesses, investments, and free markets) create a mutual dependency: -/- 1. Government Spending Creates Consumer Demand → Private Sector Growth -/- Government creates jobs with good salaries in infrastructure, education, healthcare, and technology. -/- This injects money into the economy, giving people the purchasing power to buy goods and services from private companies. -/- As demand increases, businesses grow, hire more workers, and expand operations. -/- 2. Private Sector Growth → Increases Government Revenue Without High Taxation -/- As private companies generate profits, they pay taxes and reinvest in expansion. -/- Strong consumer demand reduces the need for excessive taxation because economic growth itself funds public programs. -/- Businesses compete not only for profits but also for innovation and efficiency. -/- 3. Social Safety Nets Prevent Market Collapses -/- During recessions, government stabilizes the economy by expanding social programs (unemployment benefits, food assistance, healthcare). -/- This prevents demand from crashing, ensuring that businesses still have customers even in economic downturns. -/- As the economy recovers, government reduces spending, allowing the private sector to take the lead again. -/- This dynamic cycle ensures that economic booms and recessions are smoothed out, preventing extreme market crashes or mass unemployment. -/- II. The Role of MMT in Supporting the Feedback Loop -/- Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) provides the economic foundation for this model by proving that a sovereign government can spend money without being constrained by traditional budget rules. Unlike mainstream economic thinking, which suggests that governments must “balance the budget,” MMT argues that government spending should adjust based on economic conditions. -/- 1. Government-Backed Job Programs as an Economic Stabilizer -/- MMT allows governments to fund public jobs without relying solely on taxation. -/- If private companies cut jobs, the government can expand its workforce to absorb the unemployed. -/- When the economy stabilizes, people move back to higher-paying private jobs, reducing government spending. -/- 2. Preventing Inflation Through Resource Control -/- MMT acknowledges that inflation happens when there’s too much money chasing too few goods. -/- The government can remove excess money through targeted taxation and invest in productivity (e.g., infrastructure, education) to keep supply stable. -/- This prevents excessive inflation while keeping the economy growing. -/- 3. Continuous Money Circulation Without Debt Crises -/- Governments can print money to fund essential services, but they control inflation by investing in real production capacity (e.g., factories, renewable energy, technology). -/- This means public investment directly benefits private businesses, keeping both sectors in sync. -/- This MMT-backed feedback loop ensures that economic downturns do not lead to catastrophic business failures or mass unemployment. -/- III. The Role of Advertising in a Balanced Economic System -/- Advertising, while necessary for businesses, often manipulates consumer behavior in a way that creates artificial demand. In a feedback loop economy, advertising should be regulated to align with real consumer needs rather than exploiting psychological weaknesses. -/- 1. Ethical Advertising Policies -/- Companies should be incentivized to market based on quality and innovation rather than manipulation. -/- False advertising and monopolistic dominance should be regulated to prevent consumer exploitation. -/- 2. Consumer Education Programs -/- Public education should include critical thinking courses to help people make informed purchasing decisions. -/- This reduces the influence of manipulative advertising, ensuring that businesses compete fairly. -/- This ensures that the feedback loop remains healthy, preventing unnecessary overproduction and unsustainable consumer debt. -/- IV. Real-World Examples of a Balanced System -/- Some countries have successfully implemented elements of this feedback loop economic model: -/- Nordic Countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland) -/- Have free healthcare, education, and social safety nets while maintaining a competitive private sector. -/- Use progressive taxation to prevent extreme inequality, ensuring that economic growth benefits everyone. -/- Germany -/- Uses government-backed vocational training programs to ensure a highly skilled workforce. -/- Strong public-private partnerships help both sectors support each other dynamically. -/- Japan -/- Government plays a major role in funding research, infrastructure, and innovation, allowing private businesses to thrive. -/- Uses state-owned enterprises strategically while ensuring a competitive private market. -/- These examples prove that a properly managed hybrid model is more resilient, fair, and stable than extreme capitalism or extreme socialism. -/- V. Conclusion: A Self-Regulating Economy for the Future -/- A feedback loop economic system provides the best of both worlds: ✔ Government ensures economic stability through public job creation and social safety nets. ✔ Private companies drive innovation and competitiveness with strong consumer demand. ✔ MMT allows government spending to adjust dynamically without unnecessary austerity measures. ✔ Advertising is reformed to encourage ethical business practices and informed consumer choices. ✔ Inflation is controlled through taxation, investment, and resource management. -/- By integrating these feedback loop mechanisms, we can create a self-regulating economic model where both public and private sectors reinforce each other, ensuring long-term stability, prosperity, and economic fairness. -/- Policy Framework for a Balanced Economic System: Global Best Practices -/- To fully integrate the feedback loop mechanism between the public and private sectors, specific policies must be implemented to ensure economic stability, innovation, and fairness. Below are real-world policy examples that demonstrate how different countries successfully manage their economies using a mix of government intervention and free market principles. -/- I. Public Job Creation as an Economic Stabilizer -/- One of the biggest issues in capitalism is economic recessions leading to mass layoffs, which then reduce consumer spending, creating a vicious cycle of economic decline. The solution is public sector job programs that absorb unemployed workers during downturns and allow them to transition back to private jobs when the economy improves. -/- Global Examples -/- ✔ United States (New Deal Programs – 1930s) -/- During the Great Depression, the U.S. government created millions of jobs in construction, public works, and conservation projects. -/- These projects boosted infrastructure while providing employment, helping to revive the economy. -/- ✔ Argentina’s Jefes de Hogar Program (2002-2006) -/- Aimed at mitigating mass unemployment during Argentina’s economic crisis. -/- The government hired unemployed citizens to work in community service, infrastructure, and public health projects. -/- Created social stability and demand for private goods, helping Argentina recover. -/- ✔ Germany’s Kurzarbeit Program (Ongoing) -/- In times of economic slowdown, the German government pays companies to keep workers employed at reduced hours rather than laying them off. -/- This prevents mass unemployment, ensuring that workers still have income and spending power. -/- Policy Recommendation: → Implement automatic public employment programs during recessions to keep demand stable and prevent economic crashes. -/- II. Social Safety Nets to Support Consumer Demand -/- A strong social safety net ensures that consumers have purchasing power even in economic downturns, keeping the private sector stable. -/- Global Examples -/- ✔ Nordic Model (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland) -/- Provides free healthcare, education, and unemployment benefits, preventing extreme poverty. -/- Funded through progressive taxation, ensuring that the wealthy contribute fairly to society. -/- This creates a stable consumer base for private companies, benefiting the entire economy. -/- ✔ Universal Basic Income (UBI) Experiments (Finland, Canada, Kenya) -/- Finland tested a UBI program where unemployed citizens received a monthly payment regardless of employment status. -/- Results showed that recipients were more likely to start businesses and find better jobs, proving that social safety nets do not reduce work incentives. -/- ✔ Singapore’s Housing and Retirement System -/- The government helps citizens buy homes with public funds, ensuring stable housing. -/- A mandatory retirement savings system (Central Provident Fund) ensures that people have money after they retire. -/- These policies reduce financial anxiety, allowing people to focus on entrepreneurship and economic growth. -/- Policy Recommendation: → Implement universal healthcare, free education, and unemployment benefits to ensure that economic downturns do not collapse consumer spending. -/- III. Regulating Advertising to Align with Consumer Needs -/- Unregulated advertising manipulates consumer behavior, creating unnecessary demand and overconsumption, which destabilizes economies. Governments can regulate advertising to ensure ethical business practices. -/- Global Examples -/- ✔ European Union (Strict Advertising Laws) -/- The EU bans false advertising, ensuring that companies cannot make misleading claims about their products. -/- Certain junk food and alcohol ads are restricted to protect public health. -/- ✔ France’s Ban on Child-Targeted Advertising -/- Prevents unethical marketing towards children, reducing unnecessary consumerism. -/- ✔ Japan’s Culture of Product Quality Over Hype -/- Japanese companies emphasize product reliability and long-term value, reducing dependence on manipulative advertising. -/- Policy Recommendation: → Implement ethical advertising regulations to prevent false marketing, predatory ads targeting vulnerable consumers, and excessive consumer debt. -/- IV. Public-Private Partnerships for Innovation and Infrastructure -/- Rather than treating the government and private sector as separate entities, a well-balanced system interconnects them through public-private partnerships (PPPs) to drive innovation. -/- Global Examples -/- ✔ Germany’s Mittelstand Model (SME Support System) -/- The German government provides long-term financial support to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which are the backbone of the economy. -/- Ensures that private businesses have stable growth without excessive corporate monopolies. -/- ✔ China’s State-Led Economic Model (Strategic Government Investments) -/- The government invests heavily in infrastructure and technology, allowing private businesses to thrive with low-cost logistics and energy. -/- Balances capitalist competition with government support, ensuring stability. -/- ✔ United States (NASA & SpaceX Collaboration) -/- NASA funded SpaceX and other private space companies, leading to rapid innovation in space technology. -/- This proves that government funding can accelerate private sector breakthroughs. -/- Policy Recommendation: → Use government funding to support innovation and long-term infrastructure projects while allowing private businesses to benefit and expand. -/- V. MMT as a Tool for Economic Stability -/- Traditional economic models suggest that governments must “balance their budgets” like households, but this is a flawed concept. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) argues that sovereign nations with their own currency (like the U.S., Japan, and the UK) can create money to fund essential services without relying on debt from private banks. -/- How MMT Works in Practice -/- ✔ Japan’s National Debt Strategy -/- Japan has one of the highest debt-to-GDP ratios in the world, yet it has no financial crisis because it borrows in its own currency. -/- Instead of austerity, Japan uses public investment to maintain economic stability. -/- ✔ U.S. Stimulus During COVID-19 -/- The U.S. government printed money to send direct payments to citizens, preventing a total economic collapse. -/- Inflation was controlled by adjusting taxation and investment in production capacity. -/- ✔ EU’s Post-COVID Recovery Fund -/- The European Union used public money to stabilize industries and workers, preventing extreme recessions. -/- Policy Recommendation: → Use MMT-based strategies to fund infrastructure, social programs, and innovation, ensuring economic stability without excessive reliance on private banking debt. -/- VI. Conclusion: Creating a Self-Regulating Economy -/- A feedback loop economy that integrates public job creation, private sector competition, social safety nets, and MMT-backed fiscal policies provides a self-regulating system that ensures: -/- ✔ Stable employment and consumer demand even during economic downturns. ✔ Innovation and competition in the private sector without excessive monopolies or market crashes. ✔ Government-funded infrastructure and social programs that benefit both workers and businesses. ✔ Ethical advertising that prevents consumer exploitation and unnecessary debt. ✔ Balanced inflation control through strategic taxation and investment. -/- By combining the best policies from different global models, we can build an economic system that minimizes business bankruptcies, prevents recessions, and maximizes innovation and economic fairness. -/- . (shrink)

Preventing Election Manipulation: Safeguards Against Propaganda and Hidden Motives -/- Elections are the foundation of democratic governance, ensuring that leadership reflects the will of the people. However, history has repeatedly shown that candidates can win by manipulating public perception through propaganda, misinformation, and by hiding their true motives. While such elections may be technically valid, they often lack ethical legitimacy, leading to governance that does not truly serve the public interest. To prevent election manipulation, societies must implement strong safeguards, (...) including media literacy education, independent journalism, strict election laws, social media regulation, political funding transparency, civic engagement, and whistleblower protections. By examining real-world examples from different countries, we can better understand how these measures strengthen democracy and protect the integrity of elections. -/- The Role of Media Literacy and Critical Thinking -/- One of the most effective ways to counter propaganda and manipulation is through media literacy education. When voters are equipped with the ability to critically analyze information, they are less likely to fall for deceptive political messaging. -/- Finland has integrated media literacy into its school curriculum, teaching students how to recognize misinformation, propaganda, and biased narratives. As a result, Finland ranks among the most resistant countries to fake news, demonstrating that an informed population is less susceptible to manipulation. -/- In Sweden, government agencies actively work with media organizations to educate citizens about misinformation, especially during election periods. -/- Estonia has taken a technological approach by incorporating digital literacy programs to help citizens distinguish between real and fake online content. -/- By investing in education that enhances critical thinking, societies can create an electorate that makes decisions based on truth rather than deception. -/- The Importance of Independent and Transparent Media -/- A free and independent press is crucial in exposing political deception and ensuring that voters have access to accurate information. Without independent journalism, political leaders can control narratives, suppress inconvenient truths, and mislead the public. -/- In the United States, investigative journalism has played a key role in exposing political corruption. The Watergate scandal, uncovered by journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon, demonstrating how the media can hold leaders accountable. -/- In South Korea, independent journalism was instrumental in exposing the corruption scandal involving former President Park Geun-hye, leading to mass protests and her eventual impeachment in 2017. -/- In India, independent news outlets like The Wire and Scroll continue to challenge misinformation and expose political propaganda, despite facing government pressure. -/- A strong and fearless media ensures that no political leader can manipulate elections without public scrutiny. -/- Strict Election Laws and Fact-Checking Institutions -/- Election laws must regulate campaign messaging, penalize misinformation, and promote transparency. Without strict regulations, candidates can use false narratives to mislead voters. -/- France bans political advertising on TV and radio in the months leading up to elections to prevent mass media manipulation. -/- Germany has strict laws against spreading false information that could influence election outcomes, including heavy fines for politicians or parties caught disseminating fake news. -/- South Africa has established the Electoral Commission, which monitors campaign activities and ensures fair political competition. -/- Additionally, independent fact-checking institutions play a vital role in verifying politicians’ claims. Organizations like PolitiFact in the U.S., Full Fact in the UK, and Africa Check in South Africa actively investigate political statements, providing voters with verified information. -/- Regulating Social Media to Prevent Manipulation -/- Social media has become a powerful tool for both legitimate political campaigns and misinformation. Without regulation, candidates can spread propaganda unchecked, influencing voter perceptions. -/- During Brazil’s elections, misinformation was widely spread through WhatsApp, influencing voter opinions. In response, WhatsApp limited the ability to forward mass messages to curb the spread of fake news. -/- The European Union has implemented strict digital regulations, requiring social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to label political ads and remove false information that could influence elections. -/- In Indonesia, the government collaborates with technology companies to identify and remove fake news before it spreads during elections. -/- By regulating online political content and holding social media platforms accountable, governments can prevent digital platforms from becoming tools for manipulation. -/- Ensuring Transparency in Political Funding -/- When campaign financing is not transparent, wealthy donors, corporations, or even foreign entities can secretly influence elections to serve their own interests. Transparent funding laws ensure that voters know who is backing a candidate and why. -/- Canada enforces strict donation limits and public disclosure laws, preventing corporate and foreign influence in elections. -/- Mexico has implemented an independent electoral institute that monitors campaign financing to prevent corruption and ensure fair competition. -/- South Korea requires all political donations to be publicly disclosed, ensuring that funding sources are transparent. -/- When political funding is transparent, voters can assess whether a candidate is truly working for the public or for hidden interests. -/- Encouraging Civic Engagement and Public Debates -/- An engaged electorate is essential for a healthy democracy. Public debates allow candidates to present their policies while being questioned on their track records and potential contradictions. -/- Taiwan holds nationally televised public debates where candidates must defend their policies and respond to public concerns. -/- In Nigeria, civil society organizations organize town hall meetings where citizens can directly ask candidates about their plans and policies. -/- France requires presidential candidates to participate in at least one public debate before elections, ensuring that voters hear multiple perspectives. -/- By encouraging open discussion and debate, societies can reduce the effectiveness of propaganda and allow voters to make informed decisions. -/- Protecting Whistleblowers and Investigative Agencies -/- Corrupt and deceptive political campaigns can only be exposed if whistleblowers and investigative agencies are protected. When individuals feel safe to reveal political misconduct, democracy is strengthened. -/- Edward Snowden revealed mass government surveillance programs, sparking global discussions about privacy and state overreach. -/- In Ukraine, anti-corruption agencies and investigative journalists have exposed multiple cases of political fraud, leading to greater government transparency. -/- In Malaysia, whistleblower efforts exposed the 1MDB scandal, which involved billions of dollars in corruption at the highest levels of government, eventually leading to the prosecution of former Prime Minister Najib Razak. -/- Encouraging and protecting whistleblowers ensures that political leaders cannot hide their unethical actions from the public. -/- Conclusion -/- While manipulation, propaganda, and hidden motives remain threats to democracy, societies can take strong measures to prevent these tactics from determining election outcomes. By investing in media literacy, supporting independent journalism, enforcing strict election laws, regulating social media, ensuring financial transparency, encouraging civic engagement, and protecting whistleblowers, democracies can safeguard the integrity of elections. -/- Without these safeguards, democracy becomes vulnerable to manipulation, allowing candidates with hidden agendas to rise to power. However, countries that actively promote transparency, accountability, and critical thinking create an environment where deception is less effective. The fight against election manipulation is an ongoing challenge, but with the right policies and public awareness, fair elections can be preserved for future generations. -/- . (shrink)

Testimony is of epistemic and practical significance. It is of epistemic significance because majority of what we know and believe comes from being told. It is of practical significance because our agency can be undermined, bypassed, or overridden owing to systemic prejudices sustained by oppressive social or cultural practices and subsequently our routes to knowledge are either hindered or distorted. Things get more complicated when we introduce and examine how groups and other collectives testify and are recipients of testimony. For (...) instance, group speakers are typically said to represent and reflect the view of the group they are speaking on behalf of. But sometimes because of these oppressive practices, a group speaker’s assertion may deprive or impair its members’ ability to perform certain actions through speech. This dissertation examines the intersection between testimony, collective phenomena, and epistemic harms. One aim is to argue for a view on the nature of testimony that can accommodate various ways collectives testify and are recipients of testimony. In particular, I argue and present a view of testimony as a norm-governed joint activity involving individual or collective participants that commit themselves to a common aim of collaboration. Another aim is to present an epistemology of testimony that tracks our ordinary testimonial practices. In this regard, I argue for a norm view where we have reason to believe what we’re told because of the rules or norms that govern our communicative exchanges. A final aim is to explore the mechanism by which collective speech ensues in an epistemic harm driven by social identity prejudices. I argue for a form of silencing that is distinctive of groups insofar as the silencing occurs because of group dynamics. I call the mechanism underlying this form of silencing “representational impairment”. This dissertation, I hope, will motivate and inspire others to pursue philosophical projects at these intersections and in this spirit, I end by offering suggestions on areas of further development and future direction. (shrink)

Should the government censor dangerous anti-vaccination propoganda? Should it restrict the praise of terrorist groups, or speech intended to promote discriminatory attitudes? In other words, should the government curb the advocacy of dangerous ideas and actions (i.e. 'harmful advocacy'), or should the government take a more permissive approach? Strong free speech supporters argue that citizens should be free to engage in and to hear harmful advocacy, arguing that restrictions are deeply objectionable at best, and, at worst, wholly impermissible. (...) To support their position, strong free speech supporters have offered a wide range of arguments and ideas. One of the most interesting arguments revolves around the idea that restrictions on harmful advocacy are deeply insulting to citizens. The worry, broadly understood, is that this kind of censorship is demeaning, treats citizens as though they are stupid, or as though they are children. As such, even when censorship is effective in preventing harms to citizens, it nonetheless comes at the significant political cost of failing to properly respect the citizenry at large. By contrast, so the thought goes, an alternative political scheme that prohibits censorship, or permits it only in exceptional cases, does a better job of respecting citizens as independent, rational, morally responsible agents. This alternative political system may, sometimes, be less effective at preventing speech harms. But it is a political system where citizens can stand tall and hold their heads high. In this paper, I consider and reject three versions of the worry that censorship is insulting. §1 explores the idea that censorship is insulting qua involving a negative appraisal of the citizens being interfered with. The key idea here is that censorship involves a lack of what Stephen Darwall terms ‘appraisal respect’, insofar as the government is suggesting that citizens cannot be trusted to manage their own beliefs and intentions. Drawing on the work of Thomas Nagel, §2 explores the idea that censorship diminishes the political status of citizens. Finally, §3 explores the suggestion that censorship is incompatible with a full appreciation of the thinking nature of citizens, and thus involves a lack of what Darwall would term ‘recognition respect’. The paper argues that censorship is not necessarily premised upon an insulting view of the citizenry. On the contrary, it argues that the best kind of censorship stems from a rich appreciation of the diverse range of capabilities, needs, vulnerabilities, and responsibilities of citizens, as well as the need for co-operation between citizens if societal flourishing is going to be achieved on a large scale. Granted, such a vision places an emphasis on the imperfections and liabilities of citizens – at least when compared to the rather solitary, highly intellectual creature one sometimes finds in the philosophical literature. Still, such a vision of citizens as imperfect falls well short of being genuinely insulting. To err is human. And there’s nothing insulting about being treated like a human. (shrink)

Current technology and surveillance practices make behaviors traceable to persons in unprecedented ways. This causes a loss of anonymity and of many privacy measures relied on in the past. These de facto privacy losses are by many seen as problematic for individual psychology, intimate relations and democratic practices such as free speech and free assembly. I share most of these concerns but propose that an even more fundamental problem might be that our very ability to act as autonomous (...) and purposive agents relies on some degree of privacy, perhaps particularly as we act in public and semi-public spaces. I suggest that basic issues concerning action choices have been left largely unexplored, due to a series of problematic theoretical assumptions at the heart of privacy debates. One such assumption has to do with the influential conceptualization of privacy as pertaining to personal intimate facts belonging to a private sphere as opposed to a public sphere of public facts. As Helen Nissenbaum has pointed out, the notion of privacy in public sounds almost like an oxymoron given this traditional private-public dichotomy. I discuss her important attempt to defend privacy in public through her concept of ‘contextual integrity.’ Context is crucial, but Nissenbaum’s descriptive notion of existing norms seems to fall short of a solution. I here agree with Joel Reidenberg’s recent worries regarding any approach that relies on ‘reasonable expectations’ . The problem is that in many current contexts we have no such expectations. Our contexts have already lost their integrity, so to speak. By way of a functional and more biologically inspired account, I analyze the relational and contextual dynamics of both privacy needs and harms. Through an understanding of action choice as situated and options and capabilities as relational, a more consequence-oriented notion of privacy begins to appear. I suggest that privacy needs, harms and protections are relational. Privacy might have less to do with seclusion and absolute transactional control than hitherto thought. It might instead hinge on capacities to limit the social consequences of our actions through knowing and shaping our perceptible agency and social contexts of action. To act with intent we generally need the ability to conceal during exposure. If this analysis is correct then relational privacy is an important condition for autonomic purposive and responsible agency—particularly in public space. Overall, this chapter offers a first stab at a reconceptualization of our privacy needs as relational to contexts of action. In terms of ‘rights to privacy’ this means that we should expand our view from the regulation and protection of the information of individuals to questions of the kind of contexts we are creating. I am here particularly interested in what I call ‘unbounded contexts’, i.e. cases of context collapses, hidden audiences and even unknowable future agents. (shrink)

In many African states, numerous different pre-colonial systems of power – such as kingships, sultanates or chieftaincies – which have a traditional legitimacy often confirmed in colonial and post-colonial times, have survived till our day. Their role in the contemporary republican state has been studied by many African intellectuals, and the views of Kwame Anthony Appiah, a thinker originating from Ghana, are of particular interest. He believes that in order to understand the significance of traditional authority and the phenomenon (...) of its continued existence in contemporary Africa, it is important to consider the source of its legitimacy. Appiah presents various sources – symbolic, religious and state – from which local African rulers derive the right to exert power and to exact obedience from their subjects. He minimizes the significance of most of these, however, and concludes that the basic source of legitimacy for traditional authority in the contemporary African state is the fact that this power, being a very important point of reference for the group over which it is wielded, reinforces its members’ sense of self-respect, and helps form their identity. He uses this idea to attempt to reconcile the continued existence of African power systems with liberal theory. Appiah, who is very unfavorably disposed towards most political and social hierarchies, views the political rights of individuals as the rights of citizens, not as the rights of persons who are the depositaries of some attributed or hereditary status. He enumerates the costs, in terms of liberal principles, of allowing traditional monarchy to persist. In his view, it is contrary to the liberal principle of public offices being open to persons of merit for the king of the Ashanti to be chosen from among persons of royal lineage. Such a perspective should generate a generally negative attitude towards the monarchy of the Ashanti, a people from whom Appiah originates, and yet he views Ashanti’s traditional monarchy as a source of pride. Published in "Africana Bulletin" 2010, No. 58, pp. 47-74. (shrink)

During the American Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King’s principal arguments reasoned from theological ethics, appealing to natural law, imago Dei, and agape love. Today in the United States, with the prevailing ideal of public reason, such arguments are unacceptable in the public square. In lieu of King’s theological arguments, are there philosophical principles or values adequate to sustain the cause of racial justice, establishing both a secure rational foundation for racial justice and providing sufficient moral incentive for citizens to (...) work self-sacrificially for this cause? I assess the prospects of the major philosophical alternatives, specifically utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, contractarianism, and the anti-theory option. I conclude that each of these approaches fails to provide the necessary conceptual resources to sustain the cause for racial justice. This presents a disconcerting dilemma: either we readmit theological considerations into the public square or surrender hope for the achievement of lasting racial justice in the United States. (shrink)

According to Corey Brettschneider, we can protect freedom of religion and promote equality, by distinguishing religious groups’ claims to freedom of expression and association from their claims to financial and verbal support from the state. I am very sympathetic to this position, which fits well with my own views of democratic rights and duties, and with the importance of recognizing the scope for political choice which democratic politics offers to governments and to citizens. This room for political choice, (...) I believe, is necessary if people are to have any chance of reconciling the conflicting moral and political obligations they are likely to face, however idealized our conception of democracy or morality. Granted that no amount of personal and political choice will ever guarantee that we do not encounter tragic choices, and painfully conflicting moral demands, it is an important feature of democracy – or so I believe – that its rights reflect the importance of mitigating these conflicts so that people are able, as a rule, to act as they ought, so that they do not experience their moral sentiments, beliefs and capacities simply as grounds for recrimination, alienation and despair. I therefore believe that democracies have good reason not to force the consciences of the undemocratic and the intolerant, where it is possible to accommodate such people without threatening the rights of others. However, the fact that I share many of Brettschneider’s intuitions and beliefs does not mean that I share them all. In particular, I find his conception of democracy unduly narrow, and unduly based on a rather idealized conception of the American constitution which is unlikely to appeal to those whose conceptions of democracy are more republican, more socialist, more pragmatic and more international than his. I have explained these worries elsewhere and drawn out some of their implications for his arguments about privacy and judicial review. There is no need to repeat them here. I will also set to one side my worries about his uninflected, overly abstract and rather reified characterization of the State, in the hope that others will discuss this and that, in the end, a more nuanced conception of the State and a more lively appreciation of the conflicting people, institutions, histories and norms which make up most states, will prove consistent with his arguments. Finally, I do not propose to enter into a detailed discussion of the difficulties of Brettschneider’s overly abstract and reified conception of State ‘speech’ and ‘expression’ which, while motivated by the language of American constitutionalism, appears to cover pretty much anything a government might do, from raising and spending taxes, to accepting judicial interpretations of contested constitutional provisions, or to affirmatively pronouncing on the goals that will animate its legislative agenda and its aspirations for citizen’s lives. Again, while I would have wished for a more nuanced and analytical discussion of so central a concept as ‘expression’ and, in particular, expression by ‘the State’, I am uncertain that anything fundamental in Brettschneider’s account of citizen rights and duties would be altered in the process. Instead, then, I want to focus on points in Brettschneider’s argument that intrigue, and sometimes puzzle, me the most and where issues of nuance and clarification might make a substantial difference to our views of equality and religious freedom. (shrink)

The Responsibility of Freedom of Speech and the Role of Media in Propagating Correct Knowledge -/- In modern societies, freedom of speech is often heralded as a fundamental right, allowing individuals to express their thoughts and opinions freely. However, the concept of absolute freedom of speech is not without its flaws. When viewed through the lens of natural laws, including the universal law of balance, the unchecked exercise of speech can lead to societal imbalances. It is essential to recognize that (...) while individuals should be allowed to voice their opinions, this freedom comes with the responsibility to ensure that speech contributes positively to societal harmony, personal growth, and the well-being of others. This responsibility extends beyond individual action and applies to all forms of media, which play a significant role in shaping public discourse and the flow of information. -/- The Concept of Freedom of Speech and its Pitfalls -/- Freedom of speech, in its ideal form, allows individuals to express their ideas and beliefs without fear of censorship or retribution. This principle is grounded in the belief that diverse viewpoints contribute to the flourishing of democratic societies. However, the unrestricted nature of this freedom can also lead to unintended consequences. When individuals or groups disseminate harmful misinformation, spread hate speech, or manipulate public sentiment for selfish gain, the foundational balance within society is disrupted. The unchecked expression of falsehoods or inflammatory rhetoric can create divisions, incite violence, or foster ignorance—outcomes that are contrary to the well-being of individuals and the harmony of society. -/- The spreading of false beliefs, misinformation, or gossip can be especially damaging. Such behavior not only distorts reality but also erodes trust within communities, making it more difficult for people to distinguish between truth and falsehood. False beliefs can lead to irrational fears, biases, or hatred, and when spread, they contribute to the further fragmentation of societies. In the age of digital media, these harmful narratives can quickly go viral, reaching vast audiences before they can be corrected, amplifying their negative impact. -/- From the perspective of the universal law of balance, the free exchange of ideas must be aligned with the greater good, ensuring that speech contributes to constructive discourse and societal progress. Words are powerful, and their impact on both the individual and collective mind can shape reality in profound ways. Therefore, freedom of speech should not be seen as an absolute right devoid of responsibility. Rather, it must be accompanied by an awareness of its potential effects and a commitment to using it to foster understanding, unity, and truth. -/- The Role of Media In Shaping Knowledge -/- Media, whether traditional or digital, plays a central role in how information is disseminated to the public. In today’s interconnected world, media outlets, including news organizations, social media platforms, and content creators, have an unprecedented influence on shaping public opinion. Given this influence, media must be held to high standards of responsibility, as it is the primary vehicle through which society consumes knowledge. -/- The responsibility of the media extends beyond merely reporting facts; it includes the duty to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and relevance of the information shared. Media outlets must prioritize the dissemination of truth, fact-check their sources, and avoid sensationalism that can distort public perception. Misinformation, especially when propagated through powerful media channels, can have lasting consequences on public trust, societal stability, and personal decision-making. The rapid spread of gossip, rumors, or fake news can lead to unnecessary panic, conflict, or even harm, demonstrating the real dangers of unchecked speech. -/- In the age of information overload, the role of the media is to sift through the noise and present knowledge in a balanced, accessible, and responsible manner. This involves not only reporting on events but also offering analysis and context that help the public understand the deeper implications of the information being shared. Media must act as a filter, ensuring that the knowledge people receive aligns with reality, helps individuals make informed decisions, and contributes to the greater good. -/- The Need for Media Literacy and Accountability -/- As media consumers, individuals must also take responsibility for their engagement with information. Media literacy—the ability to critically analyze, evaluate, and interpret media content—is a crucial skill in today’s world. With the proliferation of social media platforms, where misinformation can spread rapidly, it is more important than ever for individuals to be discerning about the sources of information they trust. Education systems worldwide must prioritize media literacy as part of their curricula, teaching students how to identify credible sources, distinguish between fact and opinion, and recognize the potential for manipulation in media messages. -/- For the youth, empowering them to critically engage with media is especially vital. With the rise of social media and peer-to-peer communication, young people are particularly susceptible to the influence of misinformation and gossip. The spread of rumors or false information among peer groups can have serious social consequences, including damaged reputations, broken friendships, and even bullying. It is essential to foster a sense of personal responsibility in the youth by teaching them the importance of verifying information before sharing it and the harmful effects of spreading unverified or negative content. -/- Youth should be empowered to practice empathy and discernment when interacting with information. Schools, families, and communities can collaborate to teach the younger generation about the consequences of gossip and misinformation—how they can harm individuals, societies, and even themselves. Encouraging open dialogue about the ethical use of information and the value of truth can help instill the importance of responsible speech in the youth. By creating a culture that values truth over sensationalism and empathy over gossip, we can work toward a more informed and balanced society. -/- At the same time, media organizations must be held accountable for the content they produce and share. This accountability requires strong ethical guidelines and transparency, ensuring that media outlets prioritize public welfare over profits or political agendas. The role of media is not merely to entertain or persuade but to educate, inform, and serve as a reliable source of knowledge. Failure to adhere to these responsibilities can lead to misinformation, polarization, and the erosion of public trust. -/- The Importance of Legal Laws in Preventing the Spread of False Information -/- While personal responsibility and media literacy are essential, legal frameworks also play a crucial role in curbing the spread of false information. In the Philippines, laws like the Cyber Libel Law (Republic Act No. 10175) serve as vital tools for combating online defamation, false information, and harmful content. This law holds individuals accountable for spreading libelous statements or malicious rumors online, providing a legal recourse for those affected by misinformation. -/- Such legal measures are important because they act as deterrents, encouraging individuals and organizations to think carefully before sharing content that could harm others or society at large. Legal laws like the Cyber Libel Law help ensure that the digital space is not misused for malicious purposes, such as spreading false beliefs, gossip, or misinformation that can cause public harm. These laws serve to protect individuals’ reputations and prevent the viral spread of content that could lead to social unrest or personal injury. -/- Furthermore, legal frameworks can also push media outlets and digital platforms to take more proactive measures in monitoring and controlling the spread of misinformation. By enforcing penalties for the dissemination of harmful content, governments can encourage media organizations and platforms to adopt stricter content policies and invest in fact-checking mechanisms. Legal safeguards not only protect individuals but also promote accountability, ensuring that those responsible for the creation and dissemination of false information are held liable. -/- While freedom of speech is crucial, the presence of legal frameworks ensures that this right is not abused to the detriment of others. These laws help strike a balance between protecting the right to express opinions and maintaining societal harmony by preventing the spread of falsehoods and malicious gossip. -/- The Balance Between Freedom of Speech and Responsibility -/- In light of the universal law of balance, freedom of speech must be exercised with a sense of duty. The right to express oneself must not come at the expense of societal harmony or the well-being of others. Media, as a conduit for knowledge and discourse, must prioritize accuracy, accountability, and ethical standards in its operations. This includes ensuring that the information they share is balanced, relevant, and rooted in truth. -/- At the same time, it is important to recognize that all individuals, including media practitioners, are part of a larger system. Every word spoken, every article written, and every broadcast made contributes to the collective reality we all experience. The impact of these actions ripples out into society, influencing minds, shaping behaviors, and creating a feedback loop that can either strengthen or weaken the fabric of society. By embracing responsibility in speech and media practices, we can help ensure that our collective decisions align with the natural balance of the world around us, fostering a society that values truth, understanding, and mutual respect. -/- Conclusion -/- The concept of freedom of speech, while important, cannot be viewed as a blanket entitlement devoid of responsibility. The power of speech, when unchecked, can disrupt the natural balance of society, leading to harm, division, and ignorance. Media, as a central vehicle for disseminating knowledge, holds a critical responsibility in ensuring that the information shared is accurate, reliable, and serves the greater good. In this context, freedom of speech should be understood as a tool for fostering truth and unity, not as an unregulated license to mislead or divide. -/- Legal frameworks, such as the Cyber Libel Law, provide essential safeguards, holding individuals accountable for the harm caused by false information. By aligning speech and media practices with the principles of balance, responsibility, and truth, society can move toward a more informed, harmonious, and just future. Moreover, empowering the youth to become responsible consumers and sharers of information is essential in cultivating a generation that values truth, empathy, and ethical communication, ultimately promoting a balanced and well-informed society. -/- . (shrink)

The Pros and Cons of Religion in Human Society -/- Religion has been a central part of human civilization for thousands of years, shaping moral values, cultural traditions, and social structures. While it has inspired great acts of kindness, unity, and artistic expression, it has also been a source of conflict, division, and oppression. The impact of religion on society is complex, with both positive and negative aspects that influence human behavior and progress. This essay explores the benefits and drawbacks (...) of religion, examining how it has shaped societies throughout history. -/- The Pros of Religion In Society -/- 1. Moral and Ethical Guidance -/- One of the primary functions of religion is to provide a moral framework that guides human behavior. Many religious teachings promote values such as compassion, honesty, justice, and respect for others. Throughout history, religious principles have served as the foundation for legal systems and ethical standards. For example, the Ten Commandments in Christianity and Judaism, the Five Precepts in Buddhism, and the moral teachings of Islam have all contributed to the development of societal laws and norms. -/- 2. Community and Social Support -/- Religious institutions create a sense of belonging and social cohesion. They bring people together through shared beliefs, rituals, and traditions. In times of crisis, religious communities provide emotional and financial support to those in need. Churches, mosques, temples, and other religious centers often serve as safe spaces where individuals can seek guidance and assistance. This sense of community strengthens social bonds and provides comfort during difficult times. -/- 3. Psychological and Emotional Comfort -/- Faith offers hope, meaning, and purpose to people, especially when facing hardship, grief, or uncertainty. Many individuals turn to religion to find solace in times of illness, loss, or personal struggles. Prayer, meditation, and religious rituals provide psychological relief and help people develop resilience against life’s challenges. The belief in a higher power or an afterlife can give individuals a sense of peace, reducing anxiety and fear of the unknown. -/- 4. Charity and Humanitarian Efforts -/- Many religious organizations engage in charitable work, helping the poor, sick, and marginalized. Religious teachings often encourage acts of kindness, generosity, and service to others. For example, Christian missionary groups build schools and hospitals, Islamic charities provide food and shelter to those in need, and Buddhist monks dedicate their lives to helping the less fortunate. This commitment to charity has led to the establishment of numerous non-profit organizations that improve lives worldwide. -/- 5. Cultural and Artistic Contributions -/- Religion has played a crucial role in inspiring some of the greatest artistic, literary, and architectural achievements in history. Religious themes are evident In the works of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and many other artists. Cathedrals, temples, and mosques showcase the architectural brilliance of different civilizations. Sacred texts, hymns, and poetry have enriched literature and music across cultures. Without religion, many of these masterpieces might not exist. -/- 6. Social Cohesion and Stability -/- Shared religious beliefs help unify societies by fostering cooperation, mutual understanding, and social order. Many religious teachings emphasize peace, forgiveness, and reconciliation, which can prevent conflicts and promote harmony within communities. Religious institutions often encourage people to live virtuous lives and contribute positively to society, reinforcing stability and reducing crime. -/- 7. Influence on Personal Discipline and Growth -/- Religious practices encourage self-discipline, self-improvement, and mindfulness. Fasting, prayer, meditation, and other spiritual exercises help individuals cultivate patience, humility, and inner peace. Many religions promote the idea of lifelong learning and personal development, urging followers to strive for a better version of themselves. -/- The Cons of Religion in Society -/- 1. Dogmatism and Resistance to Change -/- While religion provides moral guidance, some religious institutions resist change and scientific progress. Throughout history, religious groups have opposed advancements in medicine, education, and human rights. The rejection of scientific discoveries, such as heliocentrism and evolution, demonstrates how religious dogma can hinder intellectual progress. -/- 2. Division and Conflict -/- Religious differences have been a source of wars, persecution, and social divisions. The Crusades, religious wars in Europe, and conflicts between different faiths have resulted in immense suffering. Even today, religious extremism and sectarian violence continue to fuel tensions in many parts of the world. Instead of uniting people, religion can sometimes create barriers between different groups. -/- 3. Suppression of Individual Freedom -/- Some religious doctrines impose strict rules on personal behavior, limiting individual freedom and self-expression. In certain religious societies, people face restrictions on their dress, career choices, and even personal relationships. Gender inequality, discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, and restrictions on freedom of thought are often justified using religious texts. This suppression of freedom can prevent people from living fulfilling lives according to their own beliefs. -/- 4. Exploitation and Corruption -/- Religious institutions have been used as tools for personal and political gain. Corrupt leaders have exploited followers for financial and political power. Cases of sexual abuse, fraud, and manipulation within religious organizations have damaged trust in religious institutions. When religious leaders misuse their influence for selfish purposes, it harms believers and weakens the moral authority of religion. -/- 5. Psychological Fear and Guilt -/- Some religious teachings instill fear of punishment, such as eternal damnation or divine wrath. This can create guilt and anxiety in individuals, leading to feelings of unworthiness or depression. The emphasis on sin and repentance can sometimes lead people to develop an unhealthy relationship with their own desires and emotions. -/- 6. Impediment to Scientific Thinking -/- In some cases, religious beliefs conflict with scientific knowledge, discouraging rational inquiry and critical thinking. Many religious traditions reject evidence-based theories like evolution and the Big Bang, promoting faith over reason. This resistance to scientific understanding can slow progress in fields such as medicine, environmental science, and technology. -/- 7. Overpopulation and Societal Issues -/- Certain religious teachings discourage birth control and family planning, leading to overpopulation and resource scarcity. In countries where religious beliefs strongly influence policy, restrictions on contraception contribute to high poverty rates and environmental degradation. Without proper population control, societal issues such as hunger, unemployment, and lack of healthcare become more severe. -/- Conclusion -/- Religion has been both a unifying force and a source of division in human history. It provides moral guidance, community support, and psychological comfort, while also inspiring charity and cultural achievements. However, it can also contribute to conflict, suppression of individual freedoms, and resistance to progress. -/- A balanced approach—one that respects religious traditions while promoting critical thinking and secular governance—can help societies maximize the benefits of religion while minimizing its negative effects. By encouraging open-mindedness and ethical responsibility, humans can ensure that religion continues to serve as a positive force in the modern world. -/- . (shrink)

-/- The Invention and Evolution of Democratic Elections: From Ancient Athens to the Digital Age -/- The idea of democratic elections—where people choose their leaders and influence laws through voting—has a long and complex history that stretches back over two millennia. Though modern democracy is often associated with Western liberal states, its roots lie deep in ancient civilizations, evolving through various stages of reform, revolution, and philosophical thought. This essay traces the development of democratic elections from their earliest beginnings in (...) ancient Athens to the global systems we recognize today. -/- Ancient Beginnings: Athens and the Birth of Democracy -/- The concept of democracy originated in ancient Athens during the 5th century BCE, where it took on a radically different form from what we know today. Athenian democracy was a direct democracy, where free male citizens actively participated in political decision-making. Although only a small fraction of the population qualified as citizens—excluding women, slaves, and foreigners—Athens was the first society to institutionalize the idea that ordinary people should have a role in governance. -/- Interestingly, elections in Athens were used sparingly. Instead, most officials were selected by random lottery (sortition) to prevent corruption and ensure fairness. Elections were reserved for positions requiring special expertise, such as military generals. Despite its limitations, Athens laid the foundation for the democratic ideal: the notion that political power should derive from the people. -/- The Roman Republic: Early Representative Elements -/- Following Athens, the Roman Republic (509–27 BCE) introduced another important model. While still exclusive and class-based, Rome employed elements of representative democracy. Citizens elected officials like consuls and tribunes, and assemblies were held to vote on laws. However, these rights were unevenly distributed, favoring wealthy patricians over common plebeians. Nevertheless, Rome contributed structural ideas such as checks and balances and separation of powers, which later influenced modern democratic systems. -/- The Middle Ages: Feudal Constraints and Proto-Parliaments -/- During the medieval period, Europe was dominated by feudal monarchies where power was concentrated in the hands of kings and nobles. Yet, seeds of representative governance continued to grow. Early parliamentary bodies, such as the Icelandic Althing (930 CE) and the English Parliament (13th century), emerged as forums for aristocratic or clerical consultation rather than broad citizen participation. While not democratic in the modern sense, these institutions preserved the concept of consultation and law-making through assemblies. -/- Enlightenment and the Rise of Modern Democracy -/- The 17th and 18th centuries saw a transformation in political thought through the influence of Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Montesquieu. These thinkers argued for popular sovereignty, natural rights, and constitutional governance, which directly challenged monarchic rule. These ideas inspired revolutionary movements and laid the intellectual groundwork for democratic elections. -/- Democratic Foundations: United States and France -/- The American Revolution (1776) marked the beginning of modern representative democracy. The U.S. Constitution (1787) established a system where power was divided between three branches of government and where citizens could vote for their representatives. Initially, suffrage was limited to white male property owners, but the principle of governance by the people was firmly established. -/- Inspired by the American example, the French Revolution (1789) proclaimed universal male suffrage—though temporarily—and asserted the democratic ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen became a foundational document for human rights and democratic participation. -/- Expanding the Electorate: 19th Century Reforms -/- Throughout the 19th century, democratic elections expanded across Europe and the Americas. Reform acts in countries like the United Kingdom widened the right to vote, though still gradually. The century also saw the rise of women’s suffrage movements, with New Zealand becoming the first country to grant women the right to vote in 1893. Elections became more structured, with the establishment of political parties and parliamentary systems. -/- 20th Century: Globalization of Democracy -/- The 20th century was characterized by the global spread of democratic elections. After the two World Wars, colonial empires dissolved, and newly independent nations adopted democratic constitutions. The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) declared the right to participate in government through free elections as a universal human right. -/- Over time, most countries adopted universal suffrage, allowing all adult citizens, regardless of gender, race, or class, to vote. However, not all democracies were liberal; many regimes held elections without guaranteeing true political freedoms, giving rise to hybrid or illiberal democracies. -/- 21st Century: Digital Democracy and New Challenges -/- Today, democratic elections are nearly universal in form, though not always in substance. The 21st century has brought both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, technology has enabled digital participation, online voting, and global political awareness. On the other hand, it has also introduced new threats like misinformation, election hacking, and erosion of trust in institutions. -/- Despite these challenges, elections remain a vital mechanism for peaceful power transfer and civic engagement. Democratic systems continue to evolve, adapting to changing social, technological, and political conditions. -/- Conclusion -/- From the direct democracy of ancient Athens to the representative systems of the modern world, the history of democratic elections is a testament to humanity’s ongoing struggle for fairness, equality, and self-governance. Though the journey has been uneven—with exclusions, setbacks, and evolving practices—democracy continues to adapt and expand. Understanding this history not only highlights how far we’ve come but also reminds us of the vigilance required to preserve and improve democratic institutions for future generations. -/- . (shrink)

In the wake of high profile and recent events of blatant privacy violations, which also raise issues of democratic accountability as well as, at least potentially, undermining the legitimacy of current local and international governance arrangements, a rethinking of the justification of the right to privacy is proposed. In this paper, the case of the violation of the privacy of a bullied autistic youngster and the consequent prosecution of 3 Google executives will be discussed first. We will then analyse the (...) arguments made by both academic experts and pundits who agree with Google’s claim that if the first sentence had been left unchallenged, it would have opened the floodgates to several other jurisdictions that would as a consequence have used it as a pretext to increase control on the internet, jeopardising in such a way free speech, which has been seen so far as an inalienable right which should not be censored. Finally, by going beyond the sentences and their immediate contexts, we will propose a theoretical justification of our analysis. Our main claim is that the value of the right to privacy is based on the argument that its violation would undermine citizens’ capacity to participate effectively in democratic politics. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to consider the question of whether democratic legitimacy requires viewpoint neutrality with regard to political speech – including extremist political speech, such as hate speech. The starting point of my discussion is Jeremy Waldron’s negative answer to this question. He argues that it is permissible for liberal democracies to ban certain extremist viewpoints – such as vituperative hate speech – because such viewpoint-based restrictions protect the dignity of persons and a social and moral environment (...) of mutual respect. According to Waldron, well-drafted narrow hate speech bans are not democratically illegitimate, and they do not undermine systemic democratic legitimacy – that is, the legitimacy of a democratic political system. In contrast to Waldron, I will argue that democratic legitimacy requires viewpoint neutrality to respect persons as thinking agents. I will defend a civil libertarian doctrine of viewpoint neutrality, and this doctrine requires that citizens in liberal democracies ought to have a legal free speech right to do moral wrong – that is, a legal right to express and defend any political viewpoint or idea, even if it is morally wrong to express, or expose others to, such views. It will be argued that any viewpoint-based restriction on public discourse (including narrow hate speech bans) is democratically illegitimate, and that such restrictions undermine systemic democratic legitimacy. (shrink)

In this paper, I show that Aristophanes’s speech in Plato’s Symposium is tied into an interesting and hitherto unexplored web of ideas in Plato’s ethics and psychology. The poet’s analysis of erōs as ‘leading us to what “belongs” (the oikeion)’ (193d2) and as ‘restoring us in our “original nature” (archaia phusis)’ (193d4) is not a mere negative contribution that renders him a ‘target for Diotima’s fire’ (Dover). Rather, he unwittingly communicates central ethical and psychological ideas which we find developed in (...) key passages of Plato’s dialogues. What is interesting is that Diotima in a curious passage seems to dismiss his contribution of the oikeion as unrelated to our good (agathon) and irrelevant to the analysis of desire (205d10–206a1). I argue that this interpretation of Diotima’s response to Aristophanes, which would render her position an ethical anomaly in Plato’s dialogues, should be rejected. Instead, it is more plausible to read her response as proposing a revisionary conception of the oikeion, relying on the idea that our agathon is our true oikeion. In addition, I tentatively suggest that the theory of psychic pregnancy may be seen as presenting the agathon of wisdom of virtue produced in the ascent as an oikeion. Just as fascinating as Diotima’s stance on the oikeion is the question how her teachings relate to the concept of an archaia phusis of the soul. The idea that the soul’s self-perfection constitutes a return to a temporally prior condition of excellence, which in two places other than the Symposium (Republic X, Timaeus) is called the ‘archaia phusis’, is pervasive and centrally important to Plato’s psychology. I address the question whether Diotima’s ascent passage constitutes a psychological anomaly in portraying self-perfection as unrelated to the concept of the archaia phusis. I argue that an answer to this depends on the stance we take on the Symposium’s position regarding the immortality of the soul. While a reading that posits a rejection of immortality in the Symposium must indeed deny a role for the concept in Diotima’s speech, I show that a reading allowing for immortality as a theoretical commitment in the background has an interesting interpretative option: along with Timaeus 90d5, it may fruitfully interpret the ascent as an ordering of the soul ‘in accordance with its archaia phusis’. (shrink)

There is a way of talking that would appear to involve ascriptions of purpose, goal directed activity, and intentional states to groups. Cases are familiar enough: classmates intend to vacation in Switzerland, the department is searching for a metaphysician, the Democrats want to minimize losses in the upcoming elections, and the US intends to improve relations with such and such country. But is this talk to be understood just in terms of the attitudes and actions of the individuals involved? Is (...) the talk, to take an overly simple proposal as an example, a mere summary of familiar individual attitudes of the group members? Or is the ascription of attitudes and actions to groups to be taken more literally, as suggesting that the group for example believes that P, or intends to A, over and above what the members individually think and do? In short, are there groups with minds of their own? Philip Pettit has deployed the “discursive dilemma” to defend the thesis that there are such group minds. In what follows, I explore the relationship between the group allegedly with a mind of its own and the individuals it comprises, and I consider just how this relationship must be understood in order to give Pettit’s argument for group minds its best chance for success. As I understand it, the discursive dilemma has to be used in conjunction with what might be called an indispensability argument for group minds. It is useful to distinguish two forms of this argument. The explanatory version of the indispensability argument is, very schematically, as follows: there is a compelling explanatory theory T concerning the social, certain indispensable elements of T entail the group mind thesis, so the group mind thesis is true. Several questions immediately arise: What sort of theory is T? In what sense is it indispensable? Are there other forms of indispensability? I don’t have definitive answers to these questions. But how we settle them will have implications for the interaction and support the discursive dilemma provides the indispensability argument. In particular, using the discursive dilemma to defend what I characterize below as a practical version of the indispensability argument commits us to the rationality of individual participants in a way that the explanatory version of the indispensability argument does not. My point in the first part of the paper is that if Pettit wants to avoid the weaknesses of the explanatory indispensability argument and pursue the practical version, then he owes us a story about the rationality of individual participation in groups. Pettit also owes us a story about the agency an individual exercises as part of a group. If it takes the actions of individuals to execute the intentions of the group, how are we to understand those actions in order for the group to count as having a mind of its own? How must group intentions figure in the practical or deliberative perspective of individuals who execute those intentions? I will argue that the proponent of the group mind thesis must proceed with some care here, because some natural ways of answering these questions will undermine the thesis. But in the end, I think that these questions are interesting independently of whether Pettit is right to think that groups do have minds of their own. That’s because investigating Pettit’s arguments might lead to new ideas about how the rationality and agency of individuals can be exercised, and suggests new ways of understanding how individuals can act together, irrespective of whether the groups they compose ever have minds of their own. (shrink)

There are three obstacles to any discussion of the relationship between Heidegger’s philosophy and ethics. First, Heidegger’s views and preoccupations alter considerably over the course of his work. There is no consensus over the exact degree of change or continuity, but it is clear that a number of these shifts, for example over the status of human agency, have considerable ethical implications. Second, Heidegger rarely engages directly with the familiar ethical or moral debates of the philosophical canon. For example, both (...) Sein und Zeit (SZ) and the works that would have completed its missing third Division, works such as his monograph on Kant (Ga3), and the 1927 lecture course The Basic Problems of Phenomenology (Ga24), place enormous emphasis on the flaws present in earlier metaphysics or philosophies of language or of the self. But there is no discussion of what one might think of as staple ethical questions: for example, the choice between rationalist or empiricist meta-ethics, or between consequentialist or deontological theories. The fundamental reason for this is Heidegger’s belief that his own concerns are explanatorily prior to such debates (Ga26:236–7). By extension, he regards the key works of ethical and moral philosophy as either of secondary importance, or as not really about ethics or morals at all: for example, Ga24, when discussing Kant, states bluntly that “‘Metaphysics of Morals’ means the ontology of human existence” (Ga24:195). Essentially his view is that, before one can address ethics, construed as the question of how we ought to live, one needs to get clear on ontology, on the question of what we are. However, as I will show, the relationship between Heideggerian ontology and ethics is more complex than that simple gloss suggests. Third, the very phrase “Heidegger’s ethics” raises a twofold problem in a way that does not similarly occur with any other figure in this volume. The reason for this is his links, personal and institutional, to both National Socialism and to anti-Semitism. The recent publication of the Schwarze Hefte exemplifies this issue: these notebooks interweave rambling metaphysical ruminations with a clearly anti-Semitic rhetoric no less repulsive for the fact that it avoids the biological racism of the Nazis (see, for example, Ga95:97 or Ga96:243). In this short chapter, I will take what will doubtless be a controversial approach to this third issue. It seems to me unsurprising, although no less disgusting for that, that Heidegger himself was anti-Semitic, or that he shared many of the anti-modernist prejudices often found with such anti-Semitism Sacha Golob ([email protected]) Forthcoming in the Cambridge History of Moral Philosophy (Cambridge University Press: 2016). 2 among his demographic group. The interesting question is rather: what are the connections between his philosophy and such views? To what degree do aspects of his work support them or perhaps, most extremely, even follow from them? Yet to answer this question, one needs to begin by understanding what exactly his philosophical commitments were, specifically his ‘ethical’ commitments. The purpose of this chapter is address that question. (shrink)