The commenters to the post titled "The Sensible Center" have brought us to the problem of developing and nurturing the best regime. Among the definitions of "regime" in The Free Dictionary are the following: (i) "[a] form of government" (for example, a fascist regime or a democratic regime), (ii) "[a] prevailing social system or pattern" and (iii) "[a] regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen." Thus, a regime may refer to a governmental, social or personal system. Oh, what a wide ranging topic we have opened up in discussing developing and nurturing the best regime!
The commenter "forbearance" asserts that the "birthright of freedom comes by God's grace, not from the consent of any man or government." But what system of government on the human level of creation (the core meaning of "All men are created equal" in my view is that all humans exist on the same level of creation with, despite differences in certain physical and mental aspects, the same opportunity for development in virtue) best nurtures this birthright? Is even considering governmental systems as potentially nurturing a birthright given by God (or, for those not inclined to speak about God, a birthright on the basis of freedom's being an inherent aspect of humanity), by starting from the governmental system and not the individual, starting from the wrong place? My answer is that we must look at the struggle to use our freedom as the responsibility and birthright of each individual, but be open to the possibility that certain governmental and social systems profoundly affect the individual struggle.
In this regard, the commenter "greg" suggests that moderation may emerge as one of the goals in the process of achieving self-knowledge. Well, "greg," is moderation as an end defined by the parameters set by the governmental and social systems in which one happens to find oneself at a given moment in history, or is moderation (or virtue in general for that matter) a transcendental end? This seems to me to be another way of posing the problem of the relationship among the development and nurturing of the individual, social and political regimes.
On the level of regime clashes, "forbearance" cautions that, "The idea that we should expect the followers of Mohammed to try to fight the American war machine in a traditional manner is completely insane." My initial response to this caution is that, on this blog, let us begin our search for the best regime (whether individual, social or political) with no preset expectations: in other words, let us begin with no expectations other than a faith that seeking is its own reward. Let the students of Abraham, Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Shankara and every other teacher of fine essence, along with those who reject the notion of a divine being or the idea that a human could be imbued with the spirit of a divine being, join together in a search for the best regime.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
My reply with nothing but love and good will,
Nunway, my brother in humanity, forgive me that I should dare to defend our American forefathers. I'm really surprised that you defend this postmodern, humanist worldview. Though I do realize that we are from one of the most left-wing areas of the nation.
"All men are created equal,... and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." If government is the final arbiter of rights, then we are not a free people. Our only freedom rests with the Lord.
In terms of being equal with creation, mankind is certainly much more than the various beasts and the inanimate objects that make up the world. As St. Paul said paraphrased "Worship the Creator, not the creation."
I understand that you are trying to reconcile the entire world, and act as a compromiser, but believe me, if you talked like this to Osama bin Laden, he would not be amused. Though he dislikes all infidels, my guess is that he would rather you fervantly believed in your own faith.
One thing I notice often is that people of faith, of the various faiths, understand each other better than people of little faith trying to understand faith. For example, you might think that Orthodox Jews would support separation of church and state considering they are very devout. However, they tend to ally themselves with faithful Christians to restore such things as prayer in school.
In some regards, there is a feigned concern among the elite that they are preventing social strife, when in fact they are inducing it. Our forefathers did not come to America to live in a secular state, they came here for religious liberty, including the right to public religion.
All of our founding documents are imbused with a love of the faith of our forefathers.
In terms of a regime, I'm a traditionalist, and actually a libertarian. At first, in a state of nature, all men do have unlimited rights, including life, liberty, property, self-defense, etc. However, to best protect our preservation, we voluntarily enter into covenant (a biblical concept) with God and one another. A covenant is like a legal contract, but actually it's much more. A covenant takes on a level of holiness and solemnity, it is unbreakable.
It is not in democracy or equality that we gain our security, it's in the knowledge that the covenant we have entered into is unbreakable. We can put our security in the law, because we know that it will not change without our express consent.
If our day-to-day contracts were treated like the Supreme Court treats the Constitution, we would have no solid legal system. One party could say that the contract evolved without the consent of the other. The plain meaning and original intent of the contract would be in question all the time. Everything would break down. We need to better understand the sacredness of our founding documents, and treat them with more reverence.
In fact, the idea of living by the covenant and not the rule of men, is very similar to the themes of the Protestant Reformation. (Again, here is where you will find out more about America, than in any postmodern or enlightenment philosopher). The idea in the Reformation is that the words of the Scripture are supreme, that they mean what they say, they can't be abridged by any man. Hence man can be secure in the knowledge of God, and put his trust in the promises of Christ.
While it's important to study other cultures, we have a particular duty to our national culture, and to the beliefs and honor of our forefathers. We have the duty to maintain the institutions we have inherited, so that we can pass them on to posterity. America still has a lot of freedom because we still do hold reverence to our institutions, though the elites that run those institutions don't uphold their public trust to the level that they should.
Ok, the quest towards the best regime, regarding public governance (I realize there is a direct platonic connection between this form of governance and internal governance, but perhaps we should start with some good old political science/philosophy/whatever you want to call it): A good regime allows those under it to fulfill their own essence through acquiring material goods like food and money under the guidance of his or her individual decision-making processes, without third party consent. A good regime provides security to those living under it from foreign invaders. And most importantly, a good regime allows the individual to fulfill his or her own essence by allowing him or her to think freely about the world on Earth and not on Earth without third party interference. That's a basic list; perhaps we can start from there.
I caution of intentionally using the term 'essence' to show knowledge of Aristotle. (The colloquial term is 'soul.') A wise man doesn't proclaim his own wisdom, but does the things that wise men do, and to the extent the wise man proclaims anything, it is his own ignorance. Other people will know and recognize your wisdom if it's truly there. Meekness and humility reveal that you recognize that you come from dust and to dust you will return. A substantial portion of man's character is formed once he recognizes his own lowliness.
The absence of restrictions on personal behavior is certainly not the definition of freedom any good citizen would propose, and certainly does not lend itself in the advancement of the soul.
A nation is not sustained when its people have no shared moral truths. A nation's traditions, and it's cult/religion, initiate children and new citizens into the peoplehood of the nation. Of course a man may still think freely about the world, but there remains a patriotic duty to affirm the shared history of the nation.
While he thought freely about many ideas, Thomas Jefferson understood his patriotic duty to affirm certain truths essential to the stability of the American nation. If we fail to repay the principle on this nation's treasury of grace, that was paid into with the blood and honor of our forefathers, we won't be a nation for much longer.
Anyway, our forefathers would certainly reject strongly any idea of a freedom defined by lack of third-party interference. Freedom is rooted in the idea of the covenant. This voluntary means by which men join together with God and one another to form society based on their shared moral truths.
My compatriot forbearance:
One must remember that a divine covenant is a commitment between two parties, not three.
forbearance says:
"The absence of restrictions on personal behavior is certainly not the definition of freedom any good citizen would propose, and certainly does not lend itself in the advancement of the soul." My question I would lend is to what extent is the best regime responsible for the advancement of the soul? To what extent should the best regime emphasize the "shared moral truths" to which forbearance refers?
Post a Comment