Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 1:30 pm
iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 8:53 pm
Now, philosophically or otherwise, is there a way to pin down how all rational men and women are obligated to react to it?
There is one smallish problem and I think it might contaminate how you are answered. There is no such thing as the 'rational man or woman'. While I agree that we can, say, try our best to think and act rationally the greater truth seems to be that we actually choose things
irrationally. What stimulates the love of the English monarchy seems to be anything but classically rational. It is deeply sentimental (and I do not mean this in a negative way).
Of course, to the objectivists among us, an objection:
1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the objective truth
3] I have access to the objective truth because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational
And, whether in regard to the Queen or bazookas or abortions or guns or any other "conflicting god", don't imagine you can talk them out of it.
As for the whole thoughts vs. emotions conundrum, follow my exchange with gib here:
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=350
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 1:30 pmFrankly I do not really understand what assessment you'd hoped for. I assume that your rational assessment is that a monarchy is completely absurd, is that right? That the love or respect for Old England (and all that the monarchy represents) is outdated and absurd? That fits with a modern perspective, doesn't it?
On the contrary, "I" am no less "fractured and fragmented" regarding this. There are arguments for and against monarchy, arguments for or against democracy and republics, arguments for and against dictatorship, arguments for and against capitalism and socialism, arguments for and against idealism and pragmatism, arguments for and against government revolving around "I" and "We".
I root my own opinions here in the OPs on these threads:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
Thus, my reaction to the life and death of Queen Elizabeth is no less rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein to me.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 1:30 pmThe question of *obligation* interests me. Given that I have considerable background researching those movements, generally on the political right and also toward the extremes of the right and conservatism, I am aware that there are people who value monarchies because they, let's say ideally, are genuinely rooted in the old structures of their given society. As all are aware they were once understood to be somewhat *divine* and thus all the church rituals when they are installed. At least
theoretically they are supposed to act in the best interests of the people they rule.
Yes, however it may apall many, there are in fact arguments that some do make and passionately believe to be rational regarding monarchy, theocracy, fascism, communism, anarchy, dictatorship.
And then of course those amoral nihilists who own and operated the global economy. Their own "political philosophy" being "show me the money".
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 1:30 pmBut the question of defining *best interests* is tremendously fraught is it not? Our present age (the last decades really) is marked by astounding disagreements.
And, for them, the beauty of it all is that, in a No God world, all things can be rationalized. So all things are permitted.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 1:30 pmWhat makes them any more, or less, legitimate than elected politicians who are more often than not corrupt to the core and whose real interests are in their own political careers. Technically, those who validate the monarchy say that because they are not political figures (standing technically outside of politics) they can exert a different sort of influence. A politician is elected for a short term and acts in Machiavellian self-interest. But a royal family, again technically, has influence for an entire lifetime and indeed for generations.
Basically then, "democratic republics" are often defended not becasue they are in sync with the civics textbooks, but because they come to be seen as "the best of all possible worlds". More or less Machiavellian as it were.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 1:30 pm.But the idea that I am communicating, or the sense of the absurdity, is simply because I am aware that there arises in people, psychologically,
a will to undermine and destroy hierarchies. I think that that is far less rational than it is rational to be frank. That is to say it is irrational.
Here, as always, we need a context. And, down through the ages historically and across the globe culturally, there have been many, many, many, many different aggregations of those.
Which ones are the most rational?
Or, here, more to the point, can philosophers, ethicists, political scientists, etc., actually propound the optimal government/state/community. Or even the
only rational manner in which to form them.
