Philosophy Now Forum

by Rick Lewis

http://philosophynow.org/issues/101/By_ ... the_People

Philosophy Now wrote:by Rick Lewis

http://philosophynow.org/issues/101/By_ ... the_People

"Saying Nothing

Dear Editor: Robert Horner’s article on ‘How To Understand Words’ in Issue 100 brought to mind my attempts to get my students to understand fully the meaning of the word ‘nothing’. From the feedback I obtained from several classes, I was, in the main, successful. As a teacher it is imperative that one is understood, and this may be achieved through using analogies, demonstrations and visual aids. Understanding the concept of ‘nothing’ requires an approach reminiscent of Occam’s razor. So my students sit with their eyes closed while I ask them, “What do you see?” The answer is “nothing.” But I remind them that this is not the case. What they see is ‘something’: darkness. If they were to close their eyes lazing on a beach on a sunny day they may see red, the sunlight filtered through their eyelids, certainly not ‘nothing’. So, I say, let us begin again:

“Imagine you are looking up at the sky on the darkest night imaginable, surrounded by millions of bright points of light: the stars, planets and faraway galaxies.” [I pause whilst they imagine the situation.] “Now look at each point of light and imagine it being turned off, until there are no points of light in the sky. What you are left with is not ‘nothing’ because there is a black sky – which is still ‘something’. We now have to get rid of the black sky. How do we do that? Easy: you are imagining what your eyes are seeing; but turn your attention away from your eyes and concentrate on what you can see from the back of your head, where you do not have eyes! There is no black sky, no darkness – just ‘nothing’.”

Those students who managed to understand the meaning of ‘nothing’ were all of one mind: they were unable to use any words to describe their experience. They realised that the use of any word negated the experience. Like peeling away the layers of an onion, they had peeled away this world to arrive at an ineffable experience.

F. Russell Clampitt, Nesscliffe, Shrewsbury"
Or, as Chesterton wrote, "Nothing can be said about nothing."

I think most sensible people would agree that democracy is a good thing even though in practice the outcome is not always ideal. But nothing is perfect and neither are people. And I thing that an imperfect institution like democracy has deliberately fashioned itself on that knowledge, that people are imperfect and will always be. In a sense democracy goes with the flow of people being imperfect but does its utmost to pull people in the right direction so that they do better. As an umbrella institution it has no equal.

I really thing that Plato should be left out of the contemporary discussion of democracy because his was not an inclusive democracy nor evolutionary like democracy should be. He didn't envision a mega-world in which it would become the leading form of governance. He didn't realized that it take a long time to cultivate it and that it's really a cultural thing.

Democracy is more than just a political system or about having a vote. Democracy is really a means to an end, to cultivate and facilitate open societies so that they can freely develop the resources to sustain communities. For instants, I think China will become more democratic over time because ultimately the best decision making to protect and improve communities so that they continue to be vital and productive will come from individuals at the grass routes level, from the troops on the front lines so to speak. In the end central authority is poor in the decision making process as we witnessed under full-blown communism where communities and individual did not feel they had a stake in the system, thus interest and feelings of responsibility we're non-existent and thus things just stagnated and decayed.

Philosophy Now - by Rick Lewis wrote:Before you can judge how well anything works, you need to know its purpose. So what is democracy for? Is its purpose to bring about certain desired results: to produce justice; to ensure that the best and most effective policies are adopted; that the leaders are honest and competent; that corruption and abuse of power are curbed? Or is rule by the people for the people an end in its own right, valuable in and for itself?

If the purpose of democracy is the former, then it must be judged against competing systems purely on the basis of results. Factors like the prevalence of corruption, annual growth and human development can be objectively measured and compared, though it takes hard work. If on the other hand the main point of democracy is to provide a mechanism for individuals to jointly choose the laws and policies that govern their own lives, and this is an end in itself, then that kind of detailed accounting is less important.

Beautiful rethorics, but I'm afraid you are shooting blindly.

Moussolini, the dictator of Italy, made the trains go by the clock, else the staff would be kicked to kingdom come.
Hitlers regular army was the first in the world not to casually rape, plunder and pillage (save the SS) because Hitler made them live up to civil doctrins.

No such things really happend in democrasies.

USA wanted to abolish Al Queda from Afghanistan, but Al Queda actually abhored corruption, and drugs, but with the new democasy it's highly corrupted and farmers grow drugs as usual.

I see medical industries around the world and other big cooperations puppeteering democasies.

So what this conclusion of the main article Rick Lewis describes is nothing but a fairytale dream.

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Now - by Rick Lewis wrote:Before you can judge how well anything works, you need to know its purpose. So what is democracy for? Is its purpose to bring about certain desired results: to produce justice; to ensure that the best and most effective policies are adopted; that the leaders are honest and competent; that corruption and abuse of power are curbed? Or is rule by the people for the people an end in its own right, valuable in and for itself?

If the purpose of democracy is the former, then it must be judged against competing systems purely on the basis of results. Factors like the prevalence of corruption, annual growth and human development can be objectively measured and compared, though it takes hard work. If on the other hand the main point of democracy is to provide a mechanism for individuals to jointly choose the laws and policies that govern their own lives, and this is an end in itself, then that kind of detailed accounting is less important.

Beautiful rethorics, but I'm afraid you are shooting blindly.

Moussolini, the dictator of Italy, made the trains go by the clock, else the staff would be kicked to kingdom come.

Actually he only ever made one train run on time once. This whole all trains run on time is a myth.

Hitlers regular army was the first in the world not to casually rape, plunder and pillage (save the SS) because Hitler made them live up to civil doctrins.

Not true either Henry Vs army for example where forbidden form the excess of conquerors, he bade all his men in all battles to show mercy to them all. No man was allowed rape or pillage and if he partook of them he would be subject to death. And he wasn't the first to be a little more enlightened in the field of battle either.

No such things really happend in democrasies.

Generally yes but subjectively no.

USA wanted to abolish Al Queda from Afghanistan, but Al Queda actually abhored corruption, and drugs, but with the new democasy it's highly corrupted and farmers grow drugs as usual.

Not true Al Qaeda were sourced by any means necessary by the heroin trade by stock markets, they were not fussed.

I see medical industries around the world and other big cooperations puppeteering democasies.

As do we all at least on that we can agree, it's fucking awful.

So what this conclusion of the main article Rick Lewis describes is nothing but a fairytale dream.

I am not sure he would agree but there you go.