Philosophy Now Forum

Recent events have brought home the fact that monarchy should primarily be judged in spiritual, or religious terms, or at least emotional ones, rather than political, and its political function is secondary to its true purpose, namely, to unite a nation with a shared spiritual identity. The ancients knew this, and originally, as in Egypt, kings were literally gods. Later, in the medieval period, though the kings could no longer be gods, they were nevertheless crowned by god, or god's representative, and assumed a holy aura in that way. Today, this aura survives in the mystique of monarchy. Those who criticise the Queen, for example, for being aloof, really have missed the point, because that's exactly what she is supposed to be.

How can you justify having immense wealth and power while the majority of people live in awful conditions?

By claiming that you are a god or that god has sanctioned the absurd injustice.

Monarchy is the ultimate con.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:02 pm How can you justify having immense wealth and power while the majority of people live in awful conditions?

By claiming that you are a god or that god has sanctioned the absurd injustice.

Monarchy is the ultimate con.

It's not a question of justifying it, but rather, of judging which system works best. That is, which system produces the most stable forms of society over long periods.

Stability is not always a good thing. Maintaining a class structure and keeping a segment of society in poverty is not desirable.

Society ought to be changing. It ought to be improving.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:48 pm Stability is not always a good thing. Maintaining a class structure and keeping a segment of society in poverty is not desirable.

Society ought to be changing. It ought to be improving.

Monarchical societies are not static. The UK is the obvious example of this. The key point is evolution, rather than revolution.

Monarchical societies are not static.

Nothing is entirely static. Monarchies obstruct changes which would reduce their wealth and power. That's negative stability.

The UK is the obvious example of this.

It's an example where the monarch has had very little power for a long time. Change happened in spite of the monarchy and not because of it.

An impotent monarchy is a good one? Why not go all the way and get rid of the monarchy entirely?

What is the actual benefit of a monarchy? What's the positive stability?

The key point is evolution, rather than revolution.

Evolving at what pace?

You're afraid of Lenin?

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:37 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:02 pm How can you justify having immense wealth and power while the majority of people live in awful conditions?

By claiming that you are a god or that god has sanctioned the absurd injustice.

Monarchy is the ultimate con.

It's not a question of justifying it, but rather, of judging which system works best. That is, which system produces the most stable forms of society over long periods.

I'm not sure we have any way to judge that. We can't run experiments. But this monarchy is nothing like the monarchies that actually were monarchies. So, it is very young. The old monarchs wielded real power. So 'the system' is not something that has been around that long. And the system has not been stable since it included the crumbling of the empire the joining and leaving the EU, a couple of world wars and the, for the most part, removal of political power of the monarches. I am blaming those things on the monarchy, but I don't know what would let us know that this kind of show monarchy is stable or better than not having it.

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:10 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:48 pm Stability is not always a good thing. Maintaining a class structure and keeping a segment of society in poverty is not desirable.

Society ought to be changing. It ought to be improving.

Monarchical societies are not static. The UK is the obvious example of this. The key point is evolution, rather than revolution.

I don't think it would take a revolution to eliminate the monarchy.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:34 pm

Monarchical societies are not static.

Nothing is entirely static. Monarchies obstruct changes which would reduce their wealth and power. That's negative stability.

The UK is the obvious example of this.

It's an example where the monarch has had very little power for a long time. Change happened in spite of the monarchy and not because of it.

An impotent monarchy is a good one? Why not go all the way and get rid of the monarchy entirely?

What is the actual benefit of a monarchy? What's the positive stability?

The key point is evolution, rather than revolution.

Evolving at what pace?

You're afraid of Lenin?

The current UK monarchy, especially Charles himself, for many decades, have promoted positive change.

The monarchy is very far indeed from being impotent, as evidenced by recent events. Its social influence is enormous.

Not sure why you mentioned Lenin but yes, as a bloodthirsty tyrant, I think it's reasonable to be afraid of him.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:41 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:37 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:02 pm How can you justify having immense wealth and power while the majority of people live in awful conditions?

By claiming that you are a god or that god has sanctioned the absurd injustice.

Monarchy is the ultimate con.

It's not a question of justifying it, but rather, of judging which system works best. That is, which system produces the most stable forms of society over long periods.

I'm not sure we have any way to judge that. We can't run experiments. But this monarchy is nothing like the monarchies that actually were monarchies. So, it is very young. The old monarchs wielded real power. So 'the system' is not something that has been around that long. And the system has not been stable since it included the crumbling of the empire the joining and leaving the EU, a couple of world wars and the, for the most part, removal of political power of the monarches. I am blaming those things on the monarchy, but I don't know what would let us know that this kind of show monarchy is stable or better than not having it.

Monarchs in England were never absolute, and always had a parliament, or some other body, to advise them. The political changes you mention have been happening gradually since the 17th century, before even the rise of the British Empire to world power status.

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:44 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:34 pm

Monarchical societies are not static.

Nothing is entirely static. Monarchies obstruct changes which would reduce their wealth and power. That's negative stability.

The UK is the obvious example of this.

It's an example where the monarch has had very little power for a long time. Change happened in spite of the monarchy and not because of it.

An impotent monarchy is a good one? Why not go all the way and get rid of the monarchy entirely?

What is the actual benefit of a monarchy? What's the positive stability?

The key point is evolution, rather than revolution.

Evolving at what pace?

You're afraid of Lenin?

The current UK monarchy, especially Charles himself, for many decades, have promoted positive change.

The monarchy is very far indeed from being impotent, as evidenced by recent events. Its social influence is enormous.

Not sure why you mentioned Lenin but yes, as a bloodthirsty tyrant, I think it's reasonable to be afraid of him.

Please list the positive changes so that they can be evaluated.

Please list the positive social influence.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:56 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:44 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:34 pm Nothing is entirely static. Monarchies obstruct changes which would reduce their wealth and power. That's negative stability.
It's an example where the monarch has had very little power for a long time. Change happened in spite of the monarchy and not because of it.

An impotent monarchy is a good one? Why not go all the way and get rid of the monarchy entirely?

What is the actual benefit of a monarchy? What's the positive stability?
Evolving at what pace?

You're afraid of Lenin?

The current UK monarchy, especially Charles himself, for many decades, have promoted positive change.

The monarchy is very far indeed from being impotent, as evidenced by recent events. Its social influence is enormous.

Not sure why you mentioned Lenin but yes, as a bloodthirsty tyrant, I think it's reasonable to be afraid of him.

Please list the positive changes so that they can be evaluated.

Please list the positive social influence.

The gradual development of a representative, and ultimately democratic, form of government.

Representing and embodying a sense of national unity and purpose, during wartime, for example.

The gradual development of a representative, and ultimately democratic, form of government.

Representing and embodying a sense of national unity and purpose, during wartime, for example.

Die for King and Country.

Of course, others died for Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin. Or France, the Reich, the motherland.

So not unique to monarchy.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 4:41 pm

The gradual development of a representative, and ultimately democratic, form of government.

Representing and embodying a sense of national unity and purpose, during wartime, for example.

Die for King and Country.

Of course, others died for Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin. Or France, the Reich, the motherland.

So not unique to monarchy.

Are you saying that the role the monarchy played in WW2, for example, was similar to that of Hitler?

Are you saying that the role the monarchy played in WW2, for example, was similar to that of Hitler?

Certainly not. Hitler was an architect of the war. The monarchy was along for the ride.