Ideology, it is behind every political system, without them there would be no mandate for law. Democracy, Capitalism, Socialism each have their own logical construction based on a set of principles which we all chose to agree upon or not. The guarantors of the integrity of these systems are the class directly responsible for the safe keeping of the protection of the moral and ethical essence of the governing rule of the elected leaders. This class has been known under many names throughout our societies' history. The elders, the druids, the priests...
Ultimately, in a world in deep crisis, can we morally and objectively affirm that the debate between the validity of naturalistic philosophy against supernaturalistic philosophy is of no more significance than the colour of a man's skin ?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I have to disagree Charlie
One is using the truth and facts to arrive at a solution, the other mumbo jumbo based on nonsense.
A good example is the environment debate in the US. Facts and studies have indicated one thing, politicians reading from the bible believe the opposite. And it is those politicians who are stalling/denying a resolution to this growing problem.
Personally, I do not ascribe to any one political philosophy. Be it capitalism or monarchy or communism, each dogma offers solutions. IMO none solve all problems. Instead, dogma should be left at the door and a solution independent of politics should be used.
For example, the USA is predominantly a capitalist state. But one mechanism that keeps the capitalistic economy rolling are the interstates. And the interstates are from the socialist playbook. So is Hoover Dam which powers Las Vegas.
My point is that the one you call mumbo jumbo is so because it is based on "supernatural" principles (ie. God, miracles, magic), or what I call supernatural philosophy, and not actual Natural principles, which I call naturalistic philosophy.
This has been the case for a very long time, as all our modern societies descend from Ancient Rome, which itself descends from ancient Greece etc, and that already in Ancient Greece, the philosophy was heavily impregnated with "Supernatural" principles.
Basically to rephrase my question:
How do we set the line between the freedom of belief and the apparent need to base the founding principles of the ideologies running societies on "non supernatural" foundations ?
@Charlie
"How do we set the line between the freedom of belief and the apparent need to base the founding principles of the ideologies running societies on "non supernatural" foundations ?"
The founding fathers of the US Constitution got it right. Unfortunately theists have worked diligently to merge faith and politics.
Separation of state and church,and protected rights.
The degree to which we should say something produces a tangible benefit is proportionate to which something produces a tangible benefit.
Sorry not certain I understood the logic of what you were trying to say.
What a run of nonsense.
1. Laws existed before political systems. Tribal communities have laws,
2. People do not get to choose the political system in which they are raise (Islam)
3. The guarantors of the system are overthrown throughout history. Mao's China, USSR
4. Naturalistic philosophy is Pragmatic and works. It does not work against supernaturalistic philosophy. It only asks for Naturalistic or Pragmatic demonstrations of this supernaturalistic philosophy. Without a demonstration there is no reason to consider it at all.
1. That is more or less what I am saying. Laws depends on philosophical principles (ideas, hence the construction of ideologies).
2. I did not say people chose the political system in which they are raised. I said people chose their beliefs, or at least to which they agree and adhere to. Point taken that indoctrination takes away to a considerable extent the element of choice.
3. Yes, but you are still describing systems which are very philosophically backwards: Mao's China and USSR even though technically "Atheist", were very much closer to pure Nihilism which in itself is not much better than Religious Ideology, therefore destined to collapse.
4. I do not think you understood my point. My point was to question if it was morally and objectively right to hold the debate of Naturalistic Philosophy and Supernatural Philosophy as of the same nature as the debate on racial equality.
Ie. Where it is right to say that a White person is not superior to a Black person, does it also have to imply that a naturalistic philosophical argument cannot be superior to a supernaturalistic philosophical argument.
That is very much a rethorical question I was putting foward.
All moral and aesthetic judgments are subjective.
You would have to prove "supernatural" exists before you could debate it.
If you enjoy playing such classic games then you need to start playing gold miner right now. You can tell how much fun in the game.
Playing https://pizzatower.games is a great way to relax if you want to have more fun every day. Successful work may be done while having fun!