The concept of "democracy" is not neutral and is not a self-evident concept. Democracy today can not be discussed objectively. It is not a neutral concept: in the "democracy" as a political regime and the corresponding value system is the West, Europe and the United States. To them, "democracy" is a form of worship or secular tools of political dogma. Therefore, in order to be accepted in Western society on the bases full in the West, should be the default "for" democracy. Whoever puts it in question falls out of political correctness. If it's marginal, it is bearable if something a little more than a marginal, democracy starts the flywheel of repression against its alternatives (or any mode, any ideology, any dominant religion). So you can not talk about "democracy" impartially. Therefore, the arguments about democracy should say at once — we are generally in favor or against the whole. I will answer with the utmost sincerity that I am against. But against only because the West — for.
I'm not going to mindlessly and uncritically accept anything on faith, even if it is believed by all. And certainly not going to, if it is accompanied by pressure and hidden (or obvious) threat. You are asking me to draw on his own mind, is not it? I'll start with the fact that the mind tells me to reject any offer. Freedom no one can give us. Either it is or it is not. Slave and free transform into slavery, or at least disgusting, and even free in chains will never be a slave. (Plato from his time in slavery did not become any less than Plato, no less free, but the name of the tyrant Dionysius we still utter contempt — so one of them a slave?)
In addition, as the market textbook on technical analysis: «The majority is always wrong».
Only such a critical distance with respect to "democracy" gives the field for her conceptual understanding. We put the "democracy" in question in question defied as dogma. So we win the right to race. But the only way we are able to come to a reliable and valid results. Do not believe in democracy do not mean to be its enemy. It means not to be a prisoner of her, do not be under her hypnosis and its suggestion. Starting from such a lack of faith and doubt, it is quite possible we arrive at the conclusion that democracy is something valuable or acceptable, but, perhaps, do not come. By the way, just need to think and all the other things. Only a philosophy. No a priori evidentsy for a philosopher. Similarly, a political philosopher.
It should be recalled, democracy is not a self-evident concept. Democracy can be either accepted or rejected, as installed and dismantled. There were wonderful society without democracy, and disgusting — with democracy. But it was, and vice versa. Democracy — the human design, construct, plan, and no luck. It can be rejected or accepted. So it needs to be substantiated in apology. If there is no apology for democracy, it will lose its meaning. Non-democratic form of government can or should be taken as the worst known. The formula of "the lesser evil" — propaganda ploy. Democracy is not the lesser evil … Maybe she's not evil at all, and perhaps evil. Everything requires rethinking.
Only with these two assumptions, we can carefully consider democracy. This is not a dogma, its imposition of her only off-putting, and it may be quite relevant and effective alternatives.
Erection of her doctrine and her refusal to alternatives to closing the possibility of free philosophical discourse.
Demos of "democracy": the etymology and Aristotle
Let us turn to the etymology of the word "demos" as "democracy" means "power of the demos." Most often, the word translated as "people." However, in the Greek there are many synonyms for the people — "ethnicity", "laos", "fyule" etc. "Demos" was one of them and had specific connotations. Initially the "demos" described the population, that is, people living in a particular well-defined territory. With the expansion of cities, these areas were cut into the inside of the city, as modern or old Russian regions' ends of the city. " Therefore, the "demos" called the population of an area.
In Indo-European etymological dictionary of Julius Pokorny we see that the Greek "demos" goes back to the Indo-European root * da (* d? -), Meaning "divide", "divide". With formant «mo-« it gives the Greek "demos", and with the formant «lo-German teilen (divide), and Russian" divide ".
So, in the etymology of "demos" is a reference to something detached, cut into fragments and placed in a certain area. It is best suited within the meaning of the Russian word "population", and not the people, for the people and involves cultural and linguistic unity and commonality of historical existence and presence of a certain fate. Population (in theory) can do without it. By population is anyone who lived or had settled in the area. And no one who is associated with this land back or a sign of citizenship.
Aristotle, who introduced the concept of "democracy" treated him very negatively, keeping in mind this is the perfect Greek shade of meaning. According to Aristotle, "democracy" is virtually identical to the "Black Power", "mob rule" (mob rule), as the population of the urban area consists of everybody. "Democracy" as the worst model of government, Aristotle opposes not only the monarchy and aristocracy, respectively, the power of one or the rule of the best, to which it refers, in contrast, is positive, but the "polity" (from the Greek "polis", "city"). As well as "democracy", "polity" — this is the power of many, but not all in a row, and skilled, power-conscious citizens, as distinguished from the rest of the cultural, family, and social and economic indicators. Polity — is self-citizens of the city, drawing on traditions and customs. Democracy — a chaotic flurry of rebel mob.
Polity requires a cultural unity, common historical and religious and spiritual base of the townspeople. Democracy can be set arbitrary set of atomic individuals, "bristling" at random sector.
Aristotle, however, knows other forms of unjust government, except for democracy — is tyranny (the power of the usurper) and oligarchy (the power of a closed group of wealthy and corrupt scoundrels). All of the negative forms of government linked: tyrants is often based on "democracy," as well as "democracy" often appeal oligarchs. Wholeness, so important to Aristotle, on the side of the monarchy, the aristocracy and polity. Separation, crushing, breaking up into atoms — on the side of tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy.
Metaphysical foundations of democracy. Hypotheses "Parmenides"
Let us turn to the metaphysical foundations of democracy. To do so will involve Plato's dialogue "Parmenides." It is customary to distinguish two theses and hypotheses 8. The first thesis argues One, and the ensuing four hypotheses (Neoplatonists added, however, the fifth, but it does not matter now). The first point of the One and the ensuing four hypotheses can be applied to the description of the state based on a hierarchy, which has its origin in the idea, in the beginning of the summit. World, based on the assumption of the One, is built from the top down, from the One to much. Similarly, state, reproducing the structure of the universe. At the head of the sovereign state and the priests, as ministers of the One. Such sacred monarchy is both a model of the cosmos, and the basic state structure. The thesis of the One and the ensuing hypothesis, we describe a range of political models of traditional society, where the dominant principle of integrity, authority and sacred power of nature and the divine law.
Sociologist Louis Dumont calls this approach the 1st thesis and the first 4 hypotheses "methodological holism" as an understanding of society is based on the belief in its organic, holistic nature.
The second point of the dialogue "Parmenides" and the second 4 hypotheses come from the claims of many, other than the One. Here at the heart of looking at the world is not unity, but a plurality, atomism, the game tracks. Such a view leads us to look at atomistskomu space (the theory of Democritus) and the justification of political regimes is just a "democratic" type, that is not built from the top down but from the bottom up, not on the basis of transition One in many, but rather in the opposite direction . Plato believed the atomism of Leucippus and Democritus "heretical" teachings, and even, according to some sources, encouraged in his Academy burned his papers. Therefore, a society based on the principle of many (not-One) in the Platonic sense of the world can be considered a "political heresy."
We are interested in right now is this second thesis, "Parmenides" about a lot and derived from it four hypotheses (including the first four related to the monarchical space — they are called, respectively, 5, 6, 7 and 8th hypotheses "Parmenides"). If we look at them closely, you'll get 4 types of democracy, which are easy to detect in theory or in practice in the world around us.
Hypotheses "Parmenides" and types of democracy
Fifth hypothesis "Parmenides" is based on the assertion that, although the One and there, and there are many, the One can be thought (= sold) through a relationship in a lot. Simplistically it can be interpreted as follows: although we are starting from a set of atomic individuals, they can create something integral, which will, however, compound, collective, engineered. In political philosophy, we see a classic example of socialism or social democracy (in an extreme form — communism) is a theory of separate individuals offering to lay down in solidarity, "holistic" (but artificially integral) society, which in this case will be primary with respect to the individual, This will bring up the individual and to shape it. So thought himself a political goal as socialists, as well as the first social scientists (eg, Auguste Comte). The slogan of this approach is the famous motto: Ex pluribus unum.
In addition to social democracy, the same principle applies to the political form of the State of Hobbes, his "Leviathan", while Hobbes himself did not specify the form of the political regime of the State, being limited to the statement that it is created through the social contract people seeking to prevent the otherwise inevitable war of all against all. This principle — One of the sets as a product of the contract — is, therefore, at the basis of the modern theory of the state. In the social-democracy, he conceptualized most clearly. The concept of «Etat-Providance», dear to the heart of modern European or American «Wellfare State» generalizes both concepts (the state and social).
Second hypothesis is that there are many, but the One is not, neither by itself, nor in their relationship. This denial of the One Design (artificial and collective, mechanical) is the essence of a different type of democracy — liberal democracy. Characteristically, the liberal democracy contested proposal has a regulatory model of society defended by socialists and social democrats, and (in the long run), the very existence of the State. Do not make many uniform (Ex pluribus unum), it is not necessary, and many may well remain many and atomic individual may well be satisfied with their complete freedom. So Much denying the One, gives us liberalism.
Seventh hypothesis of the "Parmenides" says: There are many, and through relationships it has a lot more. In other words, the individual atoms fragments may substantiate the existence of other atoms fragments through the relationship between them. We get a social and political model based on dialogue and communication. Unified in this case does not constitute a social contract, but a number of other atoms constructs a set of atoms, which thus gives being. So there is the problem of "the Other", a dialogue with him, a relationship with him who is today an important center of philosophical problems. "Other" and "Other" come out of the attitude of many. This model of "democracy" can be called "understanding of democracy" or "democracy, dialogue." Such democracy may well be a liberal, that is, in contrast to the socialist society does not recognize as a constructed One. Instead, the company may be a communication network that structure, depending on the trajectories of free spontaneous dialogues of individual atoms with each other in the "open society". It is a model of "civil society." Approximately so imagine the things the Chicago School of Sociology, in particular, Dzh.G.Mid (symbolic interactionism).
Finally, the eighth hypothesis is the most "brutal." It reads as follows: One is not, but does not create a lot of "the other" a lot, it does not construct even in the process of relationship in a lot. Here we have an extreme form of liberalism, refuse altogether from the figure of the "Other." In political philosophy, this corresponds to the "objectivism" of Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan, the most extreme form of individualism dehumanized (typical of many Russian liberals). It also includes the concept of "sovereign rights" de Sade, parsed and Zh.Batayem M.Blansho. Under this hypothesis, there is only the "only" and its private property, and all the rest, not only has no existence, but also artificially constructed.
It is significant that Plato emphasized that these last four hypotheses are speculative, and that much without the One can not exist. That is the first point contains the truth, and the second — a lie, based only on the mind game.
The transition from traditional to modern society to modern times and upgraded to democratic states, from a philosophical point of view and there is a transition from the 1st to the thesis of Plato second (from the first four hypotheses) to the latter. From all points of view — the philosophical, sociological, cultural, etc. — Modernity is based on the cult of "methodological individualism" against "methodological holism" (the first point and the first four hypotheses). That denial of the One and the recognition of the primacy of many is the basic dogma of our time, the main postulate of Modernity. And in today's postmodern era is exactly this approach in no way challenged. Postmodern is a hypertrophied version of the latest extravagant hypotheses "Parmenides" — and in particular, the eighth.
Plato's hypothesis help us understand the code of the political philosophy of our time. In the end, all eight hypotheses can be considered as fully rational model of the world and society. And if you pull away from the hypnotic suggestions of progress, we might as well make a conscious choice in favor of any of these hypotheses.
This means that we can choose as some version of democracy and democracy, rising to the position of the second thesis, or select a non-democracy, if you stand on the position of the first thesis and recognize Unity. And interestingly, this choice can be made not only today, but he stood before the people of ancient Greece who chose Atlantis and Athens (Plato's dialogue "Critias"), Athens or Sparta (Peloponnesian War by Thucydides sung), the philosophy of Aristotle and the monarchists Paltona or Liberal Democrat atomists and Epicurus. As long as man is man, he is in himself, let him vaguely and remote, but it is the ability to philosophy. So, it carries with it the freedom to choose. Both Democrats and some of its type person can choose, and may be rejected.
Moreover, if we take the position of Plato and Platonism, then on the basis of comparison of democracy and hypotheses "Parmenides" come to the conclusion that we live in space, which can not be, in a society based on a completely false dogma. Supporters of democracy today are all the default. Not bad was it all "by default" to understand the philosophical principles to which they automatically (ie without asking themselves) is credited.
On the other hand, all the enemies of democracy immediately enroll in the category of people who profess an ideology, whose title has long been a curse, insult, and unscrupulous hypnotists utilize this feature on and on. Instead opostylevshego and obessmyslennogo word that I do not want to say in this article, it is better to call us "Platonists." Yes, we are bearers of political Platonism. We build our understanding of the world and society, based on the first thesis, "Parmenides" and the first four hypotheses. Someone builds the basis of the second thesis and the second four hypotheses "Parmenides." For God's sake, but only a good idea to inquire about this in advance.
As a philosopher, that is, beings free, we might as well say metaphysical status quo, which consists in the dogma of the second hypothesis, "Parmenides" (ie democracy), "yes", but we can say "no."
I say methodological individualism and the second thesis of Plato's "Parmenides" "no" and thus clearly define the place in the ranks. In Plato's army of supporters.
Plato burned books Democritus. Democrats — call to burn Plato (in particular, the spiritual guru George Soros K. Popper in his Catechism, "The Open Society and Its Enemies"). Popper says bluntly: either enemies of the open society (liberal democracy, 2nd thesis "Parmenides"), or friends. It's a real war hypotheses epistemologies battle, the battle of epistemological paradigms, the battle of ideas.
So, for us, the Platonist, democracy is a false doctrine, it is based on a world that is not, and society, which can not be.
If so, then the Platonist concludes that democracy is its false claim to hide under something other, but in any case something very wrong, unfair and unhealthy — for example, a secret oligarchy or tyranny disguised. But that's a topic for another article.