Thursday, February 2, 2012
So far, my thesis is somewhere along the lines of: In the ideal State, the relationship between a government and its citizens is an ongoing dialectic. Thus, the government becomes an impermanent thing, changing its laws and basic structure when the needs of people demand. Staticity will crumble any form of government, given enough time; Constant evolution is the foundation of a thriving society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What if the citizens are completely split on an issue? Also if the government is so unstable will the citizens really feel like they can rely on the government? Would the people who are part of the government really just give in to the will of the people? Would this not be tyranny of the majority? And if it is, then what about the rights of the minority? Also how can society be sure that it is making forward progress and not going backwards? With a government that could be taken down at any second, how could citizens feel that their basic needs would be taken care of? Also is the ongoing dialectic between all the citizens and the government or just a select few? If it's all, how can the government really listen to everyone?
ReplyDeleteCool idea i like it this is sort of what i wrote the first paper on. How do citizens know what there role is suppose to be? how do the government and the people balance who should be changing at any given time? Plato's government is static and doesn't give its people a voice what are the effects of situations like these? why must both parties contribute and change?
ReplyDeleteI like this! I wrote my second paper about this topic!
ReplyDeleteWhere do the people demand this change? Is it in the public sphere/marketplace of ideas? Is it through rebellion? Is rebellion O.K?
If society is constantly evolving, is there a telos, an end to this process? Does it manifest itself in something along religious lines?
If government is impermanent (very Hegelian, that government doesn't matter, it is just a moment in time, and the best form of government is the one you live in because you won't know anything else etc.) then how does it retain power/control in society, if it has control to begin with?
Thanks guys!
ReplyDeleteIf anybody can figure out how to fit Nietzche in, I will make you cookies.
This is good, but, I agree with Elana. Does "evolution" bring up the whole notion of telos and thus truth. Is there a place that we are evolving towards? What, if anything, guides the relationship between the people the society they live in? For Marx, it was economics. Nietzsche also believed the the individual shaped society and vise-versa--even at the level of morality. I will take chocolate chip.
ReplyDelete