Anarchy or Democracy

[Diavolo]

Hello.

 

Do you like to read? Perfect, you will not waste your time with this post. Do you hate reading? I recommend that you stop here to stop what you're doing and find something better to do with your limited time. Remember that you are mortal. Still here? Good.

 

Let me tell you that just over a year ago I started this cult to stimulate the transmission and refinement of philosophical knowledge. I know that starting a philosophy cult is just as interesting as starting a math cult, but at the same time, I know that both are unfortunately unpopular topics because those who teach such subjects, as a rule, either don't know enough about them to inspire students to go deeper into theoretical and practical purposes in these fields of study or, worse still, they teach them poorly precisely because they know the power they offer to those who unravel and appropriate their content.

 

Do I consider myself the philosophical authority of this site? No. What I do think is that I can make the knowledge I have available to the community with the intention that each member further develops or discover their own system of thought, which can perfectly be enhanced with the systems already developed by brilliant minds. that have existed throughout human history and which I have read (well, not all of them, but some of them). That is exactly why I have titled this post as you can notice. What I believe is that it is possible to use this space to develop thought together, but without the intention of enthroning an authority: everything is subject to questioning and rigorous analysis.

 

Does that mean that there are many truths and not just one? Are all truths equally valid? Logically or mathematically, think for a second if 2+2 can have some other quantity than 4 as the answer. Well, if you value scientific advances, like the cell phone or the computer that you currently use to read what I have written,  You will probably come to the conclusion that 4 is the only possible number that can be offered as an answer in this easy operation. For the prince of the philosophers, according to Deleuze, I mean Baruch Spinoza; as we get to know the origin or causes of the phenomena that we want to understand to increase our power, or ability to persevere in the world, the closer we get to objective truth; scientific truth, I would say. As a curious fact, Spinoza reached a philosophical conclusion regarding the functioning of the brain and our emotions 350 years ago. Data that neuroscience is now validating, although refining details by much. However, all starting points are valid. That's the difference: all the rivers goes to the sea. So it does not matter if your epistemology is based on the study of magic, on wild chaotic, and almost schizophrenic thoughts, on religious fundamentalisms, on a political inclination (which is almost the same as the previous one), or if you believe that the LSD that you ate last Friday revealed to you the ultimate truth: all knowledge that collides with other knowledge can only be refined within a dialectical process. This requires a lot of debate and being ready to change your mind, especially since logical bases and arguments must be used to support the ideas. In each debate, we all die a little and reborn stronger. That's why it hurts not to be right, but it's part of destroying a previous dogma: a previous world in order to create a new one.

 

If you  really think it is impossible to mix such different currents of thought, I recommend that you read the work of the philosopher Walter Benjamin: he created quite an interesting thought by mixing Jewish messianism, Marxism, and German romanticism. A genius, like all, sui generis.

 

So… anarchy or democracy? What model increases the power of a society and why? It is obvious that here the Oligarchy is not counted, nor the Tyranny, nor the Plutocracy, nor the Timarchy nor any fascist structure because the answer is obvious (Unless you are a covert fascist, a worshiper of Hitler, which I doubt). This is the first question I propose you answer as you see fit. This with the certainty that I will answer back, at least. If someone else joins, this can only get better. The topic is finished until the participating parties are satisfied with the results. That is, until a more robust truth has been constructed, one that is demonstrable.

 

Before I say goodbye, I offer an apology. English is not my native language and I have to translate everything I write. If I have any grammatical errors, please help me to correct them. Greetings and... shall we begin?