Philosophy and democracy
Now the risk of not attaining eudaimonia, i.e. a happy and successful life, is quite substantial, I think, if we live a life not grounded on philosophical examination. But this is not the only problem. Another problem in my view is that a democracy cannot properly function if the citizens do not live a life grounded on philosophy. Now since that fall of the Suharto regime, Indonesia is one of the world’s largest democracies. The question, how to get democracy right, is, therefore a crucial one.
Unfortunately, democracies in the West cannot serve as a model since their democratic life is not grounded on philosophy. They are, therefore, in my understanding no real democracies at all. Let me, then, briefly explain why I think that a life not grounded on philosophical examination fails to realize the most fundamental democratic value, namely freedom in the sense of the citizens self-determination on both the individual and the collective level (the meaning of the word “democracy” is “rule of the people,” i.e. the people rule themselves). The idea of democracy is that I as an individual decide how I want to live and that we as a political community decide on the shape of the communal aspects of our life. “I decide” means that the decision what to wear, what religion to practice, what professional career to pursue, what to think about God, nature and humanity, and so forth is not imposed on me from the outside, e.g. by a dictator or by a religious institution. “we decide” means that the laws regulating the communal aspects of our lives are the expressions of our will (or at least of the will of the majority of us). Now in my view liberal political philoshopers like Isaiah Berlin make a big mistake when they claim that “negative freedom,” i.e. freedom from external coercion, is sufficient for democratic self-determination. For the values, ideals and goals, according to which we organize our lives on both the individual and colletive level, are at least at first not the result of self-determination. They are the result of what may be broadly characterized as socialization – conceptions that our parents, teachers, and religious leaders have put into our souls or that we derived from TV programs, films, newspapers, books and so forth. The fact, of course, that these conceptions are the product of our socializations does neither entail that they are true or false. It may well be that our parents, teachers, or religious leaders have taught us what justice, courage, piety, success, and happiness really are. But it may also well be that they have just indoctrinated us with the ideology to which they them-selves adhere. The only way to find out is through philosophical examination that allows us to decide whether a concept is true, partially true, or false and correspondingly should be accepted, modified, entirely rejected.
Unfortunately, democracies in the West cannot serve as a model since their democratic life is not grounded on philosophy. They are, therefore, in my understanding no real democracies at all. Let me, then, briefly explain why I think that a life not grounded on philosophical examination fails to realize the most fundamental democratic value, namely freedom in the sense of the citizens self-determination on both the individual and the collective level (the meaning of the word “democracy” is “rule of the people,” i.e. the people rule themselves). The idea of democracy is that I as an individual decide how I want to live and that we as a political community decide on the shape of the communal aspects of our life. “I decide” means that the decision what to wear, what religion to practice, what professional career to pursue, what to think about God, nature and humanity, and so forth is not imposed on me from the outside, e.g. by a dictator or by a religious institution. “we decide” means that the laws regulating the communal aspects of our lives are the expressions of our will (or at least of the will of the majority of us). Now in my view liberal political philoshopers like Isaiah Berlin make a big mistake when they claim that “negative freedom,” i.e. freedom from external coercion, is sufficient for democratic self-determination. For the values, ideals and goals, according to which we organize our lives on both the individual and colletive level, are at least at first not the result of self-determination. They are the result of what may be broadly characterized as socialization – conceptions that our parents, teachers, and religious leaders have put into our souls or that we derived from TV programs, films, newspapers, books and so forth. The fact, of course, that these conceptions are the product of our socializations does neither entail that they are true or false. It may well be that our parents, teachers, or religious leaders have taught us what justice, courage, piety, success, and happiness really are. But it may also well be that they have just indoctrinated us with the ideology to which they them-selves adhere. The only way to find out is through philosophical examination that allows us to decide whether a concept is true, partially true, or false and correspondingly should be accepted, modified, entirely rejected.
This is precisely the point that Plato makes in the dialogue Protagoras in which he included a discussion between Hippocrates, a young man from an aristocratic family in Athens, and Socrates, Plato’s philosophical teacher. Hippocrates has adopted the ideal of a successful life that was common for young men of his social background in Athens at the time: he wants to become a powerful political leader. This, he thinks, is what a happy and fulfilled life is about. When Socrates meets him, he is on the way to attend a class of Protagoras, a famous Sophist of Socrates’ time (“Sophist” meaning a teacher or rethoric and of other skills required for achieving political power).
[Socrates:] Am I right, then, Hippocrates, that a sophist is a kind of merchant who peddles provisions upon which the soul is nourished? That’s what he seems like to me. [Hippocrates:] But what is the soul nourished on, Socrates? [Socrates:] Teachings, I would say. And watch, or the sophist might deceive us in advertising what he sells, the way merchants who market food for the body do. In general, those who market provisions don’t know what is good or bad for the body – they just recommend everything they sell – nor do those who buy (unless one happens to a trainer or doctor). In the same way, those who take their teachings from town to town and sell them wholesale or retail to anybody who wants them recommend all their products, but I wouldn’t be surprised, my friend, is some of these people did not know which of their products are beneficial and which detrimental to the soul. Likewise those who buy from them, unless one happens to be a physician of the soul. So if you are a knowledgeable consumer, you can buy teachings safely from Protagoras or anyone else. But if you’re not, please don’t risk what is most dear to you on a roll of the dice, for there is a far greater risk in buying teachings than in buying food. (313c-314a)
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar