Religion and Political Governance
Throughout history, religious principles have played a significant role in shaping political governance. Ancient civilizations, such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Rome, incorporated religious beliefs into their laws and policies. Rulers were often seen as divinely chosen, or even as gods themselves, legitimizing their authority.
Religion also influenced the development of legal systems and moral codes. For instance, the Ten Commandments in Judaism and Christianity provided guidelines for ethical behavior that influenced early legal systems in Western societies. Religious institutions held substantial power, acting as intermediaries between rulers and their subjects and sometimes directly influenced political decisions.
Theocracies, where religious leaders or institutions held political power, were prevalent throughout history. Examples include ancient Egypt, the Papal States during the Middle Ages, and certain periods in Islamic history. In these societies, religious principles were intertwined with governance, and religious leaders had a significant say in shaping policies and laws.
The degree of religious influence on government has varied widely across cultures and historical periods. While religious principles have historically informed political governance, many modern societies have moved towards secularism and the separation of church and state.
The Analects and the Tao Te Ching: Confucianism Vs Taoism
The Analects and the Tao Te Ching are two influential texts in Chinese philosophy, representing contrasting viewpoints that shaped ancient China’s historical and philosophical landscape.
The Analects, attributed to Confucius, emphasize moral cultivation and social harmony. One central concept is that of the “junzi,” often translated as the “gentleman” or “noble person.” The junzi is an ideal individual who embodies virtues like benevolence, righteousness, and sincerity. According to Confucius, one should strive to become a junzi through self-discipline, learning, and ethical principles. The focus is on self-improvement and becoming a morally upright individual, contributing positively to society.
On the other hand, the Tao Te Ching, attributed to Laozi, is a foundational text of Taoism. It presents a different perspective on living and governing. The Tao, often translated as the “Way,” is the underlying principle of the universe. Laozi advocates for “wu-wei,” which can be translated as “non-action” or “effortless action.” This does not mean inaction but rather aligning with the natural flow of the Tao, acting spontaneously and without excessive force. The Tao Te Ching suggests that forcing things or striving too hard goes against the natural order and leads to disharmony. Moreover, the Tao Te Ching posits that a good person is inherently good by nature, rather than through conscious effort. The idea is that when one aligns with the Tao, their innate goodness and moral character will naturally manifest. There is an emphasis on simplicity, humility, and letting go of desires and attachments to achieve spiritual enlightenment.
Aligning Chinese Philosophy with Hume’s Law
David Hume’s Is-ought distinction, also known as Hume’s Law, is a philosophical concept that highlights the fundamental difference between descriptive statements (what “is”) and normative statements (what “ought” to be). Hume argued that there is a logical gap between statements that describe the way things are and statements that prescribe how things should be.
As a naturalistic system, Taoism aligns with the “is” aspect of Hume’s distinction. The Tao Te Ching describes the natural way of the universe and advocates for living in harmony with the Tao, the underlying principle of existence. The focus is on understanding and aligning with the natural flow of life rather than prescribing specific moral rules or duties. Taoism describes how the world operates and how individuals can live in accordance with the inherent order.
Confucianism, on the other hand, tries to bring about ideal circumstances, thereby falling under the “ought” aspect of Hume’s distinction. Confucian principles emphasize moral cultivation, social harmony, and the development of virtues like benevolence, righteousness, and sincerity. Confucius’ teachings present a normative framework for how individuals should act and conduct themselves to become a “junzi” or a morally upright person. Confucianism offers prescriptive guidance on how individuals ought to behave to promote a harmonious society.
Comparing Naturalistic and Idealistic Forms of Government: Anarchism Vs Communism
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a 19th-century French philosopher, is often considered one of the founding figures of anarchism. In his work titled “What Is Property?” published in 1840, Proudhon famously provided a specific definition of anarchism. He stated, “Anarchy is the absence of a master, of a sovereign.” Proudhon’s definition emphasizes the rejection of centralized authority or rulers, promoting a society based on voluntary cooperation and non-coercive relationships among individuals. His work laid the groundwork for the development of anarchist thought and influenced subsequent generations of anarchist thinkers and activists.
Anarchism can be seen as a naturalistic form of government (is), as it aligns with Taoist principles in its emphasis on non-interference and non-authoritarian governance. Both Taoism and anarchism share a preference for spontaneous order and a belief in the innate goodness and autonomy of individuals.
In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels summed up the theory of communism in the single sentence: “Abolition of private property.”
Communism represents an example of an idealistic form of government (ought). In communist ideology, society should be classless and stateless, with the means of production owned collectively. The transition to communism involves the establishment of a proletarian state that will eventually wither away once a communist society is achieved. This vision of a classless society is the desired outcome, representing the “ought” aspect. Communism shares some alignment with Confucian principles, as both emphasize social harmony and the common good. Communism aims to create a society where everyone’s needs are met, and individuals work for the collective benefit.
From Internal Alignment to External Cooperation: Negative Vs Positive Liberty
Anarchism and Taoism represent a focus on negative liberty. Negative liberty refers to the absence of external constraints or interference, allowing individuals to be free from authority and control. Therefore Anarchism and Taoism share a common emphasis on achieving harmony through an introverted approach. Taoism focuses on adapting to the natural flow of life (Tao), which allows individuals to find harmony within themselves and their surroundings. Similarly, as captured in the slogan “No gods, no masters”, anarchists seek harmony by rejecting external authority and fostering self-governance, allowing individuals to freely participate in decision-making processes and shape their communities based on voluntary cooperation.
Communism and Confucianism, on the other hand, align more with the concept of positive liberty. Positive liberty emphasizes the presence of enabling conditions that allow individuals to fulfill their potential and achieve personal development.
Communism and Confucianism take an extroverted approach to achieve harmony. In Confucianism, the cultivation of virtuous relationships and the principle of benevolence provide a framework for individuals to coexist harmoniously in society and reach their full potential. Similarly, Communism’s vision of “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” reflects a commitment to reducing disparities and meeting individual needs. The aim is to create an environment where everyone has equal opportunities and access to resources, enabling them to lead fulfilling lives.
Temporal Orientations: Present-Focused Vs Future-Centric Ideologies
A bottom-up approach involves responding to current circumstances and experiences, allowing the future to emerge from the cumulative effects of individual actions and interactions. Decisions are based on immediate observations and insights, adapting and evolving as situations change over time.
Taoism and anarchism share this present-oriented perspective, focusing on the here and now rather than future aspirations. Both emphasize living in harmony with the natural order and promote a state of being that is in sync with the current flow of life. Taoism advocates for aligning with the Tao, the natural principle of existence, and embracing “wu-wei,” or non-action, to let things unfold naturally. Anarchism, too, emphasizes the importance of present individual autonomy and decentralized, voluntary associations, seeking to dismantle hierarchical structures in the present to promote a stateless society.
In contrast, in a top-down approach decisions and actions are guided by predefined goals or objectives set for the future. The focus is on planning and implementing strategies to achieve those goals, influencing present actions based on anticipated outcomes.
Communism and Confucianism both share this future-oriented perspective, centered on the transformation of society. Confucianism emphasizes moral cultivation and the development of virtues to create a harmonious future society where individuals contribute positively to social well-being as morally upright individuals. In contrast, communism envisions a future classless and stateless society, seeking to eliminate present inequalities and exploitation by collectively owning the means of production, ultimately striving for a utopian future where everyone’s needs are met.
Immanentizing the Eschaton: Ascending Jacob’s Ladder
The concept of “immanentizing the eschaton” originates from philosopher Eric Voegelin and refers to attempts to bring about an ultimate, utopian, or transcendent future state within the immanent world. It cautions against trying to achieve a perfect, ideal society or utopia on Earth forcefully. Voegelin warns that such attempts can lead to unintended consequences and potentially disastrous outcomes.
Jacob’s ladder connecting Heaven and Earth can serve as a biblical metaphor for representing how the gradual ascent towards higher levels of moral development may rely on incremental changes and adaptations rather than abrupt and radical transformations. Forcefully imposing an ideal standard without proper consideration of complexities and contradictions in society would lead to unintended consequences and social unrest. The notion of taking progress one step at a time echoes the caution against trying to immanentize a utopian vision hastily.
Regulating the Leviathan: A Healthy Balance
Evolutionary pressures play a vital role in bringing about higher ideals. As societies progress, natural selection favors ideas and systems that effectively address these changes. As such, collectives composed of individuals who have internalized values that align with naturalistic principles possess the required resilience for bringing about a more libertarian society. On the other hand, societies that organically align with idealistic principles of cooperation have thereby produced the necessary conditions for bringing about more egalitarian circumstances that are more fruitful to the collective.
This teleological evolution leads to the emergence of a collective structure that is composed of autonomous parts which are independent from each other, but interact in ways that ultimately benefit the whole.
Drawing on Thomas Hobbes’ concept of the Leviathan, we can envision the superorganism as a collective entity composed of individual cells that adapt to challenges and work selflessly for the good of the whole. In this analogy, each cell represents an individual in society, while the superorganism symbolizes the collective structure that emerges from the interplay of these individuals.
In this superior form, the Leviathan operates perfectly according to both, naturalistic and idealistic principles. The cells, representing individuals, adapt to overcome all challenges, with individuals experiencing negative liberty and autonomy while contributing to the collective’s well-being. Simultaneously the cells organically ensure that resources are shared to guarantee that everyone’s needs are met, for the sake of optimising the Leviathan’s future evolution.
Plato’s Republic in the Context of Two Seemingly Opposed Ideologies
Plato’s Republic exemplifies a balanced integration of naturalistic and idealistic principles, aligning with both anarchistic and meritocratic elements. The state allows individuals to pursue their personal liberties and passions freely, provided they do not infringe on the liberties of others. This respect for personal freedom aligns with natural harmony and the concept of negative liberty, similar to Taoist and anarchistic principles, where individuals are free from external constraints.
A compelling analogy to understand this aspect is Socrates’ daemon, a guiding inner voice that tells him what not to do, rather than prescribing specific actions. As described in Plato’s “Apology,” this concept mirrors the function of the law in Plato’s Republic: it acts like a collective conscience, preventing individuals from harming others but not dictating their every move. In this way, the law upholds negative liberty, allowing personal freedom while ensuring that such freedom does not sabotage the liberties of others. This idea of the law as individual conscience writ large provides a framework where personal liberties are respected and safeguarded.
However, Plato’s ideal society also emphasizes a meritocratic government, where individuals who contribute meaningfully to the common good receive governmental support. This support encourages qualities and endeavors that benefit the whole, reflecting an idealistic vision akin to Confucian and communist goals of social harmony and collective well-being. This aspect aligns with positive liberty, where individuals are enabled and supported to fulfill their potential and contribute to society.
In Plato’s Republic, individuals are thus free to follow their paths, fostering a diverse and dynamic society. Yet, the state inherently promotes and supports pursuits that align with the collective goals, ensuring that personal freedoms contribute positively to the overall harmony and progress of society. This synthesis of personal liberty and collective support embodies a nuanced balance, achieving both natural harmony and an idealistic vision for a just and flourishing society.