Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
Dachshund
Posts: 418
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Dachshund » April 9th, 2018, 4:07 am

NB: the last quotation above should read ..." happiness that is to be found in all conditions" ( I left out the word "conditions")

Dachshund
Posts: 418
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Dachshund » April 9th, 2018, 11:41 am

Fooloso4 wrote:
April 3rd, 2018, 1:20 pm


For anyone not interested in the longer argument below, I will start with a quote from Burke to show just how misguided Dachshund is, and then address the specifics of his post:

The first part is a clear statement of Burke’s egalitarianism, the second may be the key to Dachshund’s misunderstanding of egalitarianism.
Fooloso4 wrote:
April 3rd, 2018, 1:20 pm

In this partnership all men have equal rights; but not to equal things. He that has but five shillings in the partnership, has as good a right to it, as he that has five hundred pounds has to his larger proportion. But he has not a right to an equal dividend in the product of the joint stock; and as to the share of power, authority, and direction which each individual ought to have in the management of the state, that I must deny to be amongst the direct original rights of man in civil society; for I have in my contemplation the civil social man, and no other. It is a thing to be settled by convention. (“Reflections on the Revolution in France,” Works, II, 331–332.)

I have put the key phrase in bold: “In this partnership all men have equal rights; but not to equal things”. This puts Burke squarely within an egalitarian moral and political tradition.
My dear fellow,

I think that if I were asked to single out the one principle most fundamental to Burke's conservatism, it would have to be the principle of order. . For Burke the phrase "law and order" does not represent a tautology. What Burke understands by the the term "order" is class, rank, gradation, hierarchy ( though he would probably not fully approve of my using the word "hierarchy"). Without this order in society law cannot subsist; without it, nothing high or enduring in society can be achieved.

In short, the idea of order in society, for any liberal conservative from Burke - the "founding father" of the movement - to any true, modern-day Tory -refers to an arrangement of things in society ( i.e. the state) which does not accord with any kind of abstract/hypothetical notion of equality, nor with any kind of utilitarian (e.g. arbitrary Benthamite) calculus, but which is founded directly upon a clear recognition of Providential design; a Providential design which makes differences ( inequalities ) between man and man ( and, of course, man and God) ineradicable and beneficent .

Burke's principle of order is an affirmation of the reverential view of society in the philosophy of Jus/Lex naturale, which, as you have already mentioned, can be traced back through Aristotle and Cicero; I agreed, and noted its pedigree as well in the works of Seneca, the thinking of the Roman jurisconsults, Richard Hooker, the Schoolmen and other great thinkers of the past as well. But Burke's principle of order is more than this. His genius enabled him to see that the French Revolution was no simple political contest, no mere culmination of the Enlightenment (wrt the rationalist, egalitarian philosophical tenets popularised by John Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, Kant and Co.) , but rather, the origination- (the onset ) - of a monumental ,moral convulsion from which modernity would not recover until the disease - which was, and remains to this day in the West -the stubborn and presumptuous rebellion of man against the order that Providence had decreed for human society ( the state), has finally run its course.

Burke saw that the presence of evil (immorality/wickedness) among men to be an incontrovertible, irrefragable fact (who could disagree ?!) and his view was that God had ordained the state ( by which I re-emphasise, he meant human society) which has been, as he put it, "marshalled by a Divine tactic", which makes order possible. For Burke, the bottom line is that some order must always exist, either (1) a just and natural order, one which obeys this "Divine tactic", or (2) an arbitrary and violent order, when man's presumption turns the world "upside down" ( as it did so dramatically in the French Revolution and it's diabolical "reign of terror").

Burke's position is (IMO) eminently clear and reasonable; he is basically arguing that there is no possibility whatsoever ( and I am sure you will agree) of restoring man to an alleged state of universal, primal, innocent, simplicity ( a la the theorising of philosophers like Rousseau), and given this, human beings therefore really have only one option: either the choice of obedience, and a society guided by the best men in it, or, the choice of presumption and a society bullied and tyrannised by the worst men in it. Which do you choose?... In my case, a brief contemplation of the events of the the 20th century - the most murderous, miserable and destructive 100 years in the past 6000 years of human civilization, makes it a "no-brainer"( I refer, for example to, the catastrophic presumption of: Lenin and his brutal Bolshevism, the ultimate consequences of German National Socialism under Hitler; Stalin and the creed of dialectical materialism in communist Russia that saw untold millions of Soviet citizens murdered and tortured at the hands of their own government, Mao Zedong and the human carnage wrought by his insane, egalitarian "Cultural Revolution" in China; the brutal murder of 2 million Cambodians under the primitive, agrarian Marxism of their psychopathic "head of state" Pol Pot; the surreal terror of impending global annihilation during Cold War Cuban missile crisis that played out through the month of October in 1962)

What do you think ? When push comes to shove, where would you put your money, my friend - do you place your wager on Burke and his argument, or would you choose to stake against him, and if so, why?

Let me finish by saying that, in sum, Burke likened humanity to a mass of bees, constantly swarming into and out of their hives of industry, and he was forever asking himself how it was, precisely, that the whole set-up didn't simply go "pear-shaped"; how it was, I mean, that the entire, giant, swarming mass of humanity did not simply collapse into frank anarchy and chaos? His answer was that human beings are saved from anarchy, as I say, by the the principle of order. That is, they are saved by reverence toward God (i.e; the Biblical God, not Allah or some other false idol) and the prescriptive order among men that Providence has ordained.

Check it out for yourself. Go for a walk down the main street of the town or city ( I am presuming , BTW, that you live in some relatively civilized Western society ?) you live in, and if you look for it, you will see it everywhere and in everything, namely that... physical and moral anarchy is prevented by a general acquiescence in social equality; in social differentiation of duty and privilege - from the humble wage-slaves- like the "check-out chicks" at your local supermarket to the splendid residence of your city's Lord Mayor. Also,- very briefly - bear in mind, that Burke himself told us: " I am no friend of the aristocracy, at least in the sense in which that word is usually understood". He means that a natural aristocracy cannot be eradicated from among men unless freedom itself is to be eliminated as well. (And) the problem for the statesman ,then, is to bring to the commonwealth's service the real aristocracy among a people, which is not simply a hereditary aristocracy. But this is a separate issue in itself and I'm afraid...



That's all for now, because it's my bed-time !!


Regards

Dachshund - the conservative hound dog !!

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3233
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Fooloso4 » April 9th, 2018, 11:49 am

Dachshund:
You need to be very careful about how you interpret Burke's meaning of the term "natural rights" when he uses it in passages like the one you quote above. Burke views the "natural rights" of mankind as being derived from natural law (jus naturale), and as you say the philosophy of Natural Law dates back to Aristotle, Cicero …
That is what I said:
Natural rights philosophy did not begin with the modern natural rights philosophers, all, including Burke, were influenced by Cicero, who in turn was influenced by Plato and Aristotle.
Are you actually reading my responses or just looking for points you think you might successfully argue against?

This is funny. You went from claiming that:
While Burke does say that the "natural rights" of man exist, he regards them to be of no real importance with respect to the conduct of human affairs …
And:
With respect to those philosophers who advocate the natural rights of man ...
(Apparently unaware that he too was an advocate of natural rights, which I pointed out) to saying that he viewed natural rights as being derived from natural law.
Burke saw the true natural rights of man as being …
Yes, I read the Russell Kirk Center article as well. Either you had not read it previously or did not understand it.
He would, I am sure, declare the proclamation these grand, abstract, egalitarian "rights"to be pure foolishness!
Except articles 1 and 2 say nothing about what human rights are, only that they are “set forth in this declaration”. You have not addressed anything specific.
Burke saw the true natural rights of man as being: equal justice, security of labour and property, the amenities of civilized institutions and the benefits of orderly society …
Equal justice - Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

Security of labour and property - Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

The amenities of civilized institutions - Article 27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

The benefits of orderly society … Article 29. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
On the contrary, he always held that rank, hierarchy, and aristocracy are the original, natural framework of society
Are you advocating a monarchy or an aristocracy? Who is to be king or members of the aristocracy? What prevents tyranny?
So much for Burke's views on political and social egalitarianism …
Once again, Burke said:
In this partnership all men have equal rights; but not to equal things.
You are right, he did not conceive of this partnership as an equal partnership but in this partnership all men have equal rights. So, what happens when the king or aristocracy becomes tyrannical, when they deny the sacred rights of man? What does “prudence and convention” identify as the proper course of action and remedy?
Burke would say: "No; there is ONE ( and only one) exception: moral equality". He would tell you, as a pious man, that God ( the Biblical God) judges us not by our worldly condition, but by our goodness, and that this, of course, transcends any kind of mundane political equality.
As I said several posts ago:
Burke advocates, although not explicitly, a kind of theocracy administered by a natural aristocracy that is a priestly class, that is, those who have authorities in matters of God’s eternal, immutable law as it is determinate for human law.
In my last post:
But of course one man’s eternal, immutable law is another’s metaphysical fantasy. And, of course, if that eternal, immutable law was Sharia law or Halakha, or some other law other than your particular version of Christianity, that would be a problem. Wouldn’t it?
Wouldn’t it?

Dachshund
Posts: 418
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Dachshund » April 9th, 2018, 12:09 pm

NB: In the last paragraph above I meant to say ..."general acquiescence in social INEQUALITY ,( of course) , not social equality. My mistake (typing too fast !)

Regards

Dachshund

Dachshund
Posts: 418
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Dachshund » April 9th, 2018, 12:59 pm

Very briefly, as it is past my bed-time, you cite Article 29 of the UNUDHR wrt to Burke's notion of order and the benefits that such order confers on the state as follows:
Fooloso4 wrote:
April 9th, 2018, 11:49 am

The benefits of orderly society … Article 29. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
In Article 29, however, we note the crucial stipulation : "... in a democratic society".

Burke would regard the expression: "an orderly democratic society", to represent a frank contradiction in terms. You have conceded this already if I am not mistaken ?

Regards

Dachshund

Dachshund
Posts: 418
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Dachshund » April 9th, 2018, 3:17 pm

Dachshund wrote:
April 9th, 2018, 12:59 pm
Very briefly, as it is past my bed-time, you cite Article 29 of the UNUDHR wrt to Burke's notion of order and the benefits that such order confers on the state as follows:
Fooloso4 wrote:
April 9th, 2018, 11:49 am

The benefits of orderly society … Article 29. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
In Article 29, however, we note the crucial stipulation : "... in a democratic society".

Burke would regard the expression: "an orderly democratic society", to represent a frank contradiction in terms. You have conceded this already if I am not mistaken ?

Regards

Dachshund

Dachshund
Posts: 418
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Dachshund » April 9th, 2018, 3:39 pm

Dachshund wrote:
April 9th, 2018, 12:09 pm
This is funny. You went from claiming that:
While Burke does say that the "natural rights" of man exist, he regards them to be of no real importance with respect to the conduct of human affairs …
And:
With respect to those philosophers who advocate the natural rights of man ...
(Apparently unaware that he too was an advocate of natural rights, which I pointed out) to saying that he viewed natural rights as being derived from natural law.
The meaning of term "natural rights", has, as you well know, been interpreted in various different ( and often confusing) ways by philosophers over the years. In the comments you quoted of mine above, I was referring to the "natural rights" of man as that term was used by certain influential egalitarian philosophers of the Enlightenment like Rousseau and Voltaire ( whom Burke, as I said, regarded to be fools). Strictly speaking, I suppose, I should have been more stringent in pointing out that I was not referring to those "natural rights" of man that are derived from Natural ( Divinely ordained ) Law; but I would argue that this was an understandable oversight on my part, especially given the general context of the point I was making at the time.

Regards

Dachshund

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3233
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Fooloso4 » April 9th, 2018, 3:58 pm

Dachshund:
Burke would regard the expression: "an orderly democratic society", to represent a frank contradiction in terms. You have conceded this already if I am not mistaken?
In a pure democracy yes, but not in a mixed polity, that is, a representative democrary of democratic republic.
I was referring to the "natural rights" of man as that term was used by certain influential egalitarian philosophers of the Enlightenment like Rousseau and Voltaire …
I think I made it clear that I knew who it was you were referring to. You should, however, not lump them together as if they were all saying the same thing. Burke seems to have been influenced by Hobbes, for example, as I tried to show above.
… "natural rights" of man that are derived from Natural ( Divinely ordained ) Law
Except Cicero was not a Christian. Whatever it is he believed about the gods (and it should be kept in mind that he was an important teacher of rhetoric and not revealing your thoughts and beliefs explicitly) it was not the God of Christianity upon which we founded natural law.

Dachshund
Posts: 418
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Dachshund » April 18th, 2018, 1:11 am

… "natural rights" of man that are derived from Natural ( Divinely ordained ) Law
Except Cicero was not a Christian. Whatever it is he believed about the gods (and it should be kept in mind that he was an important teacher of rhetoric and not revealing your thoughts and beliefs explicitly) it was not the God of Christianity upon which we founded natural law.
[/quote]


My dear fellow,

Your comment raises a number of very interesting and very important points, though before I deal with them specifically I would like to briefly go "back to basics" in the matter of conservative philosophy.

In short, I would like you to consider the following observation of "mine" (I place the word "mine" in parenthesis for many others beside myself have also made it) and let me know if, generally speaking, you agree with what I say.

My observation is this...

If you look back at human history over the past 6000 years to date and consider any one of the great civilizations that existed, for example: the Roman Empire, the ancient pharaonic civilizations of Egypt, the Muslim civilization that flourished between the 8th and 14th centuries during the so-called "Golden Age" of Islam, the civilizations of Western Christendom in the modern era and so on, you will note that despite their rich cultural diversity all of these different civilizations did,nonetheless have one thing in common.

What they had in common is that their societies were all conspicuously ordered in Edmund Burke's sense of the term "ordered society". That is, where the word "order" connotes a graduated ( and typically pyramidally -structured) hierarchy of rank in society. This hierarchy of rank extends vertically upward from a broadish base which is comprised of the lowest, most humble or "common" (vulgar) elements of society - those, for instance, that the Romans termed oi polloi or that class of individuals who were called "villains" in the feudal societies of medieval England - through gradually more noble/dignified/"elevated" ranks of social class ( for example, the "middle-classes" of society in Victorian Britain) to a peak stratum that contains all a society's most grand, privileged, noble, honourable and powerful elites ( the governing elites/wealthy nobility of the Roman Empire, the Pharaohs and the members of their courts in ancient Egypt, etc.).

It seems to me that this kind of Burkean ordering (i.e. of ranking in terms of the "quantitative" degree of nobility/honour/"respectabiity" possessed by the different strata that together make up a society) is a natural, universal phenomenon; one that always tends to prevail (ultimately) in any large-scale, stable, civilized example of a human society.

Do you agree with what I say, or do you not ?

If you do not agree, then really, I cannot see any point in our continuing this dialogue. Unless that is, you can persuade me that I am mistaken by presenting some kind of clear and compelling, reasonable, rational objection).

Regards

Dachshund

Dachshund
Posts: 418
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Dachshund » April 18th, 2018, 2:35 am

NB Foolosph4: There are a number of other things that we will need to clarify, as well, if we are to continue our dialogue in a meaningful manner. One is, to define what is meant by the term "conservative". The term "conservative" is typically applied in a perfunctory/automatic manner, to all sorts of different varieties of political philosophy, for instance , British Prime Minister John Major - who was a "One Nation" ( welfare state) Tory like his Victorian predecessor Benjamin Disraeli - is labelled a "conservative", likewise the neo-liberalist Tory leader, Margaret Thatcher, is still universally categorised as a "conservative" (despite the the fact that her political views were, in many ways, very different from those of John Major). Then there are the so-called modern-day, "neo-conservatives", who are a different ball of wax again, in terms of the particular set of political philosophies they endorse . Given all of this, we need to ask, "Is there some underlying set of fundamental , generic, principles that we can identify as being truly and properly "conservative"." That is, is there some fundamental set of basic common principles that effectively grounds the thinking of: Edmund Burke, William Pitt the Younger , Benjamin Disraeli, Otto von Bismark, Winston Churchill, John Major, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Theresa May, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, etc. I think that the answer is, "Yes, there absolutely is" ; and it is important, now, that I endeavour to clearly explicate, what I believe these basic principles of conservatism are" in order see if we can come to some kind of an agreement before proceeding ? Otherwise we shall simply end up running about after each other with our respective "shillelaghs" brandished on what is nothing more than a pointless "wild goose chase"?

Regards

Dachshund

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3233
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Fooloso4 » April 18th, 2018, 10:39 am

Dachshund:
Do you agree with what I say, or do you not ?
One problem is the unstated assumption is that there is a causal connection between political hierarchy and greatness.

Another problem is the assumption that what had in the past been most prevalent must be natural. While you may see the move away from autocratic government as degeneration, others see it as progress or evolution.

A third problem is with the term ‘civilization’. It originally meant ‘regime’, but when we talk about ‘western civilization’ we do not mean a particular form of government. Several of its generally recognized high points such as the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Protestant Reformation were not the result of a hierarchical political structure.

A fourth problem is the glaring omission of the Athenian democracy. Is there a connection between that omission and your wrongly attributed the term ‘oi polloi’ to the Romans? ‘Hoi polloi’ is a Greek term, and did not have the negative connotations it later did in English, it simply meant the many.

Fifth, you ignored the downside of hierarchical structures such as the caste system in India with its class of “untouchables”, and hereditary monarchies that have nothing to do with virtue or ability and everything to do with accidents of birth.
That is, is there some fundamental set of basic common principles that effectively grounds the thinking of: Edmund Burke, William Pitt the Younger , Benjamin Disraeli, Otto von Bismark, Winston Churchill, John Major, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Theresa May, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, etc. I think that the answer is, "Yes, there absolutely is" ; and it is important, now, that I endeavour to clearly explicate, what I believe these basic principles of conservatism are" in order see if we can come to some kind of an agreement before proceeding ?
By all means clearly explicate. The only thing standing in your way is all your preambles and conditional statements.

Dachshund
Posts: 418
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Dachshund » April 18th, 2018, 4:42 pm

Fooloso4 wrote:
April 18th, 2018, 10:39 am
E FORUM
Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the ForumQuote Fooloso4
by Fooloso4 » Today, 10:39 am

Dachshund:
Do you agree with what I say, or do you not ?
One problem is the unstated assumption is that there is a causal connection between political hierarchy and greatness.

Another problem is the assumption that what had in the past been most prevalent must be natural. While you may see the move away from autocratic government as degeneration, others see it as progress or evolution.

A third problem is with the term ‘civilization’. It originally meant ‘regime’, but when we talk about ‘western civilization’ we do not mean a particular form of government. Several of its generally recognized high points such as the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Protestant Reformation were not the result of a hierarchical political structure.

A fourth problem is the glaring omission of the Athenian democracy. Is there a connection between that omission and your wrongly attributed the term ‘oi polloi’ to the Romans? ‘Hoi polloi’ is a Greek term, and did not have the negative connotations it later did in English, it simply meant the many.

Fifth, you ignored the downside of hierarchical structures such as the caste system in India with its class of “untouchables”, and hereditary monarchies that have nothing to do with virtue or ability and everything to do with accidents of birth.

Foolosoph4,

You seem to have a definite penchant for pedantry, so let me indulge it by telling you that the term "hoi polloi" was indeed - as you say - used by ancient Greek historians, notably Thucydides and the Roman citizen (and author) Plutrarch. It was, in fact, clearly used by the later to refer to the mass of general/common/ordinary /"vulgar" people, in contradistinction to those who inhabited the more elite eschelons of Roman society during his time. Moreover, the term was , as I made clear, actually written by Plutrarch ( and Thucydides, etc.) as "oi polloi". The written expression"hoi polloi" owes its origin to the fact that there was an aspiration at the start of the Greek "oi" that was subsequently represented by the letter "h" in English. Got it ? Or would you like me to provide a reference for you to an original transcription from Plutrarch that confirm this ?

As to the rest of the "slick", evasive, disingenuous drivel you have served up in response to my recent post re the existence of natural social ( and not, BTW, "political" - I never said that) hierarchies of rank in past and present world civilizations, I will reply anon. I am too busy at the present moment to take the time necessary to tap out the kind of "watertight" rebuttal that will properly pin you down - slippery worm that you are ! But don't worry, its coming.

Regards

Dachshund

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3233
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Fooloso4 » April 18th, 2018, 7:52 pm

Dachshund:
You seem to have a definite penchant for pedantry, so let me indulge it by telling you that the term "hoi polloi" was indeed - as you say - used by ancient Greek historians, notably Thucydides and the Roman citizen (and author) Plutrarch.
Further indulging my penchant for pedantry, Plutarch became a Roman citizen but was born a Greek, educated as a Greek, and wrote in Greek. You cite two Greek authors as evidence of you claim the Romans termed oi polloi.
Moreover, the term was , as I made clear, actually written by Plutrarch ( and Thucydides, etc.) as "oi polloi". The written expression"hoi polloi" owes its origin to the fact that there was an aspiration at the start of the Greek "oi" that was subsequently represented by the letter "h" in English. Got it ?
Actually you said nothing about either Plutarch or Thucydides, only "the Romans". Oi polloi and hoi polloi are both English transliterations. It was actually written as οἱ πολλοί. Got it?
Or would you like me to provide a reference for you to an original transcription from Plutrarch that confirm this ?
Yes, please do. I would love to discover that Plutarch wrote in transliterated English.
As to the rest of the "slick", evasive, disingenuous drivel you have served up in response to my recent post re the existence of natural social ( and not, BTW, "political" - I never said that) hierarchies of rank in past and present world civilizations, I will reply anon.
Do you really think that such invective language strengthens your case? If you have nothing of substance to say be a good dog and stop barking.

The distinction between the social and political you fault me for not making is puzzling since you said:
… the governing elites/wealthy nobility of the Roman Empire, the Pharaohs and the members of their courts in ancient Egypt
The distinction between social and political is relatively recent. What is the distinction that Burke or you make that inform either the historical examples you cite or the larger question human rights?

Dachshund
Posts: 418
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Dachshund » April 20th, 2018, 3:44 am

"οi πολλοi"

Lets transliterate this Greek term into English letter by letter and see what we find...

ο (omicron) = the English letter, "o".
ἱ (iota) = the English letter, "i".
π (pi) = the English letter,"p".
ο (omicron) = the English letter, "o"
λ ( lambda) = the English letter, "l".
λ (lambda) = the English letter, "l".
ο (omicron) = the English letter, "o".
ί (iota) = the English letter, "i".

Thus, if you insist on being pedantic, the correct English transliteration of the Greek term, "οἱ πολλοί", is "oi polloi". It is, if you like, only "οἱ πολλοί" in the modern day, English speaking West who write "hoi polloi"; their better educated countrymen always write "oi polloi". :wink:

Strictly speaking, the term "oi polloi" means "the many", or "the majority" of the citizens in the state, just as, (strictly speaking) the term "oi oligoi" means the opposite, i.e; "the few". However, ancients like Pericles, Socrates, Thucydides and Plutarch, for instance, typically used these terms in a political sense. For example, when Socrates refers to Milides and Cimon as leaders of the "oi oligoi", he means that they were the leaders of the "better classes" of society: the wealthy (and especially those of inherited wealth), the nobility, the privileged elites; while the term "oi polloi" signified, in contradistinction, the humble, the poor,the common/vulgar general assortment of "plebs" ( in English slang) who constituted the more populous lower, less dignified and less honourable or virtuous, rank/s of society. This was the point I was endeavouring making in my recent post relating to the natural phenomenon of ranked hierarchy that has characterized all stable and enduring civilized human societies past and present.

Regards

Dachshund

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7141
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Greta » April 20th, 2018, 4:02 am

I think the word these days is "cattle".

Post Reply