Democracy turned to mediocracy

I don't like clean floors. The truth is dirty. When you scrub so fanatically, the truth is swept away and discarded along with compassion and understanding.

But I wouldn't accuse Luther of scrubbing. Although he probably wouldn't agree with me much now, I respect him. He challenged a strict orderly religious system with courage and conviction.

it was Luther who was messing up the floor of religion. Before Luther there was one religion in Western Europe. After Luther there were hundreds. He started a revolution that not only led to the explosion of new sects of Christianity, but also to the rise of people who discarded Christianity altogether.

It was the willingness of people like Luther to challenge the homogenous religious empire that led to the breakdown of the premacy of the Catholic Church. This was needed for Europe to reach its present state-- secular with varied beliefs.

The people who are willing to dig for the truth leave behind dirt. Galileo, Voltaire, Paine, Thoreau, Darwin, Einstein and Luther are the people who were willing to make messes of the beliefs of society....

The world is a better place for it.

I believe so too. But as the scope of all things considered good swelled, so did all things considered evil. So you might say the world is no better or worse for it. Just more of both.

I too find it hard to place Martin Luther. Hero or villain? A comparison with Einstein helps me. We cannot blame Einstein for the nuclear boomb, although he, or rather his relativity, was a cornerstone in the process of making it.

All throughout history the thoughts of great men have been misused by less creative, more destructive minds. Luther's work opened the gates for the flood, as you say, but can he really be blamed for the wave that follows? The restoration of balance is always more volatile the longer the imbalance has been maintained.

Luther is to be admired for challenging a church that controlled so much of European society.

Like many of our heroes, Luther was not perfect. He did advocate the burning of witches and called heliocentrism a heresy.

Interesting thread, but with a wrong title.
Isn's mediocracy the power of the media?

The legacy of Luther is varied. Good and bad. I'll point out the good.

Challenging the Catholic church was crucial for the development of democracy.
In Protestant countries democracy came holding hands with the church. In Catholic countries, democracy came fighting the church.

As for the development of several branches of Protestantism, I think it's a kind of democratic thing, with churches instead of different political parties. I may not like some of them, but they sure are a healthy sign of diversity.

Then there's the Protestant ethic thing, studied by Weber. Spend your life industriously. Most of the richest countries of the world are predominantly Protestant.

Re: Democracy turned to mediocracy
Cyracuz

Luther had an essential influence in the development of german music. Schütz, Schein and Bach would be impossible without him.

This said, I must agree with you. Democracy and the economical system associated, promote mediocrity.
We live in the cult of "the easy". Art for people - I ask myself what is "people" - as consumer. Politics have become a code of emotional vulgarities, "to be" was replaced by "to have".
As Nietzsche said, the fight of Luther, was the fight of an ignorant peasant against the splendor of Rome in Renaissance.

As usual, val, when you swing the hammer the nail hurts

Forgive my clumsy use of the language. When I wrote mediocrity I did not have the media in mind. The word I had in mind was mediocre.

Re: Democracy turned to mediocracy


I don't buy it. Democracy (and the economical system associated) has shown itself to not only be the most fair system of government but the most productive system of government.

The whole "to be" versus "to have" thing has always been a crock --a way to manipulate the people who have less. Look at what happened in history...

In ancient Egypt, the nobles lived in luxury while the people as "loyal subjects" slaved to build palaces any tombs. The rulers "have" the peons "be". In Rome, the Emporers and Generals grabbed up wealth, killed and did as they pleased. The myth of the "noble Roman citizens" was a convenient way to keep the people under them in line. The Church defined what it meant to be a "good Catholic", while priests profited handsomly.

Today, many Americans are being "good Christians", yet they are led by evangelists who have million dollar mansions and politicians who use religion to have political power and sucess.

Maybe I don't understand what you are getting at. But, I gave it some thought and I couldn't think of a single culture in history where people were more productive and noble than in a Democracy.

Perhaps you could give me an example where people focussed on being something and were better off and more productive for it.

Decide. Better off or more productive. To be more productive isn't necessarily to be better off.

That these two things are taken to be almost synonymous is misguiding.

When val wrote that "to be" has been replaced by "to have" I think he meant that most people today are more concerened with material goods than with existential well being. They seem to think, mainly because they've been told, that a mountain of material wealth guarantees the latter.

"To be" is no longer important. It is what you have that defines who you are, and so "to have" has become the prime drive.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you Val.

Forget "better off", I meant productive. Give me one example from any time in human history where a society has been more productive than our modern democracies.

You both keep talking as if people were somehow more noble in the past.

Don't talk in generalities, let's talk specifics.

What society are you referring to where "To be" was important? I don't think there are any postive examples of this in history.

I do not believe people were more noble in the past. Just that they had fewer traps to snare them.




China

But how do you define productive? Is it only the material wealth that is important?

The word "productive" comes from the root "to produce". I would define a productive society as one that produces, in the sense of making great discoveries and advancements.

The modern Democracies have put a man on the moon, unlocked the mysteries of Relativity, ended slavery, given unprecedented rights to women, established a transportation system that can fly a middle class person to the other side of the world in a day, cured diseases, built cities and developed the internet.

The strength of Democracy is that it allows people to challenge the status quo, to question authority, to do what they "shouldn't" do or "can't" do.

This has led to the great successes we see today.

I don't know what you mean by "traps".

What I do know is that thanks to democracy, people have explored more and discovered more.

We now know more, learn more and live longer than ever before.

You answered China without any explanaition. Do you mean modern China, China under Mao or something earlier. The developed gunpowder and had some advances in Chemistry... but I don't know of any time that I would have considered them very productive... at least the way I am using the word.

One more question. You don't like Democracy. What system of government do you prefer?

ebrown

My comments about democracy didn't mean I believe there is a better political system.
I would say that democracy is the "less unfair" of all political systems. But I am not so enthusiastic as you are about its merits.
There are two great things in democracy, and those are enough to make it better than all other political systems: freedom and better conditions of life for most of the citizens.
About the "productive society" you talk: no doubt about it. And not necessarily good either. It depends on what you produce and why. Living in the obsession of artificial wishes and values, making massive production an end in itself is not an improvement. It is alienation.

I do like democracy. It is the only governing system that upholds the shifting of evolution, so it can survive through it. What I do not like when democracy is practiced in such a way that everyone watches everyone else in stead of concentrating on themselves. (A digression. Sorry about that:)

China. How many people are there in China? I'd say they're among the most productive people in the world.

Your understanding of what is productive is narrow in my opinion. A meeting between people, where all they do is talk, can be more productive than a year at a construction site.

By traps I mean that a large percentage of the production you talk about is production to sustain further production of needs that were originally not there. Needs that are fabricated, and that we are taught that we have.

The rise of the modern western society is not a growth so much as it is a subdivision. More of everything, but the overall quality of life has changed precious little.

Now I bet you're reeling. Let me explain. Disregard gadgets. Life is still the same. Say you get cancer. Maybe it can be cured, and maybe not. In any case you take medicines. So did people two hundred years ago.

You're setting out on a journey. You get into your car or your horsecart. A matter of comfort and speed. The method is the same.

Cyracuz,

Are you critcizing capitalism or democracy?

Cyracuz,

You have got to be joking. Life 200 years ago was very different, and I think it is safe to say our quality of life has improved substantially.

Look at the childhood mortality rates from 200 years ago. My son was hospitalized with a horrible stomach infection when he was one year old. Without antibiotics he would have almost certainly died. 200 years ago, nearly every family had a child death. Would you be willing to go back gto the days before modern medicine?

Two hundred years ago, slavery was accepted by most "civilized" nations. You don't think the social movements to end slavery and improve the lves of women and minorities are significant progress?

Two hundred years ago, houses did not have electricity-- no refrigerators, radios or vacuum cleaners. You do n'tthink that these "gagets" significantly improve your life?

Two hundred years ago, if you wanted to travel from Norway to Boston, it would involve months of travel and a cost that is prohibitive to working class people. Now it takes days and is regularly done by the middle class.

Two hundred years ago, if you wanted to communicate with my from Norway, you would have to write a letter, find a ship that was traveling the right way (probably through England). This communication would be slow (months), expensive and unreliable.

The irony is that right now, you are sitting in front of a silicon based computer reading a message that was beamed over oceans in less than a second.

200 hundred years ago, you would be unable to read my enlightened prose...

How can you say your life isn't dramatically improved by this.

wandeljw, I am critisizing neither. Just people's blind faith in them.

ebrown wrote:


Children die today as well. Maybe more of them are saved than was the case before, but still, children do die.

You say that two hundred years ago every family had a child death, and I do not question the truth of that statement. But from an evolutionairy standpoint this may not a bad thing. I apologize if this sounds harsh, but consider that children are born today with defects that require them to live their entire lives on medicines.

The allergies so many of us are suffering were nonexistent before the industrial revolution. Today people are allergic to pollen, animals, fruits, nuts, vegetables, milk... you get the picture. There is a link between the enormous amounts of pollution and chemicals in our lives and our growing intolerance for... nature!



Yes it is significant progress. But there are places today where slavery and suppression of minorities thrive. Just because it has ended where you live doesn't make it progress. Just change.

Or I could just argue that we're basically keeping the entire third world as slaves, but that is a debate entirely on it's own wich I do not really want to enter.



They have changed it, that's for sure. They may even have improved it, but not significantly.



Yes, two hundred years ago I would not have to worry about the country over the sea. They did not have long distance missiles with nuclear warheads, and we are out of range from their guns. If they wanted to attack they would have had to travel for months, and we would have been ready for them when they did.


The irony, you say, is this machine of mine? I like to talk to you, and I am grateful that my machine enables me to do so, but had I not had the oportunity, as I wouldn't have two hundred years ago, would I miss it?

Improved you say my life is for all this. A thousandfold more complicated I'd say that it has become. I think that the reason so many think of it as improvement is that our modern world helps us ignore some basic truths of our existence, among others that we are going to die. All of us.

Cyracuz

The problem is that, when we talk about progress we are looking at our western societies. US, West Europe. And Africa? Asia?
Mortality of children? Look at Africa.
Slavery? When our western industries go to Asia or Africa looking for cheap workmanship, what is that?

It is true that in our societies we have better conditions, well-being, more rights. But we also have the worst wars in the history of mankind, the gradual destruction of our environment, new and devastating illness. We cannot have the good things without the bad things. They are part of the same system.
Democracy is the best system. But it is the system that elected Hitler.

True val. That is why I believe that democracy is the only system that has a real chance at surviving. It is not static, and so it can bend and twist under the heavy influence of evolution. A system that does not leave room for that will inveriably break like a dam trying to hold back a swelling tide.