Precursor of democracy that can replace democracy.
Basic tenets
*Citizenry and the right to vote, is a privileged to be earned, not a triviality that is given.
*The privilege of citizenship comes with duties.
*Only citizens can hold position of social authority and power.
*Though eligibility can be varied the basic factors of eligibility are:
-Production of tangible goods above a specific market value, to be determined.
-Military service, or service in some other capacity. Period of service to be determined.
-Loyalty to the State.
-Age - to be determined.
Additional eligibility factors can be…
*Race/Ethnicity - racial and ethnic identity to be determined.
*Paideia - language, spiritual faith.
*IQ - production of tangible goods ought to weed out low IQ individuals.
*Sex/Gender
I feel that Ethnic-Racial Hierarchy needs to be the most important factor of a society, for a very specific reason: The accumulated wealth, wisdom, and knowledge of a society must be inherited by Kin and never racial/ethnic Strangers. This means that rewards and victories must belong to the children wrought by the genetically ‘pure’ strains of that society (royal families and nobility, Aristocracy proper). Once a Society’s wealth and/or loyalty begins to wane, toward a Stranger or Outsider nation (as USA now claims to owe itself to Israel), then the integrity of your society is fundamentally ruined and compromised. It is no longer Autonomous.
It is (internally) destroyed, while appearing to maintain (outward) integrity. It has no (genetic) Future, except dependent upon the service to and approval by a foreign nation.
Philotimo: love of honor; love of what is true; what is just.
For a brief Americanized description of the Hellenic/Pagan Aristocratic ethos watch this: [size=50][ Vid: Hyperboreans – The Greek Secret of Philotimo][/size]
Philotimo is a Greek term which is difficult to define, despite their brave effort to translate it into English. Some of the participants are representatives of the nihilistic dogma but they do offer a general sense of the concept.
Philo {φίλο} = friend, kind – timo, timi, timio {[size=80]τιμώ, τιμή, τίμιο[/size]} = honour, price/cost, honest, value, true…
Relating to Timocracy: honouring yourself is to honour what is right about you –your past/nature, including your ancestors, your heritage, and goes beyond it; to accept the cost/price of being what you are, with clarity and honesty, accepting all of it, particularly what does not agree with your projected idea/ideal, your object/objective, which you choose to identify with as a continuance of this past.
So, according to Aristotle, then, it would be best for Greeks in the US to head back to Greece. Or at least to try to secede in some small sector in the US with other Greeks. I mean, to Aristotle even the category white people in the US would be way too mixed. All those damn northern barbarian descendants, for example. And why the earlier picture with all the redheads. Are those supposed to be ethnically pure Greeks? Or was that post sending out a big hello get organized to the Irish or maybe some kin group in Iceland?
This is a weird forum. This is my second thread, both radically dominated by one speaker, each kinda all over the place.
You did, two posts up. Presumably thinking it was relevant to something now, the US, the UK: taking the OP as context for bringing in Aristotle’s ideas. I don’t know where you are in the world, perhaps you are in Greece, but I doubt your readers here are. For example, his ideas of ethnic group don’t fit well with the modern ‘white’. Nearly everyone is a multiculturalist to Aristotle.
Timocracy, in Platonism, is a form of government in which the rulers are motivated by ambition for honour, power, and military glory. Plato was critical of timocracy in his philosophical work “The Republic,” in which he presented a dialogue between Socrates and other characters, discussing various forms of government and their potential flaws. The conversation depicts timocracy as the third-best form of government, following aristocracy (rule by the best) and oligarchy (rule by the few wealthy). It sounds quite familiar if we look at the political landscape today.
Plato recognises some positive aspects of timocracy, such as its leaders’ strong emphasis on courage and bravery. However, he also identifies significant drawbacks. One major criticism Plato has of timocracy is that it tends to devolve into a focus on wealth accumulation. Over time, the love of honour and power can lead to merely pursuing material wealth, creating a society where economic pursuits dominate. According to Plato, this eventually leads to the degradation of the political system into a lower form of government, which he calls an oligarchy. Again, I look at America (but also the other blocs) and ask myself whether we are regressing.
Aristotelianism isn’t much better, which presents a form of government in which civic honour or political power increases with the amount of property one owns. Still, it differs somewhat from Plato’s views. Aristotle’s idea of aristocracy is a form of government in which the best-qualified citizens, often those with virtuous qualities and a good education, rule for the common good. Aristotle’s use of the term “aristocracy” is not solely based on property ownership.
by ‘we are heading’ you could have meant, in the direction the thread is heading or it could be more generally in society. But we do have an aristocracy already and most of them have little common culture in something like noble character or virtue ethics. Nor do they care much about cities or nations.
I meant that liberal democracies are heading that way, obviously including republics, because there is an inherent sense of privilege in people who have wealth, and they tend to believe they know better.
