I don’t think he’s got it reversed. The assumptions being that for a functioning republic one needs a literate and moral population, with their God-given critical thinking skills in tact. “Western” countries have had all three of those vectors systematically reduced for about 130 years. I’ll take a look at your recommendation.
I looked at a few different definitions of the term 'populism' and they all seem to contain an element of the common people in opposition to an elite which has either abused its position, or at least failed to maintain acceptable conditions such as previously existed.
I can agree that populism in some instances "undermines rational governance and the integrity of republics." but what's the original cause that gives rise to populism if it isn't discontent in some form or another? People don't join populist movements on a whim, do they? There typically has to be an underlying element of discontent, and the perception that those responsible for maintaining order have failed in that duty.
Take the MAGA movement for example. Is that not a reaction to deteriorating economic conditions, combined with an aversion to woke ideology? Is woke ideology itself a form of populism I wonder? Their objections to the status quo seem to be mostly imaginary, but of course not in their minds, so that could be a counter example I guess.
The reason I dropped Korzybski on you is that central to his thesis is the meaning of words, and how abstract nouns (lacking material referents) can mean different things to different people. A republic, for example, as defined by Webster:
(1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2): a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
(3) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
OK, so (1) is clear enough. (2) is self-referential (3) refers to a"body of citizens" but doesn't specify who they are. In Early America, that would be white males who owned property, so does that qualify as a republic? What about Rome? Iran calls itself a republic and has the institutions required for decision making by a "body of citizens" but those choices are determined by Sharia Law as interpreted by a council of mullahs, so is Iran really a republic in the strict sense of the word?
As much as possible I try to anchor my beliefs in something approaching objective reality, one feature of which is the chain of cause and effect. So what's the cause that gives rise to populism? Not a functioning republic that meets the needs of the majority surely?
Korzybski is a foundational element in my own 'belief system' because he makes the notion of a 'belief system' explicit. We all have one, but not all of us are aware of it (most aren't I would argue). In addition, a 'belief system' doesn't have to be true to successfully function as an organizing principle. Religion is the best example here. Finally, a key component of his thesis is the importance of asking oneself "why do I believe the things I do" or more colloquially, "what the hell was I thinking" (when my best laid plans go astray)?
For me, the foundation of contemporary epistemology was laid by Korzybski and later expanded by Marshal McLuhan, with additional observations by Marvin Harris (Cultural Materialism). I would also include James Grier Miller's 'Living Systems' but good luck finding a hardback at an affordable price. here's a PDF.
For me, the central issue is 'belief systems' and any sound analysis begins with the question 'why do I believe the things I do' not 'why do other people believe the things they do.' Most analysts seem to skip that first step.
The root of all forms of inquiry is the need to manage uncertainty, for which I've created a system called (unsurprisingly) Managed Uncertainty, or MU, in honour of Anton Wilson and Douglas Hofstadter, although they use the term a bit differently. It's a work in progress, 'a ship being built at sea' as a former partner described it. It's two basic assumptions are that we seek certainly as a biological imperative- the instinct for survival basically - and that we can never achieve absolute certainty, as the limitations of our senses combined with the underlying structure of material reality precludes that. The best we can hope for is a degree of certainty, and that tempers our confidence in what we 'think' we know, which is always open to revision on the basis of new information.
I find Rose's argument a little sophistic and tenuous. Notably, he ignores the fact that Aristotle makes a clear distinction between the natural slave on the one hand, and the conventional slave on the other, conflating it all into support by Aristotle for slavery in general.
"....Rose reveals how populism, driven by emotion and prejudice, undermines rational governance and the integrity of republics."
The guy's got cause and effect reversed. Populism is a reaction to a lack of rational governance and the integrity of republics.
Peter, put this one on your reading list if you haven't done so already:
https://oceanofpdf.com/?s=science%20and%20sanity
here's a short synopsis:
https://www.holybooks.com/science-and-sanity-by-alfred-korzybski/
I don’t think he’s got it reversed. The assumptions being that for a functioning republic one needs a literate and moral population, with their God-given critical thinking skills in tact. “Western” countries have had all three of those vectors systematically reduced for about 130 years. I’ll take a look at your recommendation.
I looked at a few different definitions of the term 'populism' and they all seem to contain an element of the common people in opposition to an elite which has either abused its position, or at least failed to maintain acceptable conditions such as previously existed.
I can agree that populism in some instances "undermines rational governance and the integrity of republics." but what's the original cause that gives rise to populism if it isn't discontent in some form or another? People don't join populist movements on a whim, do they? There typically has to be an underlying element of discontent, and the perception that those responsible for maintaining order have failed in that duty.
Take the MAGA movement for example. Is that not a reaction to deteriorating economic conditions, combined with an aversion to woke ideology? Is woke ideology itself a form of populism I wonder? Their objections to the status quo seem to be mostly imaginary, but of course not in their minds, so that could be a counter example I guess.
The reason I dropped Korzybski on you is that central to his thesis is the meaning of words, and how abstract nouns (lacking material referents) can mean different things to different people. A republic, for example, as defined by Webster:
(1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2): a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
(3) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
OK, so (1) is clear enough. (2) is self-referential (3) refers to a"body of citizens" but doesn't specify who they are. In Early America, that would be white males who owned property, so does that qualify as a republic? What about Rome? Iran calls itself a republic and has the institutions required for decision making by a "body of citizens" but those choices are determined by Sharia Law as interpreted by a council of mullahs, so is Iran really a republic in the strict sense of the word?
As much as possible I try to anchor my beliefs in something approaching objective reality, one feature of which is the chain of cause and effect. So what's the cause that gives rise to populism? Not a functioning republic that meets the needs of the majority surely?
Korzybski is a foundational element in my own 'belief system' because he makes the notion of a 'belief system' explicit. We all have one, but not all of us are aware of it (most aren't I would argue). In addition, a 'belief system' doesn't have to be true to successfully function as an organizing principle. Religion is the best example here. Finally, a key component of his thesis is the importance of asking oneself "why do I believe the things I do" or more colloquially, "what the hell was I thinking" (when my best laid plans go astray)?
For me, the foundation of contemporary epistemology was laid by Korzybski and later expanded by Marshal McLuhan, with additional observations by Marvin Harris (Cultural Materialism). I would also include James Grier Miller's 'Living Systems' but good luck finding a hardback at an affordable price. here's a PDF.
https://archive.org/details/livingsystems0000mill_e7d6
For me, the central issue is 'belief systems' and any sound analysis begins with the question 'why do I believe the things I do' not 'why do other people believe the things they do.' Most analysts seem to skip that first step.
The root of all forms of inquiry is the need to manage uncertainty, for which I've created a system called (unsurprisingly) Managed Uncertainty, or MU, in honour of Anton Wilson and Douglas Hofstadter, although they use the term a bit differently. It's a work in progress, 'a ship being built at sea' as a former partner described it. It's two basic assumptions are that we seek certainly as a biological imperative- the instinct for survival basically - and that we can never achieve absolute certainty, as the limitations of our senses combined with the underlying structure of material reality precludes that. The best we can hope for is a degree of certainty, and that tempers our confidence in what we 'think' we know, which is always open to revision on the basis of new information.
https://theconversation.com/what-actually-is-populism-and-why-does-it-have-a-bad-reputation-109874
https://theconversation.com/populism-can-degrade-democracy-but-is-on-the-rise-heres-what-causes-this-political-movement-and-how-it-can-be-weakened-222323
https://www.thoughtco.com/populism-definition-and-examples-4121051
I find Rose's argument a little sophistic and tenuous. Notably, he ignores the fact that Aristotle makes a clear distinction between the natural slave on the one hand, and the conventional slave on the other, conflating it all into support by Aristotle for slavery in general.