What is Theocracy?
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 04. 2023
- An exploration of the concept of Theocracy, including arguments from Tommaso Campenella, Ahmad al-Naraqi, Louis Gabriel Ambroise Vicomte de Bonald, Vladimir Solovyov, John Calvin and more!
Sponsors: NBA_Ruby, Antybodi, Federico Galvão, Mike Gloudemans, Andy Capone, Andreas Froestl, The Jack Bancroft, Jakey, Andrew Sullivan, Eugene SY, Tyler James, Antoinemp1, Dennis Sexton, Joao Sa, Joshua Furman, SirSpammenot Multitude, Ploney, Avatar, Diéssica, GhostlyYorick, Hendrick McDonald, horace chan, Will DeRousse, Star Gazer, Paul Linkogle, Julian Seidl, Doǧan Çetin, Thomas Kristic, Panos Tsivi, Jesse Willette and Daniel West. Thanks for your support on Patreon! If you want to become a patron, follow this link: / carneades
Here are some videos you might enjoy:
The 100 Days of Logic ( • 100 Days of Logic (Full) )
History of Philosophy ( • Four Weeks of Famous P... )
Ancient Philosophers & Zeno’s Paradoxes ( • Schools of Ancient Gre... )
ExPhi Experimental Philosophy ( / @experimentalphilosoph... )
Map of Philosophy ( • The Map Of Philosophy )
More videos with Carneades ( / @carneadesofcyrene )
Philosophy by Topic:
Epistemology: • Epistemology
Metaphysics: • Metaphysics
Political Philosophy: • Political Philosophy
Philosophy of Religion: • Philosophy of Religion
Ancient Philosophy: • Ancient Philosophy
Philosophy of Science: • Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Language: • Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Art/Aesthetics: • Philosophy of Art (Aes...
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/store/carneade...
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Collier-MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Dictionary of Continental Philosophy, and more! (#Theocracy #PhilosophyOfReligion)
Great work! - Glad to see you still going strong.
Thanks!!
Informative video. Keep it up
Thanks!
I would love to have heard about proper philosophical arguments for thoecracy, and somone makes a strong case for it, it seems there are only objections to it, and I would love to see more on that
Check out our video on communitarian nationalism, that has more of the philosophical arguments. Most instances of theocracy are defended with theology not philosophy.
Augustine provides extensive arguments for why religion is necessary for a just government in book 19 of City of God (although much of the earlier parts of City of God, especially book 2, is important background for book 19).
lol missed henry 8 and off spring re anglicans and king james bible.. ruling colonies here etc
I learned about antinatalism from your channel! Thank you! Antinatalism is very belissimo 💚
Antinatalism is kinda based
Thanks!
@@jd2981 you are wise!
@@jd2981 As someone who has no kids, plans never to have kids, and would advise many, many people not to have kids, including my own parents if timey-wimey-wibbly-wobbly: flat-out antinatalism is cringe. It is good that some people have kids, under the right circumstances, and it is a tragedy that so many people have no choice but to live their whole lives in circumstances where it would be wrong to do so -- and a further tragedy that many then go on to do so anyway.
@@Pfhorrest genesis tells us to reproduce, stop being cringe
This is weird... I wrote a long reply to your reply to my other message, but it vanished... and then I wrote a much shorter note saying as much, and that vanished too. Let's see if this vanishes as well...
Weird! I have CZcams's spam filters set on the lowest level allowed, so they should be filtering out very little. I also checked the comments that were held for review as potential spam and did not see your comments there. Sorry, it is so frustrating to write something out and then have it disappear!
Firstly to clear up something that looks like it may have been unclear, I was saying that religions are primarily epistemic authorities, or the authoritarian form of educational institution, while states are primarily deontic authorities, or the authoritarian form of governmental institution. It seems like you might have thought I meant the other way around.
When religions make deontic claims, that's them spilling over into the domain of governance and usurping the role of state; conversely when states make epistemic claims, that's them spilling over into the domain of education and usurping the role of religion. Which each will gladly do, given the chance -- a state would gladly become a secular religion, and a religion would gladly become a sacred state -- but when they are kept separate, it is the state who gets the deontic authority ("do as we say") and the religion who gets the epistemic authority ("think as we say").
So all that said, to your main question, the essential difference as I reckon it between anarchic or stateless governance and state governance is that in the former, the governing institutions do not claim any deontic power, in the Hohfeldian sense of a second-order active right: the government doesn't claim to *make* things obligatory or forbidden or omissible or permissible. Rather, it's in the business of *figuring out* what already is or isn't such, in advising people about what is or isn't such, and adjudicating disputes about what is or isn't such, in all of which capacities it might be always in error, and so can claim no monopoly (which connects this back to the usual political science definition of a state as a monopoly on the use of force).
Those roles of figuring-out, advising, and adjudicating map more or less to the usual tripartite division of governance into legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and are analogous in my model to research, teaching, and testing in an educational system:
There would be a worldwide collaborative effort of independent researchers investigating what is good or bad, right or wrong, etc (which requires, and I have worked out, a whole system of "ethical sciences", separate from but analogous to the physical sciences, to underlie such a process), reviewing each others' work, and compiling the consensus of such review into reference texts; analogous to primary, secondary, and tertiary sources in academia.
Those reference texts would be used by what are more or less lawyers to advise people as to what they ought or oughtn't do, at least inasmuch as what it is likely to keep them from being found to be in the wrong if they should wind up in a conflict with someone else where one claims the other has wronged them (or tried to) and forceful restitution (or protection) is called for.
Which then finally gets down to where the rubber hits the road, the use of force. I envision that everyone would have some organization or another to which they appeal if someone is wronging or threatening to wrong them and they can't resolve the situation themselves, and the other party would in turn have some such organization that they go running to when the first party brings theirs in to back them up. No such organization would have a monopoly, and each could choose its own reference text to be the standard against which it makes its judgements, which means that no reference text gets any monopoly either.
The two parties in conflict might end up appealing to the very same organization, in which case that one organization just consults its chosen reference text and decides who in the conflict they're going to back against whom. That then serves as governance, but entirely voluntary, non-authoritarian: both parties willingly appealed to the same greater power to back them up, and that power made whatever decision it made based on the information available to it, and that's that.
But even if they appealed to different organizations, those organizations have a greater incentive to resolve the conflict rationally and not have to actually fight each other than the individuals they represent do, while also having a bias to represent their clients as best as possible. The organizations might appeal to the very same ethical reference texts, in which case it's just a matter of working out an agreed-upon understanding of what they say the resolution to this kind of conflict should be. But even if they appeal to different texts, those texts should at least offer similar advice for the same situation, since they should each be based on the same worldwide ethical research project.
Whatever differences remain, the two representative organizations can reason with each other about the merits of the principles they're appealing to and the particulars of this case and try to come to what both agree is the correct decision about whose client is in the wrong, and then the client who they agree is in the right gets protected by their representatives, and the other client's representatives tell them they were in the wrong and so will not be "protected" from the other's calls for protection or restitution.
If somehow these representative organizations cannot come to a reasonable agreement between each other and it looks like they might actually have to come to a fight, *they* can in turn appeal to larger networks to back them up, which in turn have both a greater chance of winding up being the same entity, and if not, have an even greater incentive to come to a reasoned resolution and not actually have some huge fight over a few people's little dispute.
Such escalation can continue upward as far as needed, until either agreement is found at the largest scale, or some enormous irreconcilable ethical division across the entirety of society is found, at which point the system fails and collapses... into states, where whichever side has the most force just wins.
Lastly, I note that I'm well aware that for people to have equal access to such defensive/representative organizations requires that there not be enormous wealth divisions in society, and that that is why anarchism is inseparable from socialism. I have further ethical principles that reconcile the possibility of socialism with anarchism, where by having government *not* enforce certain supposed rights that capitalist states usually do (specifically a reflexive subset of powers that would enable certain classes of contract), the processes that lead to the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands are thoroughly undermined and wealth then naturally trends toward a much more egalitarian distribution.
Im using this for research. My disclaimer is that I do not necessarily follow this in my own personal life although I am often subjected to it.
Muslims will eventually live in a global theocracy - inshallah!
This is the strongest view of theocracy. What makes you think such a system would be justified in the face of the broad religious diversity that we see today?
Well actually the answer to that is Jihad! Islam is the one true religion. It is the only religion that is acceptable by الله The one & only God, And It's better for those other "religous" entites to live under Our rule.@@CarneadesOfCyrene
@@ayoubannacik7306nah
If you think about this
Know this
Christians have biblical given laws to respond with response you've hope you had never hoped
Christianity is a pagan religion, big L christianity.
You need to flee christianity and stay away from the cross. Paganism is not forgivebale by Allah!! SCREW CHRISTIANITY.@@WARLORDDOM
Bb
Saudia Arabia is not a theocracy, but a monarchy
Wahhabism is not a real sect, its founder denied that he created a new sect
As noted in the video, there are different versions of theocracy, with varying levels of religious control. Saudi Arabia is theocratic in many senses including that it has a religious police force (the Mutaween) tasked with enforcing Islamic law and that it gets its political legitimacy from Wahhabism, though it is not as extreme as Iran since the head of state is different from the head of the religious sect.
The intents of the founder are immaterial to what something is. Martin Luther didn't want to break with the Catholic Church, but prodestantism is still a separate sect (arguably many sects) of Christianity. Wahhabism is defined as a sect by the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Oxford Dictionary and others. If you think it is not a sect, what is your definition of "sect" and why would it exclude Wahhabism?
They are a theocracy.
1. dont undermind God
2. dont disrespect God
3. dont take Gods name out of context
4. dont underestimate God
5. treat the land well and itll treat you well
6. dont step outside your boundary
7. dont compromise what doesnt need to be changed
8. dont go against the current
9. no pranks
10. no surprises
11. ettiquette
12. dont do anything unnecessary within your abillities
13. crucial___ dont DISRUPT anything at all, you know you shouldnt, or God will kick you out!!!!!!.
i had a papal sanctioned signed by god.claim theocracy immunity. its no longer stars and stripes, its rainbow.
Where was present theocracy or similar, we can found atricity in the name of God.
Atrocity
I’m Catholic theocracy, I’m absolute monarchism or monarchism, I’m tradition or traditionalism, I’m pro life or pro family, I’m conservatism , I’m autocracy, I’m reactionary or integralism 💪👍🛡️👑🤴☪️✡️☦️✝️😇❤️⚔️
Me Love theocracy 💪👍
Me love absolute monarchism or monarchism 💪👍
Me love autocracy 💪👍
Theocracy, monarchism, absolute monarchism, autocracy is good 💪👍
Democracy is bad 👎
I am anti-theocratic. Cry. Theocrats make good target practice for ma deuce.
Nationalism, Populism, Democratie (Bad but still better) and Fascism and Autocracy are better than Theocracy!
THEOCRACY IS THE WORSED IDEOLOGY
In a strictly libertarian framework rooted in customary natural law and the sanctity of individual rights, theocratic rule represents a fundamental threat to the very principles upon which such a society is built. Here's a detailed breakdown of the anti-theocratic case:
1. Violates Individual Autonomy and Self-Determination: Theocracy imposes a set of religious beliefs and practices on individuals, often without their consent. In a libertarian society, individuals have the right to choose their own beliefs and live according to their own values, free from coercion or imposition by any authority, including religious ones.
2. Undermines Freedom of Conscience and Expression: Theocratic regimes typically suppress dissent and enforce orthodoxy, stifling the freedom of conscience and expression that is essential to a libertarian society. People should be free to express their beliefs openly and engage in peaceful dialogue without fear of persecution or retribution.
3. Erodes Personal Liberty and Agency: Theocratic governments often restrict personal freedoms in the name of religious doctrine, dictating everything from dress codes to social interactions. This undermines individuals' agency and limits their ability to make choices about their own lives, which is antithetical to the principles of libertarianism.
4. Threatens Self-Ownership and Property Rights: In a theocratic society, individuals may find their property rights and self-ownership compromised by religious laws that dictate how they must use their resources and what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. This undermines the fundamental tenets of libertarianism, which prioritize the protection of property rights and personal sovereignty.
5. Promotes Intolerance and Conflict: Theocratic regimes often breed intolerance toward those who do not adhere to the dominant religious ideology, leading to discrimination, persecution, and even violence against minority groups. In a libertarian society that values tolerance and peaceful coexistence, such divisions are unacceptable.
6. Fosters Dependence on Religious Authority: Theocracy relies on the unquestioned authority of religious leaders, undermining individuals' ability to think critically and make informed decisions for themselves. This dependence on religious authority diminishes personal responsibility and autonomy, which are essential components of a free society.
7. Compromises Rule of Law and Equality Before the Law: Theocratic legal systems often prioritize religious law over civil law, leading to unequal treatment before the law and undermining the principle of equality. In a libertarian society, the rule of law should be based on principles of justice and equality, not religious doctrine.
8. Limits Scientific Progress and Intellectual Inquiry: Theocratic regimes may suppress scientific research and intellectual inquiry that contradicts religious teachings, hindering progress and innovation. In a libertarian society that values intellectual freedom and the pursuit of knowledge, such restrictions are unacceptable.
In conclusion, theocratic rule is incompatible with the principles of libertarianism, which prioritize individual rights, freedom of conscience, and limited government intervention in personal affairs. A truly free society respects the autonomy and agency of individuals, allowing them to live according to their own beliefs and values without fear of coercion or persecution.
Religion and state are natural bedfellows: one is epistemic authority, the other deontic authority. Either would gladly usurp the role of the other if given the chance. That's why both must be opposed together. Irreligion and anarchism must go hand-in-hand, and attempts at anarchistic governance could do well to learn from the successes of irreligious education, since governance is to state what education is to religion, deontic and epistemic social institutions and the specifically authoritarian forms thereof, respectively.
A very interesting and unconventional viewpoint! I would be curious to understand how, in your view, anarchistic governance is importantly different than state governance?
Further, while I agree that religion strives to gain a deontic monopoly on ethics (defining what is right and wrong, etc.), it seems many religions claim an epistemic monopoly as well, providing explanations for phenomena that have slowly been usurped by science (starting with Thales, and growing from there).
The state, on the other hand, seems primarily focused on a monopoly on force, or in some was metaphysical authority over the actions of its people. While the state may try to control morals or knowledge, this is often in service of controlling action.
Further, it seems like a classically liberal state (a la Locke) whose only purpose is to prevent citizens from interfereing with each other's freedoms is quite a minimalist state. I would be curious as to how a minimalist liberal state differs from your anarchist governance.
*_Fundamental definition: THEOCRACY is an English word based on two classical Greek roots: theo = god; kratos = power, strength, authority._* IOW: in a nation, theocracy means that the "god-believers" --- read: those of some religiously inclined group, minority or otherwise, with their belief in god --- hold the ultimate authority. Such is another example of the variety of nation types that are defined with "ultimate authority" being held in the hands of SEVERAL ... where such differs from AUTOCRACY [ONE] and DEMOCRACY [MANY].
The definition you provide is inconsistent with most definitions offered by philosophers, theologians, and political scientists. Rule by those who believe in God would encompass most countries today as most heads of state are theists. The more common definition is rule by a religious institution, in various forms as described in the video.
"fUnDaMeNtAl DeFiNiTiOn"
Bad. That's what it is.
Good. That's what it actually is.
@@veryveryhonestpendufan6062 then go live in North Korea.
If God had any power, they would not need rule by theocracy.
Agreed, since we not only know better than any hypothetical god, but know what they would want.
/s
This is in some ways a riff on, Buber's theistic argument against theocracy. Basically he claims that God should be supreme and any person claiming to speak with God's authority must be wrong, because they are not God. I.e. if God is omnipotent, then there is no need for theocracy since God's will is already being imposed on the world.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene This and the problem of evil simply assume too much. Don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist, but it's incredibly arrogant to assume you know better than God, even if he were a fictional character. I wouldn't assume to know better than Batman, Superman, or Lex Luthor, either. And I wouldn't assume their exact motivations, for that matter.
God does not need to rule humans, the idea is that you want to impress him to earn the privilege of his rule. If you don't want to be with him you go without him (which is hell).
@@abhmmh8892 then keep your religion out of state please