>
>I don't understand where your argument is grounded -- what
>definition you're using, for example.
I've only defined liberal democarcy ten times or so in thelast threedays:
(1) More or less competitive elections for representative govt (2) universal suffrage (3) extensive political and civil liberties.
Since a democracy can't
>be pointed out in the physical world as an immediate experience,
Of course theycan. These are are as observable as just about anything, and can be experienced, and often are. As far "immediate" experience, if you mean, totally attheoretical, no linguistic being has such experience, even for "red" or "round."
>something understood sensually or intuitively, it must refer
>to something abstract, _theoretical_, and a belief in it must
>have been inculcated through rhetorical acts and other symbolic
>performances such as formal indoctrination, media propaganda,
>philosophical discourse, rituals, etc.
Or reducation and experience, yes?
If so, it seems only
>reasonable to believe that other passages of rhetoric might
>dissuade democratic believers of their faith.
Sure, look at Charles! ;) (Now, now, Charles, don't take umbrage.)
>So when you say that democracy is an incontrovertible belief,
>like the belief that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow
>morning, I have to think that you're really talking about
>something else, some kind of experience which is not particularly
>the exercise of political power by the alleged _demos_, which
>_can_ be analyzed, criticized, and disputed. As it's prior
>to philosophy, that is, such acts as analysis and definition,
>it's an impregnable mystery, like _Blut_und_Boden_ or Divine
>Right. I don't know where anyone can go from there.
>
My argument isn't directed to you. You already don't believe in democracy, and unlike Ian you are quite serious about it. In my book, that makes you more or less outside the framework of serious practical political discussion on matters were the issue arises. I say to others w o share my democratic convictions that their legitimacy does not depend on our being able to answer you in a way tha is satisfactory to all of us. Your position is the political version of Cartesian demon skepticism, it's just a merely intellectual puzzle, we don't have to have any less confidence in ordinary knowledge because of the Demon even if we can't answer it.
Now, as matter of fact, for theoretical purposes, I am perfectly happy to debate anarchism and democracy with you, or epistemology with a skeptic. I'm a philosopher, and this sort of discussion is fun for me. But democracy is a fixed point for me, I can't imagine anything ,a I probably still wouldn't believe it. I can offer justifications for democarcy up the wazoo, I was a professional remember, I used to do this sort of thing for a living. In fact many of them I think are pretty good. It's the fairestway of making decisions. It leads to the fairest and most acceptable results. It best promotes whatever conception of the good you have, apart from an aristocratic one. Etc., We can talk about these justifications. My point si not that wedon't have them, but that we don't need them.
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com