leftypol's day of the sun edition
<if we dont have inbred monarchs ruling over us people will resort to cannibalism
462 posts and 694 image replies omitted.>>824408De Jouvenel writes,
>Where will it all end? In the destruction of all other command for the benefit of one alone – that of the State. In each man's absolute freedom from every family and social authority, a freedom the price of which is complete submission to the State. In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master – the State. In the disappearance of every constraint which does not emanate from the State, and in denial of every pre-eminence which is not approved by the State. In a word, it ends in the atomization of society, and in the rupture of every private tie linking man and man, whose only bond is their common bondage to the State. The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet: that was their predestined course.De Jouvenel sees this as a bad thing,
>the extremes of individualism and socialism meet.And
>In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master – the State.But I'm of such an opposite perspective that I romanticize this.
What De Jouvenel laments is a good thing from my perspective. This is what I want in absolute monarchy.
Jean Bodin
>No otherwise than Theseus his ship, which although it were an hundred times changed by putting in of new planks, yet still retained the old name. But as a ship, if the keel (which strongly bears up the prow, the poup, the ribs, and tacklings) be taken away, is no longer a ship, but an ill favoured houp of wood; even so a Commonwealth, without a sovereignty of power, which unites in one body all members and families of the same is no more a Commonwealth, neither can by and means long endure. And not to depart from our similitude; as a ship may be quite broken up, or altogether consumed with fire; so may also the people into diverse places dispersed, or be utterly destroyed, the City or state yet standing whole; for it is neither the walls, neither the persons, that makes the city, but the union of the people under the same sovereignty of government.
So the stress is not on the walls, neither the persons, but the -union-.
Thomas Hobbes
>The error concerning mixed government has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.
The stress is not on the concord of many men, but the union of many men.
Jean Bodin on Monarchy
>If we should inspect nature more closely, we should gaze upon monarchy everywhere. To make a beginning from small things, we see the king among the bees, the leader in the herd, the buck among the flocks or the bellwether (as among the cranes themselves the many follow one), and in the separate natures of things some one object excels: thus, adamant among the gems, gold among the metals, the Sun among the stars, and finally God alone, the prince and author of the world. Moresoever, they say that among the evil spirits one alone is supreme. But, not to continue indefinitely, what is a family other than the true image of a state? Yet this is directed by the rule of one, who presents, not a fictitious image, like the doge of Venice, but the true picture of a king.
Bodin on Plato: not several lords, several heads, several pilots, several bee queens, several gods–
>If, then, Plato were to change the nature of things and set up several lords in the same family, several heads for the same body, several pilots on a ship, and finally several leaders among bees, flocks, herds (if only the farmers will permit); if at length he would join several gods into an association for ruling, then I would agree with him that the rule of the optimates is better than a kingdom.
Power belongs to one man in the homes and in the cities
>But if the entire nature of things protests, reason dissents, lasting experience objects, I do not see why we ought to follow Plato or anyone else and violate nature. What Homer has said, "No good thing is a number of masters; let one man be master, one man be king," Euripides has repeated, "Power belongs to one man in the homes and in the cities." For this reason Sibylla is said to have prophesied in her poems that the safety of the Roman Republic is founded upon a kingdom, that is, the citizens cannot be protected unless they have a king.
Maybe the analogy for soul here is understood – not as Plato's soul – but from what I have read to paraphrase the stoic view of the soul…
I consulted AI on this, so take this with a -heavy- grain of salt.
>The Stoics viewed the soul as a physical, corporeal substance made of a hot, fiery breath called pneuma that infuses and animates the human body. Unlike modern or Platonic ideas of an incorporeal, spiritual soul, the ancient Stoics treated the mind and soul as real, physical entities that obey the laws of physics.https://iep.utm.edu/stoicmind/>Finally, the Stoics denied Plato’s and Aristotle’s view that the soul has both rational and irrational faculties. Instead, they argued that the soul is unified and that all the faculties are rational concluding that the passions are the result not of a distinct irrational faculty but of errors in judgement.A Physical Substance (Pneuma)
>Vital mixture: They described the soul as pneuma, a dynamic blend of active fire and air elements that pervades every part of the living organism.…
>Chrysippus argued that the soul is one single substance—a physical, hot, tension-filled breath called pneuma.
>The Octopus Analogy: Chrysippus famously compared the soul to an octopus or a spider's web. The central head of the octopus is the hêgemonikon (the commanding faculty), located in the heart. The tentacles are the five senses, speech, and reproduction. The tentacles are not separate "parts" with independent wills; they are simply extensions of the exact same, single pneuma reaching out to touch the world and sending information instantly back to the center.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.