4 ms·
> It is important, indeed essential, to discriminate: to prefer the smart and virtuous over the dumb and selfish. This sounds reasonable at first glance, but I
by giaour 3y ago
> It is important, indeed essential, to discriminate: to prefer the smart and virtuous over the dumb and selfish.
This sounds reasonable at first glance, but I would challenge you to describe a society in which the "smart and virtuous" are elevated over the "dumb and selfish" that does not rely on an external power structure to enforce this hierarchy.
One conceit of a "natural aristocracy" is that it should be self-organizing. In practice, we know that this process will ultimately prize traits that consolidate power. Some people are stronger than others, some are willing to use physical strength to bully others, and those who are in both groups will rise to the top of a "natural aristocracy" that prizes brawn.
- zozbot234 3y agoEvery society can be described in terms of some hierarchy and power structure. In fact seemingly 'structureless' societies tend to be the most tyrannical of all, because power relations simply become opaque. Only very small groups of humans can be said to be genuinely free of any kind of (perhaps ephemeral and shifting, but still real) hierarchy.
- giaour 3y agoWe seem to be making some variations of the same point here. The implication I was trying to draw out is that in GGP's "natural" aristocracy, there is a separate power structure that maintains that society's shape. That means that the "natural" aristocracy is neither natural nor an aristocracy, since it is artificially maintained and is subordinate to the separate power structure.