Social and political thought of the West

The reason for choosing this subject is firstly our nation's growing awareness about the social and political issues, and second is our increasing about the curiosity in the quantity and quality of intellectual relationship with the West that has been started from three years ago and day to day its intensity and range have raised. So to get water from the fountain to drink, perhaps today more than ever before, we'll need to understand the foundations of the West that its influence is extensive everywhere. As our scholars have long said, we must examine the West's idea and civilization until we have not adapted from it recklessly and mistakes that Westerners might have committed, we do not.
Theme is the philosophical foundations of social and political thought in the West that this statement is based on two words; philosophical and foundations. Thus the material basis of thought, such as geographical conditions, physical, economic, and so are excluded from the definition. For more information about these material foundations, we must use other knowledge such as geography, economics, anthropology and sociology, that these are out of our subject. Of course, we will consider the trappings and effects of thought in society, politics and economy, but most that we want to see what is exist today in Western societies in terms of policies, institutions and laws and social relations, from what roots have come or what is caused that Western scholars adopt such ideas and take their communities in such a way and eventually give such an arrangement to efforts of their land.
Today, we'll explore the origins and foundations; from the philosophical aspect that is the base of any subsequent interpretation and analysis. It is obvious that any normal person daily observations shows that each whole are formed from the components and the society as a whole has consisted of the components. The difference begins from here that is the whole sum of the number of individuals really? Or in addition to their sum, may be had quality or other property that arise just as a result of people who coming together. From the view of psychology and sociology we know that when a person is alone, he behaves a form, when he is with one or more people, behaves other form and when he is with a few hundred people, he behaves another form.
In large social gathering, apparently thinking and reasoning power of the individual is reduced and people are more inclined to imitating and following from the gathering and do things that they could not do individually. Of course, it may be has such psychological reasons rather than philosophical. Philosophical in this sense that it is not permissible that to gathering or whole, give independent character and independent from the personality of people.
Those who believe that the whole is only the sum of individuals and that is known as individualists or followers of individualism. According to their opinion, the highest unit in society is the individual. If we want to understand that what has been the reason of the historical and social events and phenomena, we must analyze behaviors, decisions, attitudes, wisdom and folly of people.
Indeed community includes from people. So we should conclude the reason to processes and social events from the principles governing on the behavior of the individual and how the condition is. If we do not do that, the things what exists and is real, Means we ignored the person and has referred to what that has artificial existence or made and is valid from the existence of individual, it means community.
Individualists justify this approach and attitude based on the natural sciences, such as physics and astronomy. For example, they say that the various properties of a gas at the macro level, such as its temperature is explained from its molecular properties at the micro level. But they who unlike those individualists, put the whole as the principles, and are known as the followers of whole originality believe that a great social phenomena cannot be explained by reducing them at the individual level and exist laws in the social sciences and history that just serves at the level of community. According to them, in addition to the minds of each one the people, there is also a social mind and spirit that comes in social and historical events. For this reason, the responsibility for these big events is not because of just a person.
Actual results of the faith or originality to the whole:
Two of the most famous philosophers believed to the originality of the whole are Hegel and Marx. Hegel believed that the real universe, ultimately belongs to the whole and who believes that the component or individual has the true existence and independent, has an absurd concept. The whole is a living things and component if it has existence, is only as an aspect or facet of the whole. Hegel, on this whole, with all its complexity and diversity, says the absolute imperative and the absolute imperative is something spiritual, not material and physical. If component has awareness, its knowledge is partial and incomplete. The highest and the most complete science and knowledge is from that whole, or is from that absolute imperative that knowledge about everything and basically, there is nothing outside of itself who want to know and have the knowledge.
Fact means the whole fact and none of the components have fact. When this philosophical principle applied to the realm of society and politics, this result is achieved, that firstly, there is no real separation between the state and the society, and secondly, a person in front of the government, it means component in front of the whole has no real existence at all. The existence of person is dependent on government and only a shadow of it. So value is just belonged to the whole or government.
The value of hand or eye is only because of the entire body. Hand or eye itself is no value and essentially cannot exist without the body. The philosophy of society and politics is an organicist comment. (Organ means parts of the body). According to Hegel’s idea no conception is complete alone. Like the concept of the existence. Hegel says that the existence is extensive and pure indeterminacy. None is inexistence. Because you cannot think the pure existence about it and belongs it to your thoughts. So if you accept the pure existence as a thesis, you will see that it changes to its antithesis that means inexistence.
Existence and inexistence are counterpart of each other and also are the same surprisingly. Their truth are a movement inside each other and also away from each other or in the other word is become. This conversion based on a dialectical movement takes place, but the dialectic does not stop there and still continues to move and reaches to the other concept until finally reach to the absolute idea that according to Hegel speech is the whole of existence and eternal life and the whole of truth. Absolute Idea is everything; this means that it is content of any determinate or distinct things. It means that man, tree, mountain, nature and mind are the different aspects of absolute idea and different face of it.
Art, religion and philosophy are different ways of understanding about the absolute idea or in the words of Hegel, the different ways in which that the absolute idea understand itself with them. Because on the one hand there is nothing else except the absolute idea to understand and on the other hand the absolute idea seeks to understand itself.
The Views of Hegel by his followers on the right parties in the twentieth century led to the ideology of fascism and Nazism and from the left parties reached directly to Karl Marx and led to communism. In both of these ideologies means fascism and Marxism, focus is on the whole. In the fascism, blood, race and identity are collective that create the fate of the entire nation and in the another one, iron laws are the historical materialism and class of proletariat which determines the destiny of the world and finally brings history to its purpose.
In none of these ideologies, the individual and individuality do not count; In Hegel, the government is the embodiment of the general will and the result successful course of wisdom in history and in Marx also it is proletariat that must fulfill the highest stage of human consciousness to realize with the socialist revolution and does his historic mission with removing the division of labor and the exploitation of workers and overthrow the classical government. Therefore, because the government in Hegel and proletariat in Marx were in fact are the agents of history and acts to the destined historical mission of themselves, all rights belongs to them and does not have any moral debt to anyone.
Basically referring the valuable issues such as the brotherhood to them are unnecessary and meaningless and because their aims are the highest goals and the best happiness for mankind, achieving to that goal, resorting to any means is permissible and the components rather than the whole has no right.
Marx begins rom here that human is a real and tangible creature and for surviving, he has some needs and is not able to provide them alone. So he doomed to dependence on his outside and what is he needs to them in outside may be other people or world of nature. Human to satisfy his needs, does with others and with society engagement or interaction, and only in this way can bring talents from potentiality to actuality.
So human is a part of a whole organized, but nothing like the freedom and creativity cannot be able to happy him and also respond to his natural needs. Human must produce to achieve this goal means the freedom and creativity, but not in this order to earn a living or from the exploitation from others, but to achieve the creative level and to seize his destiny. Although Marx emphasize on human dignity so much, he never in a position to explain the history and social process, does not consider a place for the individual and individuality, and believes that the theories that individualists have offered only have wanted that hide the social relationship that in fact determine everything in past and also now.
Marx ironically in one of his books to these theorists who believe to individualism writes: human is no a artificial creature that squatting outside the world. Throughout the whole writings of Marx, it is rarely seen that he tells on the psychology of the individual, personal relationships, or the relations between the State and the individual and always considers the explanation of events and processes at the macro level and the individual is introduced as the products of society.
In Marxism on the one hand, there is the idealistic streak which its aims is to save mankind from the historical determinism and bondage economic and also flourishing the individual talents and human personalities, and on the other hand, some themes that always had been emphasized on the determinism and deterministic stages of evolution and materialism and sociology in them.
The approach of idealistic more is evident in Western Marxism. Orthodox Marxism sees the material as the principle, but at the same time to the necessity, it also brings the utopian factor of idealist to the field and says the material or the material aspects of the affairs is ready to cope with the ideals of developers.
There is another commonality between these two streaks of Marxism.
Fans of both the difference between right and wrong deny in a way that usually comes to and say the truth is a historical purpose and knowing is nothing except the progressing toward absolute truth. That this part is taken directly from Hegel and this means that the truth is belongs to whole and component, any truth that it has, is relative and depends on the particular stage of evolution, and until the evolution performance does not end, we cannot say that what is the truth?
This concept of relativist can be seen in all developments of Marxist philosophy from Ingalls to Gramsny and Lukacs. Furthermore, both the Marxist school are on this opinion that there is ultimate reality but one of them says that this ultimate reality is material and another one says that this is history. But the difference between these two is not so great because material evolves in the dialectical way, so follows the goal and end that is in the similar way with history.
Marxism began from this origin that anything and every event in the world is part of an evolutionary process that with things and other events is placed in action or interaction. In the theory of materialism or historical materiality, the emphasis is on this that until now this interaction has been ignored and the Marxism generalizes this theory to philosophy field and arrived the concept of whole or integrity affairs which is also in evolution continuously and anything or any part of it is relative and within it, compared to other parts of others has dialectical relationship.
The perpetrators of history, it means government and the proletariat, in their historical mission are not included by values and in order to reach the goal, are not included any restrictions in terms of selecting the tools and not be allowed to stand any amount of ideas and opinions -because the truth is one and there is only one solution for the problem – and are not able to break the iron law which are governing on the historical destiny that proclaims the question of determinism and free.
The issue of values:
The term value that its use in Persian language with this current means does not pass more than a few decades ago, in fact, in the West is from the economic terms which means the stature of anything. Philosophers since Plato always are discussed about things such as beauty, goodness, truth, duty, virtue and so on, but in the nineteenth century this idea was born that indeed all of these things are the members of a family; because in all of them we are dealing with something that is necessary or appropriate, not with what really is. With what it should be, not by what it is. So it is discussed from that time until now in the fields such as sociology, aesthetics, ethics and education under this overall subject value and putting the valuation and is created a science called the determination of value.
In general we know a thing as valuable thing that we think is good and with this validity, value means goodness. Every theory about the value must show that what is good and bad and also what degrees of good is exist, what things is better that anything else and ultimately must show that what is the ultimate goodness; This means that what is good itself, not as a means to achieve something else.
The difference between philosophers and teachers of morality and people who are from religion and social reformers have come from here from the ancient days that what is the ultimate goodness or exquisite goodness. Some said that exquisite goodness is pleasure; whether material or spiritual. Some other said prosperity and happiness, whether earthly or otherworldly. Aristotle was saying that life is with worthwhile activity and exhilarating. Nietzsche said that it is power. Abaklysa said connection and relationship with God and some believed that it is to give actuality to the personal talents. So it can be seen that from the aspect of exquisite goodness, how the difference between the wise men and thinkers has been.
There have been two other conflicts in the field of values. First of all, the values is any value that you and others accept it. It is absolute or relative; this means that you and I can each have our own values and do not exist any criteria that says your values are better and superior that my values or vice versa. Are there any criteria that shows that my value – absolutely and not relatively – are better than your values? The second issue is whether just a value or a valuable system is valid and right and others are wrong or different systems can exist simultaneously? This is called the issue of unity and a plurality of values.
The issue of purpose and tool:
It was pointed out the issue of the goals in two field, firstly about the part and the whole debate, where it was said that the whole when is known as the total of all people as the same as government in Hegel or proletariat or historical materialist in Marx permitted to use any means to achieve the goal and as they say, the goal justifies the means. Second, in discussing about the values in short, we were reminded which final good or exquisite goodness, is something that is good itself, not be as a means to achieve something else.
The issue from the old times not just deal with philosophers and great thinkers and religious leaders, but also it deal with most ordinary people, and it is no exaggeration if we say that millions of paper has consumed for the debate and ordered about its various aspects of it. Finally, is it lawful that we use from bad equipment to achieve good goals? Is it lawful that on a war the army commander sacrifice the lives of a platoon patrol for the saving of a person? Is it lawful to rescue the nation from a dictator or tyrant ruler, we kill someone? Is it lawful to ensure future happiness, we sacrifice the present generation? As Stalin and Mao in their own time did.
In all these questions, it is raised the issue of goal and the means or so-called of philosophers, the morality issue based on end against morality based on assignment. Do we know the target as a noble and principle or assignment that regardless of the purpose and goal that we have chosen, morally are on our responsibility. Those who, like the Communists or generally the people who did revolution, that believe the goal justifies the means, their biggest weapon is to say that numerical rationality and logic confirm their word. They say that every wise person who knows logic, understands that the welfare of thousands or millions of people is preferable to salvation a few rationally. Usually someone like Kant, Which place the moral duty as center, becomes quiet in the face of this argument, and that issue still remains in the first step.
Fortunately, in our time, and after centuries of ineffective conflict, philosophical analysis has found the solution for it. It is said that our model is essentially is false; the model which is used for the question of the purpose and means, was getting from some affairs that the purpose in them is silent and constant and it is not influenced by external factors. For example, in a football match, gate is a constant and non-living thing and can give the right completely to the players of a team that as far as rules of the game are respected, they use any tactics and means to get the ball into the gate. But in what subjects that we were discussing, namely human affairs, it is not comparable.
Suppose you and a few people who are partner want to establish an agro-industrial complex that it will has benefit for a lot of people. But some farmers or local smallholder around you are not willing to sell their territory, this matter that how you get possession of their land and get out them from their hands, means by force and conspiracy and threat or by satisfying them truly, most likely in the long-term in the fate of your complex will have a big impact.
Suppose some of revolutionary with the utmost good faith want to do upside down the society and create a better and happier society in their opinion. These that this group how reach to their target and with what means get the power and consolidate their power, Of course, will have the overall impact in their own destiny and in the fate of the community. As seen in the example of the Soviet Union.
In the field of ethics, usually means have impact on the aim, because the purpose is not a non-living, constant and stationary thing, and is a thing such as the community and other people. How to win the battle will determine this that how will be the situation after the victory. In the various means to reach the goal, what seems is that finally it become clear that there have been different ways to achieve different goals.
Karl Popper, the famous philosopher and social thinker of modern, states the second problem to the issue of the goal and means.
The discussion of Popper is about people who would build the city of Utopia. Ideal society is a society where there is justice and happiness completely. So the ultimate goal of these people is an ideal society and for achieving to it, consider modest goals that are as the same as the means and to achieve these modest goals, choose closer targets. But if we look correctly, each of these intermediate or middle goals, are a series of events in an infinite series in the complex events themselves.
Popper said this that firstly, there is no reason that for a series of events, get respect the advantage compared to other categories because they are all equally need to the principle of ethics. Second, whatever the events of future will be away from us, having impact is more difficult to achieve the ultimate goal. Because society is constantly changing and often in the unpredictable change, it is unclear that what has chosen as vehicle today, tomorrow and after tomorrow is effective to reach the goal or not. It is therefore possible that suddenly we think and see that we have sacrificed a generation without direction and for nothing for future generations that basically their status and attitudes and feelings and thinking have been changed. (The same gap that we see now is created between the second and third and fourth generation of the revolution that naturally their goals also have been changed.) So dogmatism and unexceptionable and say that chicken has one leg and this is just this and does not have any the exception, apart from irreparable damage does not have any result and with this consideration, we reached to the issue of unity and diversity.
Regardless of the logic and mathematics which they say them nominal Science, and all cases in them is changed from a series of Excellence and postulates to sure and certain knowledge, Each experience shows us that in the rest of affairs, difference in opinion may exist. Everything is not simply too much and is offered different solutions to solve problem and there is a multiplicity of views. Even in the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry and biology which are the most steadfast and the finest achievements of the human mind, no theory has not been proven forever and is outdated by new discoveries and better and more comprehensive laws and theories.
So scientists in each of these sciences, considered temporary all of the theory and they believed value and credibility for this theory until does not come stronger and better theory. No physicist and biologist says that this thing is true forever and any criticism and comment forbid and all people keep quiet. In other words, in this context, the principle is on the plurality of opinion.
In general, the meaning of pluralism or diversity, is any theory in which the roots or the principle or the number of things or type of them are known more than one. Pluralism is a thesis that placed the plurality or multiplicity as a principle against the unity or oneness. Discussion about the unity and plurality in the different religions has several thousand years old and polytheism and monotheism is in fact another interpretation of the same means.
But the other major area is ethics and political and social views. The biggest problem that unity minded say about the pluralistic is that society has always difficulties that we must solve them. Solving the problem requires a strong will and firm guidelines and unity is approach and attitude and aligned the all forces.
If we allow that consistently against every belief, other opinion expressed and debate and other conflict continue indefinitely, This risk arises that firstly treacherous and malicious elements infiltrate into the ranks of the people and apply their opinion and secondly, different opinions, even due to perfection of charity and goodwill, caused confusion and dispersion of forces and ultimately decremented the prosperity of the society. Furthermore, every opinion deserves to hear and everyone is not competent to express his opinion and only some elite and in the head of them a large wise person or according to Plato, a wise ruler has the necessary and competence conditions for finding the solution of the problems and decision-making and implementation. Such a wonderful reference may be is a delegation such as the Political Bureau of the Communist Party or is a person alone like Hitler.
It should not be considered that solidarity activism always with motivation which is come from power and personal interests, demand concentrated power. Dictator may with eventual cause-seeking, takes action and even nothing wants for himself. But history often shows the opposite, but there is no logical necessity between tyranny and corruption and practically creates a relation which is not exist logically.
"The focus of our discussion in here is adequacy or inadequacy of the dictatorship to solve problems." These are said by the solidarity activism. The Pluralism in response said: "managing of each country, needs policy and planning."
Even if we assume that the statement of the solidarity activism is true and an elite committee or a person alone can be better to make policy than a large group of people with different opinions, from a principle, it is not remedial and that is every policy, every action and every program, whether individually or collectively bring results that have no intention to crate them at all and unwanted results or results with no purpose is result of the inability of human from the controlling of all the factors.
A poet says:
If we are the owner of cloud or if we are the owner of the wind
We cannot prevent from the accidents.
Man is not omniscient nor a person who can do all action; these attributes are awarded only to the Almighty God. So whatever we pay attention to the formulation and implementation of programs and be careful to do that, eventually we are confronted by things that we have no intention to create them. Whatever the program is broader, unwanted results are more. So to avoid from damages and losses, we must constantly revise and modify the original program to adapt it to new conditions. But how?
Several thousand years of human experience shows that when a person plans a program himself and undertakes its performance, finds a kind of commitment and engagement compared to it. This issue has consequences; First of all, that Planner person to warrant the human nature and because is used the end of his efforts in organizing and implementing the program, will not see defects and disadvantages well. Second, we assume that he finds the errors of this work, he subsequently tends to know that this imperfections and defects is caused by harmful external factors and say that others are culprit. Thirdly, because it is not willing to listen to criticism, following of the reaction of others and learning from the ideas of corrective, remains deprived and fourthly, the most important of others, he is constantly in search of favorable evidence that supports his view, and is not to seek evidence that shows defects and possibly invalidate of the theory. The solidarity activism constantly rely on intellect and said that their method is rational and practical; as the Marx and Marxists said that our ideology is scientific socialism, not imaginary socialism. But this point proves just the opposite of their claim. In the science does not matter that your theory is proved for a few hundred million times, it does not matter at all, as soon as there is only one incorrect, it is proved that it is incorrect. For this reason, unlike the old science, the current science tells you that to prove your theoretical question, you must search for evidence which cancels your theory, not an evidence which supports your theory.
Unfortunately, in the society and politics the cases are in the opposite direction and all person who are involved in the managing of the countries shoes seriously all the evidence which are supporting one to the people and they do not know about the cancellation evidence or try to hide these evidence or by any means that they can, try to show that the falsify evidences are absurd.
So, according to this and also with regards to the aforementioned information, even in terms of problems and providing comfort of society, pluralism is more effective than solidarity activism and also it is cheaper than solidarity activism. Because first of all discussion and criticism of programs and policies prior to the implementation are always easier and less expensive, and secondly adjustment the programs, both materially and spiritually, are less expensive than dealing with major problems and omitting everything and rebuilding it from the foundation, reforming is more low-cost than revolution, but the main condition for pluralism is tolerance and contemplation. A society that wants to prevent from the expressing the opinions and criticisms, should pay a heavy price for doing it and accept the risk that even endanger its existence.
Another danger that solidarity activism always fear from it is relativism. The solidarity activism fear that eventually the situation will come such this that some people say there is no absolute value and all of the values are relative and as Protahoras who was the Greek philosopher before Socrates says, man is the measure of all things.
Relativism is one of the oldest questions of philosophy and it is not excessive to say that a large part of the philosophy has been created due to respect and respond to the problem of relativism. But what answer is given by pluralism from one hand to solidarity activism and on the other hand to relativists?
They say to solidarity activism that mankind because all are human and are the same in the human nature, so they have necessarily shared values and also the common view confirms it and because on the other hand are not all the same and are different, so they should have different value; Otherwise they will not be different any more- that again the views show that they are different - the philosophical basis of rights and whatever is related to the human right and our state has endorsed it, is this believing to the plurality beside with the sharing values.
In the definition of human rights, some certain principles are omitted. First is the wishes of all people to participate in power, wealth and intellectual heritage of society and demanded of tolerance and patience toward the pursuit of a different value and enjoyment of the right of judging about the legitimacy of the rules. Of course, the legitimacy of law is not just that someone or some people sit and change their speech to law, but there are other criteria that whether this law which is even written and published is legitimate or not? As the governments are also the same. Second, it is spectral reflection of the worldview and values, of course is not just a valuable system or a particular worldview. In the Declaration of Human Rights, just a system of value or a worldview has not been reflected, but a range of values has been reflected in it. Third, the totality of human rights and extension of human rights to all people everywhere and all the time, even in the future, regardless of race and country, and the fourth, the limitation of these rights about of any individual or group to ensure the rights of others and the common good of all.
Here we must consider two basic points. First is that the international community has accepted these rights as the value (rights which has come in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) it means that has agreed that these rights in accordance with our values about the definition is good and desirable. Second is this that these values are objective and among all human beings are common in the every time and place, If we consider the unity or relativity, It was not possible to reach such values, If unity were oriented, we said that just our values are correct and the rest are all false. If we were relativism, we can say everyone has their own values, but cannot claim that he is right. When we can agree on something like human rights that we admit that some of the values in the same frequency, are a part of human nature, not the fake which is produced from the desires and requirements of time and place and culture.
On top of all of them is that in all of these rights, it is are considered as certain explicitly or implicitly that all people regardless of race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, culture and the degree of advancement of civilization, naturally demand freedom and demanding the freedom is one of the constants in the human nature. Nothing like freedom please the human heart and deprivation of anything like deprivation of liberty, cannot be caused depletion of meaning from the world and beauty from the human life. So freedom is the highest value and in the laws of all over the world and in all periods of history, prison and deprivation of liberty has been the highest punishment after punishment of death.