User talk:WHEELER/Socrates on defining a republic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Part I A Socratic on current Definition of Republic
(This was originally posted on Talk:Republic. The old definition of a republic on Wikipedia was any government without a king. Footnotes are responses to particular lines that are located at the bottom.)
Socrates: "Does Wikipedia's definition of a Republic fit the condition of Sparta which had kings?
Wikipaedia: Um-NO.
Socrates: "Does the Wikipedia's definition of a Republic fit the condition of Britian who has a monarchy?
Wikipaedia: Um-NO. 1
Socrates: "Does the Wikipedia's definition of a Republic have any direct reference and quotes from the Founding Fathers?
Wikipaedia: Um-no. 2
Socrates: "Did you read John Adams' 'Defense of the Constitution of the United States' to see what he said"
Wikipaedia: Um-no
Socrates: "Please give me a definition of a Republic that fits ALL situations where a Republic exists." 3
Wikipaedia: "Well, words and concepts change through time."
Socrates: If the characteristics change doesn't the nature change also?
Wikipaedia: Yes.
Socrates: "If the nature changes, then is it not a completely different thing?"
Wikipaedia: Yes.
Socrates: "Then if the 'thing' is completely different by nature, then it doesn't fit the old definition Correct?"
Wikipaedia: Yes.
Socrates: "But if the Old nature reappears, does the new definition or the old definition apply".
Wikipaedia: Well the old definition would apply to the old nature."
Socrates: "Then words and concepts DO NOT change through time." 4
Wikipaedia: No that is not right. People's perception changes and so and so...I have got to go, I have moved your thing to a new section. Problem solved. Good-bye.
Socrates: Good bye.
[edit] Part II A Socratic
Socrates: "Hello again"
Wikipaedia: Hello
Socrates: You said, "The republic is no longer an exclusively Greek thing. I think this happened sometime when Rome conquered Greece.
Wikipaedia: yes
Socrates: Was not Rome a Republic also?
Wikipaedia: Uh Uh Uh Uh
Socrates: "Did not Cicero also term his government a 'mixed' government?
Wikipaedia: Uh Uh Uh
Socrates: "What elements made it mixed?"
Wikipaedia: I don't know.
Socrates: "Was not the Senate of Rome made exclusively of the Aristocracy but the Romans had no kings?" 5
Wikipaedia: Yes.
Socrates: "So what factor made Cicero declare the Roman government a 'mixed government'?
Wikipaedia: Uh- I got to go to work, I have no time now, but I have moved your section elsewhere. Good bye
Socrates: Good bye.
[edit] Part III A Socratic
Wikipaedia: words and concepts change through time. The republic is no longer an exclusively Greek thing.
Socrates: "Do we not use the Greek word for a monarchy?"
Wikipaedeia: Yes.
Socrates: "Does the meaning of the word Monarchy change over time?"
Wikipaedia: No 6
Socrates: "Do we not use the Greek word for a aristocracy?"
Wikipaedia: Yes
Socrates: "Did the meaning of aristocracy change over time?"
Wikipaedia: No 7
Socrates: "Do we not use the Greek word for a democracy?"
Wikipaedia: Yes.
Socrates: "Does the meaning of the word democracy change over time?"
Wikipaedia: No. 8
Socrates: "Do we not use the Greek idea in the Roman word Republic?"
Wikipaedia: Yes, but the republic is no longer an exclusively a Greek thing.
Socrates: "But we just determined that three other terms are Greek words and have not changed their meaning. But how is it now that the Roman word for the Greek idea has changed when the others have not? Where the Greeks unsure of what the Spartans and Cretans had? 9
Wikipaedia: No.
Socrates: "Was Cicero confused on what his own Government was organized on?"
Wikipaedia: No
Socrates: "Where's the consistency?"
Wikipaedia: My friends are calling me--I have to go Good by
Socrates: "Good-Bye" Wheeler 25 Mar 04 1000am
[edit] Part IV A Socratic
Socrates: "Did not the Greeks define systems of Government by the dominant factor?"
Wikipaedia: What do you mean?
Socrates: What is the dominant factor of a Monarchy?
Wikipaedia: A King.
Socrates: What is the dominant factor of an Oligarchy?
Wikipaedia: A small group of people.
Socrates: What is the dominant factor of an Aristocracy?
Wikipaedia: the aristocracy of that nation.
Socrates: What is the dominant factor of a Democracy?
Wikipaedia: The people
Socrates: "All the previous systems of government, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy are all defined by their dominant element--Correct?"
Wikipaedia: That seems to be the case.
Socrates: "So what category of Governmental system does Sparta and Crete fall under?"
Wikipaedia: I don't know.
Socrates: "How do you define what a Democracy?"
Wikipaedia: It is ruled by the people.
Socrates: "Is the 'people' a dominant factor?"
Wikipaedia: yes
Socrates: "So, we shall use the same procedure to define what style of government Sparta and Crete has. Shouldn't we?"
Wikipaedia: No no, that is not right, A Republic is a Greek thing and the meaning has changed. 10
Socrates: "But we just determined that all systems of government are defined by their dominant factor."
Wikipaedia: Yes.
Socrates: "If we use this rule of "dominant factor" to define systems of government, shouldn't this rule be also applied in the definition of a Republic? I ask again, What is the dominant factor of the Roman system of government before Julius Caesar and the dominant factor of Sparta and Crete?"
Wikipaedia: I have to go, I have moved your site to a different place. I have a phone call to make. Good bye.
Socrates: "Good bye" Wheeler
[edit] Part V A Socratic
Socrates: "Hello"
Wikipaedia: Is this you again?
Socrates: "Yes"
Wikipaedia: You know that you are getting a little irritating.
Socrates: "Yes. But we haven't reached a satisfactory conclusion."
Wikipaedia: I have moved your thing to another place, it is on site now. Aren't you pleased.
Socrates: "Well, I have a problem which I hope you can solve."
Wikipaedia: Which is?
Socrates: "The Wikipaedia definition of a Republic is: 'A republic is a form of government (and a state so governed) where a monarch is not the head of state.'"
Wikipaedia: Yes that is the definition.
Socrates: "Does a monarch the head of state for an Aristocracy?"
Wikipaedia: No.
Socrates: "Then an aristocracy is really a Republic then!"
Wikipaedia: Uh UH UH 11
Socrates: "Does a monarch the head of state for a Democracy?"
Wikipaedia: Certainly not! 12
Socrates: "Then a democracy is really a Republic then!"
Wikipaedia: Uh that is not right, you're fooling me and I don't like you go away. 13
Socrates: "But we haven't finished or concluded this conundrum."
Wikipaedia: The definition stands so go away please.
Socrates: "Nice talking to you." Wheeler 25 Mar 04 1050
[edit] Part V.a A Socratic
Socrates: You recognize that the word is in common mis-usage. Correct?
Man: Yes
Socrates: And it is not possible to re-correct it then, right?
Man: yes
Socrates: Does the military use bad maps?
Man: no, they use the most current update maps.
Socrates: What happens when there is faulty information in directions.
Man: Accidents occur just like Private Jessica's Lynch's convoy took a wrong turn because the direction was not clearly marked.
Socrates: Aren't words like maps--they point to a direction.
Man: Why-yes. Use bad words and we end up like the convoy of Jessica Lynch.
Socrates: Bravo.WHEELER 17:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Responses
- Well yes it does. Britain is not a Republic, it's a Monarchy by admission. Our definition of republic is "A nation that does not have a monarch", Britain has a monarch, so it's a monarchy, not a republic. Sounds correct to me. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- And Rightly So! Your founding fathers aren't my founding fathers. :-) Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- We have this definition. It is true for ALL situations where a Republic exists. I am unsure if it is true for all situations where a Republic existed Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You can't make that a conclusion. It might also be possible that a word only has meaning inside a certain context of space, time, and maybe also within the context of a single discussion. It happens all the time in formal languages, in any case. Please see: Namespace. Define each year as a new namespace. Now you can have it both ways. The language can evolve, and yet meanings do not change in the same way. Handy philosophical tool that. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- But the romans had no aristocracy exactly, they had patricians, which is a term that does not map precicely or accurately onto Aristocracy. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You know you are making me work to hard here. Patricians are "heads of families of the old tribes." "The patricians thus formed an hereditary aristocracy. Pg 1184, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Literature and antiquities.WHEELER 17:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Very emphatically *YES*. See constitutional monarchy for a great example. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It sure did. Try find an honest to goodness modern aristocrat sometime. Did you ever meet one? I have. They're somewhat different from what aristocrats were like in the 19th century, and those again were very different from the aristocrats of the middle ages in their clunky armour. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Why yes it does. In the past, democracy was direct democracy by default. Now it's representative democracy by default. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- well your straw man and you determined that, but I do not agree. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- That's odd, we should do that for the ancient Sparta and for Crete, they're in the same namespace as the original meaning of the word. I have absolutely no problem with that. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You yourself stated that Rome was an aristocratic republic, did you not? Do be consistent! Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I live in a democracy, and the head of state is a monarch. So yes, that's quite possible. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Some democracies are republics, yes. it's called a Democratic Republic. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- As I have stated before, a "democratic Republic" is an oxymoron. WHEELER 17:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
