Updated: Sep 2
Republic: Tradition v. Wokeness. Part 4. (Parts 1, 2, 3). Aristotle held hope a just republic could be not only rationalized but practiced. Aristotle was not a utopian, because he reasoned corruption would continue to exist but a sophisticated enough republic would bulwark against corruption before an oligarchy, tyranny, or mob formed. Polybius held no hope for a lasting, just republic. His hopelessness was not utter, because he reasoned justice would continue to exist; but a republic will never be sophisticated enough to stop an oligarchy, tyranny, or mob from forming, which even these corrupt republics will renew in a just society forming once again to only fall prey to corruption once again. Aristotle thought there could be an endpoint for a republic, i.e. one sophisticated enough. Polybius' understanding was cyclical. Both of these ideas I wrote about in Parts 1 and 2. Both are traditional, republican (as in republic, not the modern-day U.S. political party) understandings in Western Civilization; both entail traditional efforts of justice and hope and whether if some add the meek, beauty found in Christian traditions or not the vast difference and gulf from the efforts of wokeness, which I will cover later, are apparent. But all of this is not strictly what tradition is; so what is tradition?
(Christian tradition: praying at meal)
Tradition refers to the people's experience, usage, and custom. Old laws and ways the society considered within an already agreed upon expectation of how "we" do things. When the tradition came into existence sometimes might not be known, so some might say: 'it has always been that way'. Education and nuances to sharpen the traditional idea of 'what always has been' exist, but what of innovations?
Ferguson Brown Type A (1936-1939): UK innovation. Foundation for modern
tractors w/ 3-point linkage, hydraulic lift, automatic draft control.
In Part 3, I mentioned innovations, but the case here is to consider innovation alongside tradition. A contingent, or situation in life presenting itself to a person, family, business, community, etc., may be interpreted traditionally or innovatively. An individual may handle a traditional situation as expected by all in society. If the situation calls for innovation, then traditional methods may not work. The necessary response speed to the innovation varies. People (many) may handle innovations by usage, which over time dictates whether the innovation lasts or not. A necessarily faster response utilizes those traditional few, e.g. artists, philosophers, and aristocrats, may collaborate to handle an innovation unique to their quality for the whole of society. Government representatives of the people may handle legal matters, i.e. legislation or court decisions, in a similar manner, even if the required response is more immediate than all examples presented thus far. Lastly, the individual, whether a common folk, one sophisticated in any one field of work or idea, or political (President, Prime Minister, King), each individual person possesses the ability to respond to an innovation faster than a few or many people. In politics, it can be argued this is why Julius Caesar was made Dictator. The Roman Republic was considered in an emergency situation and to maintain justice during a necessarily high response frequency period only one individual could effectively rule. Yet of course, the innovations in the move and counter-move between justice and corruption transformed the Republic into an Empire ruled by an Emperor, which in the first 130-so years saw at least 9 Emperors assassinated. Not a particularly stable government.
(Vespasian r. A.D. 69-79; one of few early Emperors not assassinated and considered moral by Romans; started Colosseum w/ son Titus completing it.)
In the U.S. there is a strong, rich tradition still present. People who farm, labor with their hands in industry, e.g. precision tool and die, car mechanics, loggers, or other industries that hone reason. e.g. engineers, architectures, each possess traditional frameworks that allow for innovation within the confines of moral, stable behavior outpacing corruption and breakdowns. Problems can be solved without overly complicated disastrous ruin unless some external rigidity or penetration exploits the problem, e.g. farmer will sell his corn in the market unless some large Wall Street firm explodes into bankruptcy causing wide-market malfunctions. A poor crop locally could manage survival with a local community support system, i.e. food banks, church, etc. Will people suffer and/or die because things go wrong in an otherwise just society? Of course - let's not harbor any fantastical tales of utopia.
(Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Gov't backed mortgage companies
involved in the 2008 crash)
Though on the other hand, typically innovative industries given the space to work outside of well-defined moral, stable constraints, depending how big, will not only hurt it's own business or household, e.g. monetary malfeasance or an influential member of the community caught in a scandal, but the failure may cause, whether rightly or not, the gov't, an even larger institution, especially if it simply prints fiat money, to bailout the business, like what happened due to the Great Recession in 2008 while at the same time ruining small businesses. Same happened during the COVID lockdowns. In the case of a scandal, the intellectual loss helping to provide direction in society can be imagined.
So-called woke innovations completely and intentionally severe from tradition. The speed necessary to respond is beyond achievement because the individual, who has the highest response time to contingent circumstances, always has a measure of tradition. For example, an individual person is either male or female. To severe from this very basic 'just how it is' notion the person can never respond in a timely fashion to comprehend such an innovation; not that actions will take place. To decide and act, the person has to forgo the traditional experience of male or femaleness. Yet to what degree marks a person no longer experiencing this tradition.
I am not talking about the traditional idea, but the actual traditional experience, in other words, the actual experience of being a male or female has to be discarded, which takes a biological, psychological, and spiritual intervention to severe such an experience of being a male or female: biological - surgery; psychological - no longer think one is male or female; spiritual - for Christians, everything God respectively says about male or female is neglected.
What about being a human? Traditionally, us creatures have been called humans. To rid this tradition, takes a dehumanizing effort. Hate, belittling, constant terror, an atmosphere to cause people to question not only their sanity but existence, and all orders of magnitude to no longer feel, think, and be human. Some might call it a quality of life, and what that entails is being human.
Transhumanism. To make people into an internet of bodies, digital entities to be monitored and programmed the same way any lifeless (life another traditional experience), inanimate object would be. To fester repugnant outlooks toward humanity itself is not only dehumanizing but galvanizes people beyond any recognition of what it currently means to be human and life itself.
There is a rich, cultural tradition discovered locally, that is not lifeless but innovative according to speeds traditionally met, even if the outcomes are disastrous, but efforts to completely severance beyond not only what is humanly possible but beyond human's striving to be no longer human is utter annihilation. The lines are drawn. Tradition v. anti-tradition. I am for life, are you? I hope so. By Christ, let's rid this wokeness abomination.
Matthew 19:4, "And [Christ] answered and said to them,
'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female...'"