Let me consider two societies, one purely Catholic the other purely Protestant, everything else being equal. In the Catholic society is the authority who tells the people what to think. Once this is done, each man is left free to act for himself within broadly defined limits. This is what gives the Catholic society its distinctly orthodoxy of thought and liberalism of action.
The opposite holds true in the Protestant society. In this society each man is left free to think, he is actually required to think. Authority is then called upon through the process of democratic public opinion and government to tell the people how to act. This is what gives Protestant society its distinctly liberalism of thought and orthodoxy of action.
Which of these societies will do better, i.e, which of them will progress the most? This depends on how the authority of the Catholic society compares with the average man of the Protestant society who ultimately determines public opinion. If the authority of the Catholic society is made up of superior, above-average men the Catholic society will do better; the opposite holds true if the authority is made up of inferior, below-average men. The Catholic society is at its best when it is run by an elite, that is, by men who are close to the truth.
The average man of the Catholic society is a poor thinker and a great doer whereas the average man of the Protestant society is in comparison a great thinker and a poor doer. One needs guidance on how to think, the other needs guidance on how to act. Aristocracy is the political tool of the Catholic society to tell people what to think; it is aristocracy that defines their common thoughts. Democracy is the political tool of the Protestant society to tell people how to act; it is democracy that transforms the immense variety of people's thoughts into common action.
What if we try to impose democracy on the Catholic society? The authority (government) will now be formed by people who are poor thinkers while the rest of the population keeps waiting for guidance from them. Guidance will be poor or misdirected. The country will be led the wrong way. Sure, the authority itself expects help from the population which under democracy is supposed to contribute with its own thinking to define the guidelines. The problem is that the population is not used to think. Sooner or later these people will feel disoriented and pessimistic. Social and economic decline will follow.
The opposite holds true in the Protestant society. In this society each man is left free to think, he is actually required to think. Authority is then called upon through the process of democratic public opinion and government to tell the people how to act. This is what gives Protestant society its distinctly liberalism of thought and orthodoxy of action.
Which of these societies will do better, i.e, which of them will progress the most? This depends on how the authority of the Catholic society compares with the average man of the Protestant society who ultimately determines public opinion. If the authority of the Catholic society is made up of superior, above-average men the Catholic society will do better; the opposite holds true if the authority is made up of inferior, below-average men. The Catholic society is at its best when it is run by an elite, that is, by men who are close to the truth.
The average man of the Catholic society is a poor thinker and a great doer whereas the average man of the Protestant society is in comparison a great thinker and a poor doer. One needs guidance on how to think, the other needs guidance on how to act. Aristocracy is the political tool of the Catholic society to tell people what to think; it is aristocracy that defines their common thoughts. Democracy is the political tool of the Protestant society to tell people how to act; it is democracy that transforms the immense variety of people's thoughts into common action.
What if we try to impose democracy on the Catholic society? The authority (government) will now be formed by people who are poor thinkers while the rest of the population keeps waiting for guidance from them. Guidance will be poor or misdirected. The country will be led the wrong way. Sure, the authority itself expects help from the population which under democracy is supposed to contribute with its own thinking to define the guidelines. The problem is that the population is not used to think. Sooner or later these people will feel disoriented and pessimistic. Social and economic decline will follow.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário