I think there is a moral weakness in the UK and Europe and it makes me feel ill in my soul.

I like to think about things in terms of 'total net suffering'. For example, regarding Covid vaccines and lockdowns. The idea in most places was to lockdown to prevent the spread of the virus, thus saving people's lives.

Sounds solid at first thought. The problem is, that didn't happen and everybody pretty much got it anyway. Many places simply used the idea of lockdowns to reduce the burden on the hospitals so they didn't overflow, just soften the blow basically so we could handle everybody individually.

These sound, on paper, like they would reduce total net suffering. But I wonder, how much suffering have we caused by destroying the businesses that all these people worked their whole lives to make work? How many committed suicide, or got into debt and couldn't pay for medical expenses? How many people lost opportunities, or education in school? How many have become social reprobates who were not doomed to be so before the pandemic?

How many are now less intelligent and literate and, ultimately, in poverty than ever needed to be? How many suffer from mental disorders, anxiety, social neglect? How much poorer has everybody gotten from this massive, years long economic inflation? How many have gotten sick from other versions of viral illness due to lack of immunity after being locked up and essentially sterilised (particularly in China where, from my own experience, everybody has been getting sick year round pretty constantly ever since)? And how many have died from this?

What about pollution, where manufacturing was shut down but then ramped up tenfold to catch up after the lockdowns, causing more pollution, more heart and lung problems, and more inadvertent deaths?

How much was the weakness of the West during the pandemic a decision in Putin's plans to invade Ukraine, and all the deaths that came as a result?

How much has inequality grown as a result, given that large businesses could mostly stay open as 'essential businesses' and therefore not only survive but thrive, while SMEs (small/medium enterprises) get pushed into poverty?

There are so many factors that it's impossible to truly quantify suffering the way we did it compared to the way we hypothetically could have. But it seems there is an unfathomable number of unforeseen consequences that we didn't think about and instead just knee-jerk reacted at every turn.

And it reflects the greater weakness I mentioned at the start. Our societies have become extremely reactionary. We have not learnt from the lessons of Aristotle, and the West as a whole (perhaps the world entirely) has just taken the wrong turn every single time.

Aristotle vs Plato

Aristotle wrote the book Politics while Plato wrote The Republic. Two different ideas on how to run things. Which do you prefer?

Politics

In short, this was an empirical and flexible approach. It is quite individualistic and context-based approach. He considered a mixture of democracy and oligarchy to be most stable. There is an emphasis on education, virtue, and deliberation.

Most importantly, he accepts that any given society is complex, will inevitably have troubles and conflicts, and he creates a framework to allow things to flourish within a very real human context. With this approach, anything that deviates from the main framework is not considered an enemy, but a new idea. Something to deliberate upon.

The Republic

Plato's work was far more idealistic and rigid, with a very specific hierarchy ruled over by philosopher-kings. He separated people into three groups:

• Rulers
• Warriors
• Producers

Censorship was absolutely necessary within the arts and education, and democracy was considered chaotic and unreliable. The idea of instability was an absolute nono, and all energy should be put towards stamping out any deviation from the ideal political framework.

If you think Plato's framework is superior, then we aren't friends lol.

But clearly, The Republic is the way our world has decided to go. It favours those in power, certainly, and it is a magnet for human temptation and fear more generally. Look at our politics, look at the EU. Cowards dressed as intellectual heroes. Snobs.

Rulers.

They panic at every step of the journey. I see the same thing in China perhaps to a greater extent. Nothing gets done until something significant happens, then they implement legislation and respond to an extreme, cutting all possibility of that thing happening again. But then, it's like whack-a-mole, as new things pop out here and there they have to constantly batter down.

A right wing party in Germany? NO!!! React! React!!
A virus? STOP IT AT ALL COSTS!
An economic model that questions the current framework? ARREST THEM!

It's all so platonic it sickens me.

And then they wonder why society is falling apart.

Of all our woes right now, not a single one will be fixed under this current paradigm. For example, it seems the norm now to panic over the idea of 'Oligarchy' as some innate evil likened to fascism.

But Aristotle peddled it as described above. Why?

Because oligarchy isn't inherently bad. In fact, the US Senate is an example of an oligarchic system designed to check and balance the house of representatives. Pure democracy alone encourages the oppression of the minority by the majority, it encourages mob rule, impulsive decisions by mass sentiment. Democracy, I think we all agree, is flawed.

Oligarchy is of course itself flawed too, enabling elitist oppression among many other issues.

A mix of both, therefore, is designed to temper the weaknesses of each, and play to their advantages. The will of the people combined with the will of the experts. Oligarchy can work wonderfully when done right and in balance.

Aristotle, of course, warned about a corrupt oligarchy serving only the interests of the wealthy elites. But he didn't shy away from the concept entirely. Nowadays, we are all so obsessed with the term democracy that anything outside that framework, be it oligarchy or anything else, is seen as objectively evil and something to imprison people for even talking about.

This perhaps is a side effect of the fact that they are frankly entirely incompetent. I don't think they have the self-confidence to be able to implement a fair, successful oligarchical structure within government without turning it into a nepotistic hell hole of elite favouritism and oppression. They themselves are just too tempted towards evil and corruption, as Galadriel was to the One Ring.

So the alternative? Democracy, democracy, democracy. Panic at every corner. Whack-a-mole every deviation.

Everything must fit into the international rules-based order.

Like I said. Sickening.