|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{wip}} | | =={{int:filedesc}}== |
| | {{Information |
| | |description={{na|1=something}} |
| | |date=2020-08-14 |
| | |source={{own}} |
| | |author=[[User:Heku|Heku]] |
| | |permission= |
| | |other versions= |
| | }} |
|
| |
|
| '''Organicism''' is a political and moral philosophy based on the existence of organically developed, interconnected societies and public life as an expression of these concepts. Organicists argue that all human persons are social animals and, consequently, humans are created to be governed and live in society. In this model, since society is an organically developed set of social relationships to which all individuals are subject, it is in society's interests to ensure the common good, defined as "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily". Organicists espouse a somewhat wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support {{wp|social democracy}}, organized religion, moral law as public law, degrees of social equality, with some proponents of organicism supporting nationalism or [[organic socialism]].
| | =={{int:license-header}}== |
| | | {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} |
| Organicism became a distinct movement in the 18th century, when it became popular among [[Occidental]] philosophers and economists as a position contra {{wp|social contract theory}}. Organicism sought to reform the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism into more inclusive systems without creating a definitive rupture. Organicists reject both absolutism and the social contract, and consequently spent much of the 18th and early 19th centuries opposed by both liberals and absolutists. Organicist criticism of absolutism specifically came from the perspective of restoration or defense of traditional, inclusive forms of society, such as local communes and the paternal obligation of Monarchy. Organicism also proposed its own view of history and society, eschewing {{wp|whig history}} in favor of continuity thesis and other similar ideas.
| |
| | |
| Levantine leaders and thinkers embraced organicism during the 18th century, producing the Constitution of Urcea and the philosophical underpinning of The Two Derics. Organicists largely succeeded in establishing reformed states in Levantia during the 19th century.
| |
| | |
| == Etymology and definition ==
| |
| | |
| == Philosophy ==
| |
| | |
| === Major themes ===
| |
| | |
| ====Origins of the state====
| |
| | |
| The central premise of organicism relates to the origins of the State. Unlike in {{wp|social contract}} theory, which contends the State is a construct based on consent from individuals in the state of nature, organicism contends that humans are social animals and, from their beginning, humans were created to have social relationships with other humans. Organicist philosophers argue that society is merely the sum of social relationships, and that consequently, man's place is within society. Emerging from this, it is argued society and the State are essentially the same thing; in the words of Duinsha, it indicates that "man's relation to the other - in the family, in the tribe, and in the State - are in no way ''different in kind'' and are merely different arrangements of the same phenomenon". Organicists say that this indicates that man cannot consent (either explicitly or otherwise) to be subject to a state because they also cannot, for example, not consent to be a member of a family. Organicists are clear that this is not to say that individuals "cannot disapprove or otherwise not attempt to disassociate" with the State just as they disassociate from families, but nonetheless "they are still subject to them". Most proponents of organicists express this in the shorthand expression that "society and the State are indistinguishable".
| |
| | |
| Most early organicists developed this theory, best exemplified in Lucius Duinsha's "''Contra the Social Contractors''" (1768), based on the {{wp|Book of Genesis}}, citing that Adam and Eve were created together. While many humanists and liberals rejected the organicist conception of human relationships, a "second wave" of thinkers were bolstered by the advent of {{wp|Evolution|evolution}} and scientific approaches to the development of human relations.
| |
| | |
| ====Religion as the practice of the whole==== | |
| | |
| Organicists believe {{wp|organized religion}} to be the central cultural element of society, both from what they call the "objective perspective" - in the sense that religion is ''true'' - and from the "subjective perspective" - that it is a unifying element which calls believers together in solidarity and has been since the dawn of man. Most organicists note, from the "subjective perspective", that the practice of religion orders individuals towards the common good due to the teaching of most - but not all - organized religions (the issue of [[Arzalism]] has long vexed Organic philosophers). Most Organic philosophers largely focus on the subjective benefit of religion, since the objective perspective is viewed as more appropriate to {{wp|Theology|theologians}}. Central to the subjective benefit is the principle of "religion is the practice of the whole", creating increased social buy-in across society.
| |
| | |
| In the subjective perspective, organicists believe that "religion is the practice of the whole" in two senses. In the first sense, organicists believe societies and nations work best when the religion is uniformly held as possible. While not a key principle, nearly all major organic philosophers have discouraged the use of coercion and instead believe the best approach is to encourage religious uniformity by means of public policy. The second sense in which the term is meant is that religion should include as broad a portion of the population as possible in active practice. Historically, this position put organic philosophers against the practice of the [[Levantine Catholic Church]] during the {{wp|Early Modern Period}}, opposing the investiture of bishops and priests based on hereditary privilege and supporting widespread mass attendance.
| |
| | |
| Most Organic philosophers historically and contemporaneously are members of the [[Levantine Catholic Church]].
| |
| | |
| ====Limited applicability====
| |
| | |
| Organic philosophers espoused something referred to as the "''principle of limited applicability''". The principle states that most political ideas, power structures, or social concepts all have inherent value within an organic society, but can only be applied on a limited basis. This principle is based on the view that there is no single best way to govern a society that develops organically, since each society has different norms and history; since there are differences, however, an organic society can not universally apply a political principle or system and expect an outcome conducive to the common good. Organicists typically adopt flexible political views based on what is oriented towards the common good within a particular point in time.
| |
| | |
| The best known use of the principle of limited applicability is that of heredity. [[Urcea|Urcean]] organicists, both historically and contemporaneously, believe that hereditary succession can be successfully used within society, both for the general inheritance of property and for the particular political system of monarchy. Organicists believe the former protects the principle of private property while the latter ensures political stability. These same organicists, however, oppose the concentration of wealth in small groups of individuals whose concentration is supported by heredity, particularly referring to the {{wp|feudalism|feudal}} system common in [[Levantia]] before the [[Great Confessional War]] because they infringe the ability to create systems ordered towards the common good. Organic philosophers also oppose the concentration of political power in small hereditary power groups, besides that of monarchy, for the same purpose.
| |
| | |
| === Economic theory ===
| |
| | |
| == History ==
| |
| | |
| == Criticism and support ==
| |
| | |
| [[Category: Urcea]]
| |
| [[Category: Valcimport]]
| |
| [[Category:IXWB]]
| |
