What is "Legitimacy"?
Throughout my academic years, many questions have come and gone, some answered and others not. In some moments I was satisfied with the answers that my own reflective capacity had presented me, and in many, the relentless search for more satisfactory answers would make me"meet" with ancient authors and even elders. Of all the searches and questions, the only one that no one is capable of giving me a satisfactory answer, or rather, is unable to justify its logical existence, is:
"Why can something, when given freedom to the individual, become legitimate without any basis in reality or truth?"
To contextualize my indignation with this doubt, here is a historical account:
"In 752, Aistulf demanded the submission of Rome and a tribute of one gold solidus per capita. Pope Stephen II and a Roman envoy, the silentiary John, tried through negotiations and bribes to convince Aistulf to back down. When this failed, he then sent envoys to Pepin the Short, king of the Franks, with a letter requesting his support and the provision of a Frankish escort so that Stephen could go to Pepin to confer. Pope Stephen met Pepin the Short at the royal estate at Ponthion on 6 January 754. The pope, in sackcloth and ashes, bowed down and asked Pepin, that he "would support the suit of St Peter and of the republic of the Romans". Pepin responded by promising "to restore the exarchate of Ravenna and the rights and territories of the republic"."
And with those words, Pepin, king of the Franks, would now have complete "legitimacy" to invade the Lombard Kingdom and create what would eventually be known as the "Papal States". The point is, this "prestige" that would grant him freedom to kill, loot, and cruelly rob the Roman cities of northern Italy, controlled by the Lombards, simply did not exist. However, from the moment foward that this would become useful and beneficial for both parties - the papacy and the Frankish Kingdom -, legitimacy arised "ex nihil".
If this had been attempted during the period of the ancient Romans, with no real evidence, treaties to substantiate their claims, and manuscripts where the record of such claims had been, a situation like this would never have happened. Therefore:
What is legitimacy? A political tool? A moral concept? Legitimacy is logic?
(NOTE: Also note the use - more than incorrect - of Pepin, of the nomenclature of "Roman Republic" to name the territories that would be conquered - remembering that this event occurred in the 8th century, more than 300 years after the fall of the Roman Empire -. In this case, legitimacy seems to be found in the distortion of facts and reality itself to justify his objectives.)
"Why can something, when given freedom to the individual, become legitimate without any basis in reality or truth?"
To contextualize my indignation with this doubt, here is a historical account:
"In 752, Aistulf demanded the submission of Rome and a tribute of one gold solidus per capita. Pope Stephen II and a Roman envoy, the silentiary John, tried through negotiations and bribes to convince Aistulf to back down. When this failed, he then sent envoys to Pepin the Short, king of the Franks, with a letter requesting his support and the provision of a Frankish escort so that Stephen could go to Pepin to confer. Pope Stephen met Pepin the Short at the royal estate at Ponthion on 6 January 754. The pope, in sackcloth and ashes, bowed down and asked Pepin, that he "would support the suit of St Peter and of the republic of the Romans". Pepin responded by promising "to restore the exarchate of Ravenna and the rights and territories of the republic"."
And with those words, Pepin, king of the Franks, would now have complete "legitimacy" to invade the Lombard Kingdom and create what would eventually be known as the "Papal States". The point is, this "prestige" that would grant him freedom to kill, loot, and cruelly rob the Roman cities of northern Italy, controlled by the Lombards, simply did not exist. However, from the moment foward that this would become useful and beneficial for both parties - the papacy and the Frankish Kingdom -, legitimacy arised "ex nihil".
If this had been attempted during the period of the ancient Romans, with no real evidence, treaties to substantiate their claims, and manuscripts where the record of such claims had been, a situation like this would never have happened. Therefore:
What is legitimacy? A political tool? A moral concept? Legitimacy is logic?
(NOTE: Also note the use - more than incorrect - of Pepin, of the nomenclature of "Roman Republic" to name the territories that would be conquered - remembering that this event occurred in the 8th century, more than 300 years after the fall of the Roman Empire -. In this case, legitimacy seems to be found in the distortion of facts and reality itself to justify his objectives.)
Comments (38)
More broadly, means 'fixed in law' or 'recognised within a legal framework'. It can therefore be both a moral topic, and a political tool. To claim that something is illegitimate is to denigrate it, conversely, something 'legitimate' is authentic, genuine, or real.
The title was not broken. It was written in that way on purpose.
Quoting jamalrob
You broke it.
Quoting Wayfarer
And yet, you did not answer the topic's question:
What makes "legitimacy" legitimate?
It was not in a legitimate grammatical form. A legitimate form obeys the rules of grammar, and the title 'What it's "Legimacy"' does not.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
I thought it might be useful to start off with a more detailed definition. @Pantagruel's suggestion seems a good one.
Wrong. The original, «What it's "Legitimacy"», is nonsense.
Do you agree with the above, as it is written?
Sounds false to me.
It says nothing at all about genuine, authentic, or real.
Your use of "conversely" was a bit of rhetoric, as is the purported 'definition' of that use of "legitimacy".
:smile:
Hope life is treating you kindly.
I would say that the term 'legitimacy' could be used and abused politically as an idea of entitlement, backed up within a legal framework. It is one of those slippery words which could be used to back up claims for what a person in some authority wanted to enforce. It could be used as a subtle form of rhetoric when there is no solid, underlying argument.
Quoting Wayfarer
I sincerely believe that you missed the point of the whole discussion Please, correct the title.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Quoting Pantagruel
If each individual can choose to have his own interpretation of what is legitimate and what in essence is legitimacy, this only strengthens the view that (1) or legitimacy is not based on any natural, conceptual norm, in short, in any existent precept, (2) or its substance lies in the concept and physical expression of "power". If in this case the correct view is the second one, where the perception of "legitimacy" could be found diluted on several faces of the same concept - power - it still lacks a true "absolute" basis.
Therefore, the concept of "legitimacy" is yet another one of the thousands of human ideas that could be considered to be "egoistic" - that is, based on the total subjective existence and individual will of the self -.
He did correct the title. And you're missing a full stop. The reason you can't use ungrammatical English is because it's an illegitimate use of language.
There are such things as 'primitive concepts'. They can't be justified in terms of something else, because they don't need to be. Natural numbers are an example, and there are many others.
Your asking 'what makes legitimacy legimate' is roughly like asking 'why does 1 + 1 equal 2?' There is no meaningful answer to such a question. Not wasting any more time on this.
All words are limited and I love words, reading or writing them but they are a reflection of our subjective truth. There was the whole philosophy of language in the Twentieth century, which became pedantic. However, it may be going the other way and perhaps the philosophers have fallen in love with the words and ideas which they speak, a bit like Narcissus gazing at himself in the water.
You forget that what makes this "fact" "real" is pure human communal interpretation and perception. Nothing guarantees that 1 + 1 = 2, other than our finding that "1 + 1 = 2". What you and many others do not realize is that what is real, is only real because we shape it in a way that suits us best.
Quoting Wayfarer
If you were aware of yourself and your inner wills, this phrase would have been your first response, and we could then, have avoided this long and useless dialogue. Good day/night.
The problem is to express and/or project them effectively in the physical world. It is not enough to envision the ideal, the perfect, the absolute, the metaphysical. We must try with all our strength, to achieve it. Currently, the "Inteligência" - the intellectual "elite" - seems to be working daily to transform the metaphysical world into a condemning hope, where the purpose will always exist, but can never be achieved. This is first applied to words - George Orwell has already said: "If you control the words, you consequently control the thoughts" -.
Legitimacy, therefore, remains - in my interpretation - a mechanism for the exercise of power, which has a useful capacity to be used for both good and evil. And people are focused only on the second characteristic.
"Your Narcissus is selling his reflection as the ideal who should be achieved, while he bars the way to it...."
Yes, I think that we are able to use words carefully to fight against oppression, rather than be coerced by it. Of course, it works both ways, so it is one reason to be able to use philosophy in a beneficial way. I have found that being able to understand rhetoric gives me a way to overcome attempts to knock me down. Philosophy can be used to reclaim power.
Actually the jury is out on that. The names we give to numbers are ours but even without names nature doesn't change in such a way that I can ever add 2 apples together and get 3. So some people consider numbers and even wider mathematics as embedded in nature.
As to what makes legitimacy legitimate. If we're talking social legitimacy, it's acceptance of the position by the relevant community in power. Democratic legitimacy is about following the right rules. And usually when trying to get legitimacy through democratic and social means, people will refer to objective idea of legitimacy such as divine dispensation, higher morals etc. Those usually reflect the dictates of public conscience at a certain time in w certain place.
What makes legitimacy legitimate is therefore subject to the social and political organisation of a group of people and their shared historical and moral framework.
"What Its Legitimacy" was a way of demonstrating that the legitimacy of something - even the vocabulary that we deem to be the "standard" - can be completely revealed to be empty by the simple misplacement of some letters, for it needs the subjective statement of others, and how the realization of the same can raise the fear of many when their truths are pointed out as wrong.
And I proved to be correct when they decided to "re-legitimize" their views on the vocabulary's own legitimacy, by changing the title without any respect for the discussion and my freedom of expression.
Quoting Benkei
Egoistic subjectivity at its peak... I'm again, correct!
Hah! I think that's a legitimate win for Gus.
Quoting Benkei
Here you state that reality is based on an absolute, solid existence, and that it intrinsically contains its own substance, that we can perceive and analyse, yet, we can't change it - because that would break the legitimacy of what's real, therefore, absolute -. Example of a calculation in a "full" reality:
"1 + 1 = 2"
Quoting Benkei
However, immediately afterwards you contradict yourself by claiming that the legitimacy of the absolute of reality can be questioned - in the point where "some people claim that mathematics is within nature" -. Your contradictory reasoning - even if it was not what you meant - therefore, agrees and strengthens my point that the legitimacy of something is simply created by the subjectivity of the individual, even, of reality, and that "legitimacy" is a void concept.
It is not an arduous task to understand, for those who seek to abstract knowledge. Yet, it doesn't seem to be your case...
Quoting Benkei
This will not be necessary, since it was your answers that did it for me.
In conclusion:
"1 + 1 = You choose..."
Also, I did go more directly into what legitimacy is and this is a bit of a tangent to it. I suppose my position summarised is that legitimacy is in many cases intersubjective.
Edit: Also, this doesn't make and sense. Quoting Gus Lamarch
The idea that mathematics is embedded in nature reinforces the prior example, it doesn't contradict it.
Well, excuse me, but this discussion - at least on this topic about "reality" - cannot go on since you don't even have knowledge about the theory you defend. Good day/night.
But sure, act like a denigrating asshole if you like.
@Baden These are the kind of people that you differ the powers of managing the forum.
Your comment was at least as insulting as his. But I don't delegate powers here anyway.
Quoting Benkei
Quoting Gus Lamarch
No, it was not.
Well, I disagree. It's not only vocabulary that determines level of insult imho.
I love it when someone makes himself owned by me. To everyone on the forum, "Benkei" is an excellent example of how a "negative-egoist" acts:
Quoting Benkei
Doublethink + Denial of past statement
Quoting Benkei
Specific focus in the meaning - subjectivity - of the pejorative term + verbal aggression - subjected to hyperbole - justified by the previous formula
Quoting Benkei
Outsourcing of guilt through the victim
Thank you for proving me right...