[It's not so much their hatred] (though that's a big part of it) as their authoritarianism. I'm reminded of this passage from the opening of Plato's Republic, where Socrates is on his way home from the festivities:
...Polemarches said, Socrates, you appear to have turned your faces townward and to be going to leave us.
Not a bad guess, said I.
But you see how many we are? He said.
Surely.
You must either then prove yourselves the better men or stay here.
Why, is there not left, said I, the alternative of our persuading you that you ought to let us go?
But could you persuade us, said he, if we refused to listen?
Plato here presents the alternative of persuasion or violence, yet those accosting Socrates will hear nothing of it. Socrates is told that he must either best them in a fight or be forced to come with them. They will not listen to any reasons he might give for departing. Here, in a nutshell, is the difference between philosophy and authority. Philosophy (and I use the term very broadly here) is the way of peace, resolving disputes through a reasoned engagement with facts, whereas authority baldly asserts its positions as unconditional truths, basic these positions either on the unconditional authority of a sacred text, the unconditional authority of a leader, or the unconditional superiority of a particular gender, nationality, ethnicity, etc. Democracy is founded on the philosophical path in that it is founded on preserving the possibility of civil discourse where everyone participates to find the truth, the most just way of living, or the most ethical ways of living. It is premised on the belief that reasoned discourse and persuasion are possible.
The problem with authoritarian discourses is that they must inevitably resort to violence because they are not grounded in any sort of reasoned demonstration, but rather blind obedience to the authority in question. If you and I disagree about whether or not eggs get hard when boiled, we can throw an egg in boiling water and see for ourselves. We don't need to pull out knives to resolve the dispute. By contrast, if you and I disagree over a literalist interpretation of the Bible there's ultimately no way we can resolve the dispute through a use of reason or observation. You are firmly committed to the literal meaning of the word without being able to provide any ground for that belief, while I am committed to the position that the word is allegorical, historical, and a result of its sociological conditions rather than a record of events that actually took place. You are convinced you have The Truth, without being able to provide a ground for that truth beyond your fervent conviction. Because you are convinced you have The Truth you also believe that it is your duty to act on that Truth and bend everyone else to it.
The only outcome of this can be violence. Unable to provide a ground that another person might share for your fervent commitment to the authority of a particular sacred text, the sacredness of a particular leader, the superiority of a particular gender, nation, or ethnicity, you are necessarily pushed towards bullying and threats to cow those who do not share your conviction. How could it be otherwise in the absence of being able to provide reasons? Democracy is at its core anti-authoritarian because it gives us the duty to collectively debate and seek reasons in the public space. All of this is corroded if the public space is contaminated by belief based on authority. Democracy is committed to this way because it saw, during the Enlightenment period, how Europe was torn to shreds over dogmatic religious differences between the Protestants, Calvinists, and Catholics, where bloody wars, inquisitions, and the burning of men and women for witchcraft ruled the land. It also saw the great hope of scientific inquiry, the manner in which it was able to improve life through medicine and technology, while also freeing us from superstition through understanding the true causes of unnatural events such as the movement of comets that would have previously struck terror in the heart of an ignorant populace. It saw that this process of scientific inquiry was philosophical and democratic at its core, gregarious in nature, the work of collectives of thinkers working together to understand the world and conducting themselves in a way where reason and observation decided issues (i.e., a willingness to relinquish a position or claim with respect to natural phenomena when the evidence conflicts with it). It is absolutely vital that we preserve this tradition and push back against the onslaught of irrationalist authoritarianism.
Something to ponder.
Sean
