At least, that’s according to 18th-century historian Alexander Tytler.
He claimed democracies always follow a predictable pattern which ends in servitude…🧵
Tytler was a Scottish judge, writer, and Professor of Universal History as well as Greek and Roman Antiquities at the University of Edinburgh.
After studying dozens of civilizations, he noticed some intriguing patterns…
He believed that democracies naturally evolved from initial virtue to eventual corruption and decline.
In ancient Greece, for example, he argued that "the patriotic spirit and love of ingenious freedom...became gradually corrupted as the nation advanced in power and splendor."
A pure democracy was a “chimera” or a “utopian theory”—it never existed, and never could exist because a democracy relied on the virtue of its citizens to function properly.
Basically, without a perfect citizenry a democracy devolves into a worse form of government.
Republics also had this problem, and people that disillusioned themselves into envisioning a well-functioning republic were imagining “a republic not of men, but of angels."
All governments, according to Tytler, actually functioned as either monarchies or oligarchies, regardless of how their leaders were elected.
Once a leader is in place, the people must obey. Democracies and republics are no different.
Voters in democracies were always influenced by the “basest corruption and bribery,” but once leaders were in power, these leaders no longer acted in the interest of the people.
The people had to submit to their rule “as if they were under the rule of a monarch"
Tytler also noticed some striking similarities about how democracies end.
Democracies always collapse in the same way—poor monetary policy.
Tytler writes:
“the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship”
From democracy to dictatorship seems like a big leap, but Tytler laid out the steps that these civilizations always follow—this is the “Tytler Cycle,” and it lasts about 200 years.
Civilizations are broken into a series of stages, with each inevitably leading to the next stage.
I should note that the "Tytler Cycle" has not been definitely attributed to Tytler. An op-ed in 1951 attributed it to him, though any references before that are either lost or non-existent.
Nonetheless, the cycle is in line with much of Tytler's thinking, so we'll review it here
The stages are as follows:
“From bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; courage to liberty; liberty to abundance; abundance to selfishness; selfishness to complacency; complacency to apathy; apathy to dependence; dependence back into bondage”
Initially, cultures start out in bondage to superior ones—think America’s colonial past or Israel’s enslavement to Egypt.
But after a courageous revolution, liberty is achieved.
And through liberty great abundance is attained—a civilization grows wealthy and powerful.
Selfishness and complacency are lurking around the corner, though. This is where the decline starts.
Tytler claims that it is a nation's wealth that weakens its people:
"It is a law of nature to which no experience has ever furnished an exception, that the rising grandeur and opulence of a nation must be balanced by the decline of its heroic virtues"
The lack of virtue within a nation leads to its atomization. Apathy toward one’s fellow man—and the system as a whole—is commonplace. Then, tyrants are allowed to seize control.
Which ultimately brings a nation full-circle back to the bondage stage.
Tyter’s Cycle points toward the inevitability of democracies to devolve into tyrannies, an observation other thinkers like Aristotle pointed out too.
But was Tytler’s theory correct? Is democracy doomed to fail after only a couple hundred years?
Where are we now in the cycle?
If you enjoyed this thread and would like to join the mission of promoting western tradition, kindly repost the first post (linked below) and consider following: @thinkingwest
A thread on important scientific discoveries made by priests🧵
5) Atomic Theory (Boscovich Model)
Roger Boscovich, a Croatian physicist, astronomer, and mathematician, was a Catholic priest in the Jesuit order. His model of the atom, the “Boscovich Model,” was a forerunner to modern atomic theory.
His theory was an attempt to find a middle way between Newton’s theory of gravity and Gottfried Leibniz's metaphysical theory of monad-points (points of original substance).
In addition to physics, Boscovich made significant astronomical observations; in particular the moon.
The Ancient Greeks basically invented Western philosophy. 2500 years on and we’re still studying their ideas.
Here are 10 Greek philosophers you need to know🧵
1. Thales, 7th cent. BC
Thales was part of a new generation of thinkers trying to uncover how the cosmos were constructed without relying on the gods as an explanation. An early Monist, he considered a single element to be the main building block of the cosmos.
2. Anaximander, 610 BC
A student of Thales, Anaximander saw the cosmos as ruled by laws, similar to human societies. Any action that disturbed the divine law would fail. He also explored astronomy, tracking the movements of the heavenly bodies, and developed a map of the cosmos.
Rome was the preeminent engineering civilization. Its roads, bridges, and aqueducts ensured an unmatched quality of life for its citizens.
Yet its greatest engineering feat wasn’t about providing a comfortable life—the Colosseum was built for a dramatic death🧵
The Colosseum became famous for its gladiatorial contests, executions, reenactments of famous battles, and even mock sea fights.
It was a theater designed with two things in mind: death and spectacle.
Constructed between 72-80 AD under Vespasian, the Colosseum was the largest amphitheater in the Roman world. Holding a capacity of 65000 spectators, the building project required extraordinary human ingenuity.
Of course, such a massive undertaking required a lot of money…
All empires repeat the same cycle, says 20th-century historian John Glubb.
He observed that for the past 3000 years every civilization has followed the same 6 stages before decline—what are they?🧵
Sir John Bagot Glubb was a British soldier and author who served as the commanding general for Transjordan's Arab Legion from 1939 to 1956.
In his later years he wrote about geopolitics and world history, and penned a succinct description of how civilizations rise and fall…
Glubb’s 1978 work, “The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival,” is an idea-dense essay that argues all great empires follow an eerily similar pattern.
From observing 11 distinct cultures, Glubb draws some intriguing conclusions that have implications for modern society.
Though Christ often seemed to hint at pacifism, theologians wrestled with this question for centuries.
The doctrine they developed, Just War Theory, explains when it’s ok to take up arms🧵(thread)
First off, what is just war theory?
A philosophy of military ethics, just war theory aims to establish if a war is morally justifiable. For a war to be considered just, a set of criteria must be met.
There are two main categories of just war theory:
1) just cause - a good reason to engage in a conflict in the first place 2) justice in war - ethics to guide how one conducts war (think Geneva codes)
It can get pretty complicated, but these are the basics.
They represent what must be confronted in order to achieve anything worthwhile.
If you want to be great, you need to go where the dragons are...🧵(thread)
Dragon depictions are remarkably consistent across cultures. They are usually a blend of reptilian, feline, and avian features.
In the West, they are often winged, horned, and fire-breathing beasts; in the East, four-legged, serpentine creatures.
One theory about why dragons are so prevalent is that they are an amalgamation of what early man feared most: huge birds of prey, poisonous scaled serpents, and ferocious beasts with knife-like teeth.
Dragons were a compact way of representing “things that can kill you.”