From the Greek: “A/An” = “not” + “Archon” =King/ruler”

Throughout Athenian history, the form and function of an “archon” changed in various ways, but all of the meanings and applications of the term shared three things in common:

• Reverence of the position held, regardless of the actions of the individual holding the position
• Authority to dictate the actions of others
• A support structure or institution designed to grant that authority
  

Because of the close relationship between mythology and political life in ancient cultures, the term archon was used to both describe human actors and intermediary deities/angels/spirits. Excepting instances wherein poetic license was used heavily, the term clearly applied to one or the other type of being; much like our use of the term “love” being applied to loving pie and loving your wife (with the only grey area being “American Pie”). Because of this distinction, I am comfortable in focusing primarily on the word as applies to human archons as apposed to divine archons.

However, it is interesting to note the mythological use of the term, and it does inform the use of the term as applies to humans. In many ancient religions, “archon” was the word applied to spiritual beings responsible for acts of widespread destruction. They typically targeted non-believers. The gnostics, especially, interpreted archons to be any being which acted in such a manner so as to prevent human beings from pursuing individuality, excellence, eudaimonia, or from taking responsibility, but this use was fairly widespread when translating other religious texts into Greek as well.

So, in the interest of crafting a concise, simple, and categorical etymology of the Greek word “archon”, I assert the definition of “archon”is as follows:
“An individual who claims the authority to coercively dictate the behavior of other individuals, especially in cases which cause destruction or prevent other individuals from pursuing individuality, acquiring excellence or eudaemonia, or taking responsibility.”
Of course, a Philosophy is always more complex than an etymological definition of its moniker. I like to make the arbitrary claim that the best philosophies closely match their moniker and I believe anarchy to be an example of this claim. Being an ontologically negative term, “no-archon” can be taken at face value to be a form of either rejecting a claim or to be an enumeration of negative claims. In this case, it is both.

Firstly, it is the rejection of the claim that one has the right or ability to be an archon. Where one may claim to be a monarch, oligarch, tetrarch, etc. they may as well be claiming to be the Messiah or Darth Vader. The same applies to terms which are not explicitly descended from the term “archon”; a republican, democrat, theocrat, etc. is an equally fictitious position to be held. I will address this rejection of belief in archons later.

Secondly, anarchy as a philosophy is an enumeration of negative claims, many of which are ontological in nature. Many times, the dramatic claim of an individual anarchist is, “No gods, No masters”. This claim, while effective and concise is overly simplistic and vague. I contend that the attitude of the motto is accurate, being derived loosely from the etymology of the name and philosophy. A less dramatic but more accurate version would be “no slaves, no masters” or “Man holds no authority over man.” The reasons I wish to avoid “no gods, no masters” is probably fairly apparent; I believe that belief in certain deities is compatible with the tenets of anarchy (that is a matter for later blog posts), and the term “master” has multiple meanings and applications, many of which are not related to slavery; by putting “slaves” alongside “masters”, it demonstrates the particular application of the term “master” which one ought to assume.

So, what does anarchy mean as a philosophy? Clearly, the first negative ontological claim would be that no man has the right to coerce others to behave in a particular fashion and any institution designed for the sake of coercion or predicated upon such actions ought to be done away with. Coercion is a term with many feelings and intuitions surrounding it; many of which, if inaccurate, touch on key elements of it. However, to an analytic such as myself, a clear definition or at least description of the term is required in order to flesh out a legitimate philosophical stance. In the case of coercion, I imagine the definition is something akin to “an action or threat of action which intentionally removes one's means of achieving flourishing with the intent to compel a particular action.” For example, saying “Do X or I will kill you,” is clearly coercion. A less obvious example would be saying, “Don't do X (especially where X is a component necessary or beneficial to one's flourishing) or you will be put in a cage and I will steal your property.” When phrased this way, it is obviously coercion... but it can be less obvious when each piece of that statement is multiplied a thousandfold and spread between millions of pages of legal code. The fallout of such forms of coercion is readily apparent to anyone who looks at certain parts of the public record (or my facebook page).

Equally damaging to human flourishing are the issues of murder and theft. These are both closely related to coercion, but the full relationship between the three is so complex and rich that I do not have the time and space to fully address it in this post, but I will explicitly address it later. For now, I will have to content myself and any would-be readers with a brief examination of the issue as pertains to the definition of anarchy. The root desire which leads to the need to be free from coercion cannot be fulfilled if one is subject to the threat of murder, especially when institutionalized, for the same reasons that one must be free from coercion. Also, by definition, murder is unjustified and an immediate stop on one's ability to flourish by any defensible standard.

Theft is often the most veiled and insidious of the three issues at hand. Where murder is fairly cut and dried as far as identification is concerned and coercion is infrequently undetectable, theft is more difficult to define and can often go unnoticed indefinitely. However, if one is exposed to institutionalized theft, even indirect and unnoticed theft, they are subject to an institutionalized inhibitor of their freedom and flourishing.

So, then, anarchy is ultimately the rejection of any institution predicated on or designed for the sake of coercion, theft, or murder. There is a multitude of reasons why one would come to embrace such a philosophy and worldview, some of which I will address in later posts. One thing is certain, though: no one who embraces anarchy as defined above does so out of naivete or a desire to perpetuate the same crimes which such a philosophy decries. Anarchy is not a guarantee that people will not commit the crimes of coercion, theft, and murder; the idea that such a thing is possible is utopic and therefore absurd. However, any worldview that does not fundamentally incorporate the anarchist position is a guarantee that people and institutions will commit these crimes. Those that wish to commit these crimes have far easier and safer means by which to accomplish their goals than anarchy. For example, they can become politicians, cops, soldiers, democrats, or middle and upper management at a corporation, thereby granting themselves a secure position which allows them to commit the very crimes they wish to pursue while remaining above social reproach, as opposed to taking on the risk associated with the moniker of freedom from such crimes. That is not to say that all people who choose such careers do so out of the desire to commit crimes with impunity, but these positions certainly encourage such activities and some are predicated directly on these crimes. Before I ramble too far beyond the topic at hand, I should save such ideas for later posts.


TL;DR: In conclusion, I propose the starting place for formulating a categorical definition of anarchy would be “The rejection of any institution predicated on coercion, theft, or murder”. This definition is subject to critique and revision, but so far has served me well.

Feel free to comment below or email me at MadPhilosopher@GMX.com if you desire to be a part of this conversation.

A very intelligent and good friend of mine recently mailed me a card (an important and lost art) containing a newspaper article (and equally important and lost art, journalism). The headline read “The Pope and the Precipice”, by Ross Douthat. Full disclosure: my friend is a devout protestant philosopher and I am a devout Catholic philosopher wannabe. I felt this was a good opportunity to show my appreciation for his card and address an issue in the Church at the same time.

Firstly, it was an excellent reminder as to why I no longer read the paper; anymore, it's all bad news written by bad people. Secondly, though, it reminded me of a phenomenon I encounter at least once a month (usually in the church I work at). Someone (Catholic or not, this is an equal-opportunity encounter) will express that they firmly believe that Pope Francis is some sort of reformer, cutting through 2000 years of Tradition and “modernizing” or “liberalizing” the Church. Sometimes, they are happy about this belief and sometimes they aren't so happy.

The source of this belief is not hard to determine. Since the first moments the white smoke issued from the Sistine Chapel, the media in America have been preaching the good news of the new Pope, the first American Pope, the first Jesuit Pope, the first Pope to fall into a number of categories... clearly, this will be the first Pope to allow gay, married women priests and sell the Vatican in order to be the first Pope to carry out Christs message of charity, and oh-my-god isn't he so cool and rebellious, it's no wonder these enlightened liberal millenials in America love him. Of course, this depiction sounds like facetious mockery... but it is only barely an exaggeration. I hear someone parrot these talking points from the Huffington Post at least once a month.

The amusing part of this hubhub is that this is merely the latest sequel in one of the media's most boring franchises. I have heard and read firsthand accounts of life before, during, and after the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Despite what so many people seem to think, Vatican II was actually a very minor event, both in the Church and its relationship to the world. Whereas previous Ecumenical Councils resulted in such incredible things as canonizing the Scriptures, building the fundamental doctrines of the Faith, and structurally overhauling the magisterium of the Church, Vatican II resulted in a mere decision to allow adoption of the vernacular, integrating modern technologies into mundane church features such as architecture, and better defining and encouraging lay involvement in Church faculties.

Western society, composed primarily of under-educated, lukewarm Christians and secularists, however, were ecstatic with the results of Vatican II. The media produced a narrative throughout this event that was comically divergent from what actually occurred. Even a very brief comparison of of Lumen Gentium and the newspaper clippings reveal a tale of two Councils. However, because Catholics in the western world received their news and education from the mainstream media, they seemed to think that Vatican II was an endorsement of tambourine-waving belly-dancers wielding snakes and doing bodyshots with the Blood of Christ (way to go, Germany). Even priests and bishops found themselves falling for the state fairy tales rather than simply reading a book issued by the Vatican.

Today is no different. As Francis uttered his first papal words, he could barely be heard over the media ecstatically shouting, “Women Priests! Gay Marriage! Married Priests! Pedophile Witch Hunt!” This, of course, made the more Catholic members of the church very skeptical towards the Pope. I, with my apocalyptic personality, was one of these people. Making a conscious effort to maintain stoic silence and apatheia; I managed to have no comment on Francis until he began speaking, writing, and generally pope-ing. Listening to what he says, reading what he writes, and hearing from friends in the Vatican, I quickly realized that Francis truly is a Pope, like any other.

He preaches the message of Christ, in the same words and the same philosophy as Benedict XVI and John Paul the Great before him. Evangelii Gaudium reads similarly to “Love and Responsibility”, Deus Caritas Est, and “Humanae Vitae” (not from Benedict or JPII, but still important) and, rather than undermining or overthrowing them, simply affirms what they have already stated. There exists two popes today as there exist two Vatican IIs: there is the liberal Jesus who is trying to reform a stale old Church, protestant-style, to change every area of doctrine to match the clearly superior opinions of millenials in the western world, and there is a Catholic pope who preaches love, responsibility, and the infallible and unchanging doctrines of the Church.

This particular article finally inspired me to write about this phenomenon for one particular reason (besides giving my friend a shout-out); There was a clever and vague attempt hidden in the article to undermine the doctrine of infallibility. The article frames infallibility in the context of politics and personal interests as opposed to the realm of philosophy and faith. There does exist certain philosophical issues concerning infallibility, but politics is not one of them. The most central of these issues is the one alluded to in the article and has ties to the philosophy of science. What does infallibility mean and how can one prove it?

Taking the philosophical route, I will attempt to categorically define infallibility. Infallibility is a state of epistemic affairs in which one's knowledge claims necessarily comport to reality. In the case of the doctrine of infallibility, this state of affairs is limited to the pope's definitions of doctrine with regards to faith or ethics to be applied universally. As for what infallibility looks like, we are presented a certain epistemic issue alluded to in the article. Infallibility, as indicated in the First Vatican Council (1869-1870), would be fairly easy to identify... at least, to a believer. Every utterance of the pope that is supposed to be infallible, if logically consistent with all other infallible claims and not clearly a violation of natural law would be identifiable as infallible. Of course, until such a time that a supposedly infallible claim violates existing infallible claims, this instance of infallibility would be indistinguishable from a tradition of very, very careful and academic politicking. In philosophy, it is often referred to as the inductive problem of grue and bleen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_riddle_of_induction). As a popperian, I claim we can assume that the doctrine of infallibility obtains and blue is blue until such a time that the claim is falsified... so long as we are aware of and open to the possibility that it is simply careful politicking and blue is actually bleen.

How do these two ideas come together and how can I tie this to my anarchist principles? Media pope vs. the Pope's words and actions and the doctrine of infallibility meets anarchy. This is my chance to give a peek behind the curtain of my private life and show that I am not just some naive cradle Catholic that imagines the Church to be some inviolate mother who never misbehaves; I readily admit to a great many faults of the people withing the magisterium. The way the western world responded to Vatican II and Pope Francis and outright denies the the teachings contained in Church documents like “Humanae Vitae” is almost entirely the fault of bishops and priests (and to a lesser degree the lay ministers) in the church. The Church has abdicated a great many of it's duties and functions to the state, one of which is exemplified here; Catholics, “good” and “bad”, learn what it means to be Catholic and what the Church teaches from the state and media instead of from the pulpit and parish. I have a lot to say about separation of church and state and how an anarchist could be Catholic (hint: one is a prerequisite for the other), but as pertains to the tale of two popes, this is all I have time for today.




TL;DR: If you think Pope Francis is any different from our last two popes, you need to read what they say, write, and do, instead of listening to MSNBC and Fox (just turn that shit off). Either the doctrine of infallibility obtains or we have a 2000 year old tradition of a most impressive degree of diligence. The confusion concerning the Church and “politics” within the Church is the Church's fault, as it has allowed its flock to become statists at the expense of being Catholic. And lastly, you ought to listen to this podcast on the Synod on the Family: http://catholicstuffpodcast.com/?p=906