In "The Human Condition", Hannah Arendt defends the Athenian notion of liberty: that people are free by participating of the public political debate, when people free from their vital necessities and who have equal amounts of power can debate at the Agora, where each one of them would distinguish themselves there, by their speech. That who is free would be that who can be political. Why did she defend this model of liberty when it is impossible to have such a model in today's age, given that today's society is way bigger than Athens'? Phillip Pettit's idea of liberty as non-domination in his republicanist model, where you have a deliberative and representative assembly based on rational principles that listens to the majority and various minorities of a society seems a better model, due to the representative quality of it. Still, the same problem arises: the mainstream society already is divided in several different groups (multiple political parties, at least outside the US), and the number of minorities can range from small to large depending on the society, but surely larger in more cosmopolitan ones. How can an assembly support this many people at the same time?Picture unrelated
>>18587617It can't, read Centinel I
>>18587617Hey isn't this that rape game?
