The chapter explores the connection between the emergence of Nature as an independent entity and the rise of modern democracy. It argues that the separation of Nature from God and Culture shaped democratic practices. Nature became a political resource in democratic society, providing concepts like “necessity” and “constraint.” Modern scholarly discourses often invoke Nature as a limit and source of legitimation for political claims. It further examines how the imaginary of Nature as an autonomous entity influenced the rise of modern democracy. It argues that the separation of Nature from God and Culture created space for human agency and democratic practices. It also discusses how Nature became a source of authority, necessity, and constraint in modern political discourses. Lastly, the chapter compares Western cosmology with non-Western ones and analyzes the impact of cosmological shifts on politics.

This chapter inquires the significance of objectivity within the democratic epistemological framework, tracing its origins to the dual naturalistic cosmology where Nature is perceived as autonomous and humans as impartial observers. Central to objectivity and “disinterestedness” is the belief that the external world remains impervious to subjective influence. This idea is exemplified in the association of objectivity with technological advancements and human-made machinery. Ezrahi contends that despite being a human creation, science has attained autonomous status as a source of truths, reintegrating Nature into Culture and emphasizing the importance of humility, given that science itself adheres to natural laws. He also underscores the complex position of humanity within the Nature/Culture dichotomy, where the human body is part of Nature, while human creations belong to Culture. Nature embodies necessity and unchangeable laws, constraining human freedom, whereas Culture represents voluntarism, freedom, human interiority, and social behavior. The chapter illustrates how scientists and politicians leverage their scientific authority to project objectivity and disinterest, legitimizing government policies while suppressing dissent and effectively depoliticizing decisions. The text emphasizes that the concept of external Nature linked to objectivity is a product of Western cosmology and not universally applicable.

The Concluding Reflections explore democracy’s potential to overcome its contradictions and challenges. The rise of populism, seen as democratic autoimmunity, is examined, where leaders manipulate public sentiment, often through xenophobia and anti-elitism, undermining democratic principles. The tyranny of an exclusory majority is also cautioned against. The potential for democracy’s reimagining in the face of contemporary challenges such as cybernetic culture, migration, and globalization is considered. Ezrahi reflects on the role of creative individuals and cultural forces in shaping political imaginaries. The transformation of the internet and major platforms like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter from democratizing communication to powerful monopolies is analyzed, as well as the misuse of Big Data, illustrated by the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and the unintended consequences of digital platforms, including the spread of misinformation. The discussion concludes with a reflection on the broader deterioration of democratic epistemology. Ezrahi argues for a shift from a positivistic, naturalistic ontology to an ethical-normative anchorage, proposing to replace the current ontological defense of democracy with a commitment to preserving freedom based on novel axioms, framing politics as alternative productive fictions. Ezrahi proposes to reimagine a democratic epistemology which is anchored in ethics and collective commitment.

The chapter explores the contemporary erosion of trust in human vision and its profound implications for the epistemological foundations of modern democracy. Ezrahi identifies the current skepticism surrounding the reliability of visual perceptions, asserting that this skepticism undermines the essential fictions and rituals sustaining claims of visibility and transparency in democratic systems. The notion of “visual commonsense” is introduced, referring to the façade concealing the complexities of vision as a source of knowledge and information about the physical and social worlds. He also asserts the active role of the human eye, brain, and sociocultural context in shaping perceptions. Ezrahi contrasts Einstein's dismissal of commonsense with the significance of commonsense facts in democratic political discourse. The argument is that there is a significant gap between the current epistemic condition and that of liberal democracies’ heyday. Ezrahi argues that technological innovations, instead of standardized reality, deepen cultural, religious, ideological, and gender diversities in visual perspectives. In conclusion, the chapter suggests that, in the midst of visual disarray, the human eye possesses the power to both disorient and guide, reflecting the complex interplay between perception, imagination, and the changing landscape of modern democracy.

This chapter explores the concept of democratic political causality in different political regimes. It distinguishes between top-down hierarchical causality in religious, traditional, and authoritarian regimes and the bottom-up and horizontal causality found in democracies. Democracy rejects the vertical hierarchical causality since it attributes political actions to human agency rather than transcendental or superhuman forces. Real-world examples, such as the messianic movement in Israel, highlight the tensions when divine attributions clash with democratic ideals. The chapter thoroughly examines the influence of Thomas Hobbes and his social contract theory on modern political thought, particularly his emphasis on bottom-up causality in the formation of the state. Furthermore, the chapter examines the challenges faced by democratic causality, including issues of trust in power holders, understanding others’ motives, and the emergence of conspiracy theories. It discusses self-regulation as an alternative to voluntary political interaction and the tension between individualism and collective action in democratic governance. Finally, the chapter highlights that despite the obstacles and complexities, democratic causality remains a fundamental measure of legitimate political action and authority. It introduces the concept of the “public fact” as a critical element in the epistemological framework of modern democracy.

The chapter examines the role of causality in politics, demonstrating how democratic politics shifted from a top-down causality, from divinity to monarchy, to a bottom-up causality, from the public to its representatives. This shift is evident in the establishment of periodic elections and democratic institutions, which are designed to legitimize causality derived from human agency. Concurrently, horizontal causality emerged through entities like political parties, civil society, and social media. However, this democratic causality has been weakening over recent decades due to several factors: the diminished capacity of political institutions to represent political causality, the illusion of a direct link between politicians and the public, particularly through mass media and social networks, and the erosion of the concept of “the public” as a democratic entity. In recent years, the public has experienced political fragmentation and lacks unifying forces like ideologies, parties, and labor unions. Another contributing factor to the weakening of causality is the declining faith in science and expertise, which are now associated with elitism. This has led to a weakening of quasi-scientific causality in politics and a rise of the “charisma of ignorance.”

The chapter explores how the legal system, akin to science and economics, serves as a tool for depoliticizing human decisions. It argues that the transformation of political processes into seemingly apolitical directives is a strategic move to prevent the illegitimate use of power and violence. The status of law as autonomous and above politics is examined, tracing its historical roots to the naturalization of law and forming the basis for legitimate legal decisions. The chapter also considers Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent politics and Walter Benjamin’s perspective on violence within the law. The instrumental convenience of separating law and politics is examined, emphasizing the role of law in constraining politics and power. As Judith Shklar observes, the threefold approach to law in Western tradition – apolitical law, depoliticized law following parliamentary processes, and positive law imposed by hegemonic power – reflects different bases of objectification. The power of natural law, both enhancing and restricting individual freedom, is explored in the context of its capacity to disassociate from politics. The chapter concludes by discussing the broader implications of objectification in fields such as science, technology, and economics, emphasizing the impact on public trust and the diminishing space for ethical and political considerations in contemporary democracy.

The chapter explores the concept of the individual as a democratic citizen who voluntarily exercises rights and authority, and can both legitimize and delegitimize the government. It suggests that Western secular cosmological dualism, which separates the world from man, has led to the development of the modern individual, capable of introspection, autonomy, and agency. This dualism creates a divide between the physical human body and the autonomous human mind and spirit. It has facilitated the simultaneous growth of natural sciences and humanities. The chapter examines how this secular imaginary, based on the separation of Nature and man since the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, is reflected in the philosophical discourses of influential thinkers like Hobbes, Descartes, Locke, Rousseau, Hume, and Kant. They explored the potential of this separation to evolve human agency in politics and to derive universal rights from Nature to safeguard individual freedom in society and politics. This dual cosmology also led to the development of social sciences and varying views on voluntarism and natural determinism, as seen in Freud’s psychoanalytic theory. Finally, it shows how Nature has become a cultural resource through art.

In this chapter, Ezrahi analyzes the influence of philosophers like Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Vico, and Rousseau, as well as the Federalists, on the shift from a medieval monistic cosmology based on God to a modern dualistic cosmology, emphasizing dynamic Nature and human agency. These thinkers played a pivotal role in shaping a political order and obedience independent of divine authority, turning to Nature as the source of laws and a check on human actions. This transformation led to the emergence of new concepts, such as the state, freedom, and equality, despite their being imaginative. Hobbes pioneered the use of metaphors and empirical sciences in civic affairs. Spinoza adopted a detached scientific perspective, viewing human emotions and drives as natural phenomena. Locke presented empiricism and probability to inform political decisions through an understanding of human judgment. Vico proclaimed that political systems are based on collective political imagination, facilitating the construction of institutions and political processes rooted in commonsense. Rousseau further developed the dichotomy of Nature/Culture, highlighting its impact on politics, education, and ethics. The American Revolution marked the merging of objective Nature and human agency, giving rise to the idea of employing science to manipulate Nature.

The chapter critically examines the intersection of economics and politics, particularly in the context of behavioral economics challenging traditional economic models. Ezrahi highlights Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman’s reception by economists, revealing their discomfort with the implications of irrationality and cognitive biases in economic decision-making. The emergence of behavioral economics threatens the perceived objectivity of economists and their claims to enhance rationality in public affairs. The chapter explores how economists striving for professional objectivity, akin to natural sciences, inadvertently align with political and cultural biases. It contends that economics' influence on politics and policy arises from portraying the market as a natural, objective force detached from political interests. The chapter traces the historical evolution of economics, highlighting its separation from explicit moral and political considerations, leading to a focus on abstract models. It contends that economics wields significant influence, acting as both a check on over politicized governance and a veil concealing political choices. The chapter concludes by advocating for a return to political economics, acknowledging and addressing the political dimensions inherent in economic decisions.

This chapter examines the intricate relationship between visibility, epistemology, and political power in modern democracies. Based on Ezrahi’s previous research on the development of modern democratic visual culture and the impact of the scientific revolution on reshaping the role of human perception in knowledge acquisition, the chapter underscores the role of visibility in shaping democratic epistemology. It emphasizes how visibility, in conjunction with individualism, democratic causality, and the concept of public facts, form the epistemological foundations of democracy. Visibility plays a key role in objectifying politics, which allows citizens to be informed, make judgments about their leaders, and participate in the political process. The chapter highlights the importance of visible public facts as a form of political currency for government criticism and accountability. The chapter acknowledges that the common belief in the accuracy of visible perception, equating observables with reality, has given democratic citizens unwarranted confidence in navigating the political landscape. Paradoxically, these unfounded beliefs align with democratic norms and principles. The chapter suggests that the erosion of these illusions has contributed to the erosion of democratic values.

This chapter explores the relationship between facts, politics, and our understanding of reality. It distinguishes scientific facts, based on theories, from political facts, which rely on commonsense. The chapter emphasizes the need for political facts to be made public to gain legitimacy. Scientific facts have had a significant impact on shaping political and social facts, particularly considering the division between Nature/Culture. The perception of Nature as a solid object and as a system of reliable, repetitious regularities became an ideal for the political and moral universe, as can be seen in Kant’s use of the nature analogy to reinforce his categorical imperative. Public facts act as both the currency and the counters of democratic citizens, enabling power decentralization and resistance against its abuses. The chapter also refers to how Thomas Kuhn’s Theory of Scientific Revolutions has challenged the autonomy of Nature and science, affecting the status of facts in natural and social sciences as well as in politics. The chapter concludes by noting that trust in objective facts as the foundation of modern commonsense has been weakened, highlighting the evolving nature of facts and their significance in contemporary democratic societies.

The chapter explores the dualistic cosmology of Nature/Culture and its influence on individual and collective behavior narratives. It presents various instances of disputes and debates that underscore the indistinct boundaries between Nature/Culture and between determinism and choice. These include the IQ controversy, genetic engineering, human perfectibility, global warming, the Pygmy tribe categorization debate, and the self-definition of groups in organic/biological versus associative/cultural terms. These discussions highlight the complexities in delineating Nature/Culture boundaries. Ezrahi suggests that the inherent ambiguity in demarcating Nature from Culture has, from a liberal open-ended worldview, engendered undecidability between such competing frames. This ambiguity has opened up possibilities to leverage the authority of Nature to either strengthen or weaken that of Culture and politics and vice versa. It has also enabled the blending of both in varying degrees in fields like technology, medicine, and arts. The chapter further explores the ongoing debate on whether the Holocene epoch of an independent Nature is giving way to the Anthropocene era characterized by significant human impact on Nature’s form. Ezrahi proposes a hybrid perspective of Nature as both separate from humans and humanized, questioning the sustainability of modern democracy’s epistemological constitution premised on an autonomous Nature.