Why Politics is Pointless


SoAMadDeathWish

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 364
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You're an anarchist?

--Brant

sorry I missed that

No. I just don't believe that a constitutional republic is the best form of government.

Monarchy is pretty good.

--Brant

see the USA

If the King is good. But what if the Lion begets an Ass?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're an anarchist?

--Brant

sorry I missed that

No. I just don't believe that a constitutional republic is the best form of government.

Monarchy is pretty good.

--Brant

see the USA

If the King is good. But what if the Lion begets an Ass?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, (not) Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Zero--opps! I see what you mean.

--Brant

we've always had a monarchy--since Washington--you know--so is it really "pretty good"?

let's try Swiss model!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're an anarchist?

--Brant

sorry I missed that

No. I just don't believe that a constitutional republic is the best form of government.

Monarchy is pretty good.

--Brant

see the USA

If the King is good. But what if the Lion begets an Ass?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, (not) Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Zero--opps! I see what you mean.

--Brant

we've always had a monarchy--since Washington--you know--so is it really "pretty good"?

let's try Swiss model!!

Yes. George Washington was, in effect, George the Fourth. But at least he was elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing the point entirely. The fundamental problems don't lie with any individual but with society as a whole.

As a whole what?

When the visions come, do the voices tell you that they are of society as a whole?

I am confused; I thought Durkheim identified "society" as the consciousness of all consciousness, the highest form of psychic life above and beyond all mere local contingencies, that alone can see all and know all from above, that which made it alone sufficient to mould the minds, etc. Did Society grant you this unique vision, like Moses and the Tablets, or is Durkheim the idiot?

That was 'still seminal' Durkheim in the religion of Social Scientology, not me making that up. He defined all that in his summary of Religious Formes, prominently, the point of his much worshipped efforts.

And now another peer comes along and informs us of a vision based on society as a whole. In this case, a defect of some kind.

Is there pain involved with lifting a leg that high? My b-i-l is a chiropractor, though not the only one. There are many to choose from, if so inclined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing the point entirely. The fundamental problems don't lie with any individual but with society as a whole.

As a whole what?

When the visions come, do the voices tell you that they are of society as a whole?

I am confused; I thought Durkheim identified "society" as the consciousness of all consciousness, the highest form of psychic life above and beyond all mere local contingencies, that alone can see all and know all from above, that which made it alone sufficient to mould the minds, etc. Did Society grant you this unique vision, like Moses and the Tablets, or is Durkheim the idiot?

That was 'still seminal' Durkheim in the religion of Social Scientology, not me making that up. He defined all that in his summary of Religious Formes, prominently, the point of his much worshipped efforts.

And now another peer comes along and informs us of a vision based on society as a whole. In this case, a defect of some kind.

Is there pain involved with lifting a leg that high? My b-i-l is a chiropractor, though not the only one. There are many to choose from, if so inclined.

I explicitly defined "society" in the OP, which you might have noticed if you were not so arrogant and dismissive of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing the point entirely. The fundamental problems don't lie with any individual but with society as a whole.

As a whole what?

When the visions come, do the voices tell you that they are of society as a whole?

I am confused; I thought Durkheim identified "society" as the consciousness of all consciousness, the highest form of psychic life above and beyond all mere local contingencies, that alone can see all and know all from above, that which made it alone sufficient to mould the minds, etc. Did Society grant you this unique vision, like Moses and the Tablets, or is Durkheim the idiot?

That was 'still seminal' Durkheim in the religion of Social Scientology, not me making that up. He defined all that in his summary of Religious Formes, prominently, the point of his much worshipped efforts.

And now another peer comes along and informs us of a vision based on society as a whole. In this case, a defect of some kind.

Is there pain involved with lifting a leg that high? My b-i-l is a chiropractor, though not the only one. There are many to choose from, if so inclined.

I explicitly defined "society" in the OP, which you might have noticed if you were not so arrogant and dismissive of others.

Each individual may be regarded as an organization. Now, we can define "society" as the collection of all organizations.

Deep. What 'the' collection, in any meaningful sense that you or I would comprehend and see all of 'it?' And now you see all that and see "the fundamental problems" and speak for 'it'. So again, did Society grant you this unique vision, like Moses and the Tablets, or is Durkheim the idiot?

Arrogant? It is not me claiming to speak for "each individual" as well as "all organizations." I'm not arrogant; I am regretful; regretful that "society" doesn't have a telethon for paternalistic megalomania (PM). We could hold it over Labor Day; "Won't you help Cass's Kids?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each individual may be regarded as an organization. Now, we can define "society" as the collection of all organizations.

Deep. What 'the' collection, in any meaningful sense that you or I would comprehend and see all of 'it?' And now you see all that and see "the fundamental problems" and speak for 'it'. So again, did Society grant you this unique vision, like Moses and the Tablets, or is Durkheim the idiot?

Arrogant? It is not me claiming to speak for "each individual" as well as "all organizations." I'm not arrogant; I am regretful; regretful that "society" doesn't have a telethon for paternalistic megalomania (PM). We could hold it over Labor Day; "Won't you help Cass's Kids?"

Either speak plainly and clearly, or don't bother at all. I don't have the time to decipher whatever it is that you're trying to say (if anything).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each individual may be regarded as an organization. Now, we can define "society" as the collection of all organizations.

Deep. What 'the' collection, in any meaningful sense that you or I would comprehend and see all of 'it?' And now you see all that and see "the fundamental problems" and speak for 'it'. So again, did Society grant you this unique vision, like Moses and the Tablets, or is Durkheim the idiot?

Arrogant? It is not me claiming to speak for "each individual" as well as "all organizations." I'm not arrogant; I am regretful; regretful that "society" doesn't have a telethon for paternalistic megalomania (PM). We could hold it over Labor Day; "Won't you help Cass's Kids?"

Either speak plainly and clearly, or don't bother at all. I don't have the time to decipher whatever it is that you're trying to say (if anything).

Always the best choice. Because politics is pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The Objectivist theory of politics mainly concerns itself with the normative aspects of politics. Being based in ethics, it has a lot to say about what society should be like, but very little about what it is actually like.

I've been doing some digging about another issue and as I skimmed down the page, something in my unconscious made me do a double-take on that first paragraph of the opening post.

This premise is flat-out wrong.

It's not even a misunderstanding. It's just plain wrong.

Anybody who has ever read For the New Intellectual, for instance, knows about Rand's division of political makers and shakers in human history: Attilas, Witch Doctors, and their opposites who use reason, Producers and "New Intellectuals." In other words, those who use force and faith against those who use reason for doing things and reason for ideas. And she did that while looking at the political systems based on them. She gave countless examples and discussed them "as they were."

Also, Rand's analysis of political systems jumps out at the reader from well over half the pages she ever published. The entire Ayn Rand Letter was devoted to nothing but that.

I think Naomi's premise is so wrong that it escaped most people. It's like something in your mind says she couldn't have meant that and you skim over it.

But she did mean it--just look at how many of her later arguments are based on her contention that Objectivism is based mostly on "what society should be like, but very little about what it is actually like."

This is a great example of checking a premise that sorely needs checking.

There's nothing to do but bury the reasoning based on this premise and start all over. (Naomi doesn't have to. I doubt she will because of vanity. I'm talking about readers who take ideas seriously.)

It's a bitch to be wrong like she is here. But it happens.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Objectivist theory of politics mainly concerns itself with the normative aspects of politics. Being based in ethics, it has a lot to say about what society should be like, but very little about what it is actually like.

I've been doing some digging about another issue and as I skimmed down the page, something in my unconscious made me do a double-take on that first paragraph of the opening post.

This premise is flat-out wrong.

It's not even a misunderstanding. It's just plain wrong.

Anybody who has ever read For the New Intellectual, for instance, knows about Rand's division of political makers and shakers in human history: Attilas, Witch Doctors, and their opposites who use reason, Producers and "New Intellectuals." In other words, those who use force and faith against those who use reason for doing things and reason for ideas. And she did that while looking at the political systems based on them. She gave countless examples and discussed them "as they were."

Also, Rand's analysis of political systems jumps out at the reader from well over half the pages she ever published. The entire Ayn Rand Letter was devoted to nothing but that.

I think Naomi's premise is so wrong that it escaped most people. It's like something in your mind says she couldn't have meant that and you skim over it.

But she did mean it--just look at how many of her later arguments are based on her contention that Objectivism is based mostly on "what society should be like, but very little about what it is actually like."

This is a great example of checking a premise that sorely needs checking.

There's nothing to do but bury the reasoning based on this premise and start all over. (Naomi doesn't have to. I doubt she will because of vanity. I'm talking about readers who take ideas seriously.)

It's a bitch to be wrong like she is here. But it happens.

Michael

In For the New Intellectual Rand offers a criticism of history. She does not explain why societies are the way they are, she simply describes them, accepts them as a given, and then criticizes them on the basis of Objectivist ethics.

While it is definitely true that Rand had an implicit positive theory of politics, she never made it explicit and did not ever defend her views on the subject in a formal manner. Probably because she thought that that was for political scientists, sociologists, and economists to explain, not philosophers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In For the New Intellectual Rand offers a criticism of history. She does not explain why societies are the way they are, she simply describes them, accepts them as a given, and then criticizes them on the basis of Objectivist ethics.

Wrong again, but you have to actually read the stuff to get it right.

It's breathtaking to me how I let this kind of statement go unchallenged for so long.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now