"Politics is the solution of conflict by any means other than reason"
---Michael Coppedge, PhD Yale
Intention and Architecture, by Carolyn Fahey
6 years ago
Monday, July 13, 2015
Interesting Political Quote by My Dad:
Although the writing "Nathan Coppedge: The Most Under-Rated Designer..." contained "special fair use" images associated with inventions by the author of the blog, these images have been removed to avoid new arriving copyright and trademark ambiguities related to the use of "AdSense". If further issues or ambiguities crop up, please refer the concern to the author and the offending content will be removed..
I am a philosopher, artist, inventor, and poet (in some capacity), and a member of the International Honor Society for Philosophers. My quotes have appeared in the Hartford Courant, Poemhunter.com, and other independent websites. A comment at The Economist cites my possible influence on the economic policy of India. One of my artworks once sold for $1 million off the street but I ended up returning the money. I have written many books on topics such as perpetual motion machines, philosophy systems, and the occult. I live in New Haven near Yale University.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"Politics is the solution of conflict by any means other than reason"
...
Let me think about it first...
I agree that politics is absurd. It itself has nothing to do with the individual until it has to do with the individual themselves and then the individual is forever lost withinside the political realm of others. Yet I have not thought about politics as a sphere that is outside of reason altogether...but might I argue that reason itself is not comparable to politics?
Politics itself is survival without reason...or at the very least an action without (known) parameters that my interrupt the thing (the individual themselves).
What I have to say about your dad's quote, if it is to be true, is that politics itself must not only exist outside of reason but that it must be a/an non-comparable object before reason would/could exist and as well that the same would go for reason as a/an non-comparable object that would have to exist before politics would/could exist and then I would have to give something that would bind them together as comparable to begin with. Something that unites them both...let me see then...
Perhaps reason must be seen first then, but that all reason is itself irrational (not-known until it is known) and then the second phrase of reason could itself be absolute politics, as a state wherein the individual now has parameters that are known-as-known but that they had to come from a place beforehand that was itself (not-known until it is known).
My father is a political scientist. He doesn't think politics is absurd, he just doesn't think it's easy. In a recent conversation, he said that if society were more like a Utopia, there might be less need for politics. He also admits that the American Republic is a relatively good system, but not perfect. He thinks American Republicans tend to be ignorant, and in the future the Republican party will have to reform to meet the demands of populism. For example, they will need a new, more accepting view of immigration (some Republican candidates are Latin American themselves). He thinks gun control will be a more difficult issue, because the National Rifle Association has such a strong lobby. But he thinks gun collecting is basically a dangerous mistake. His statement about irrationality underscores that there is an element of practical political survival, and it is the obvious, simplistic answers which come under public scrutiny. Being an American Democrat, my dad thinks politics is about pleasing everybody, something that he admits is, in fact, impossible. Thus, he errs on the side of education and hard work in making the difference between success and failure. He also thinks democrats are more willing to meet public demands than republicans. Perhaps providing for the needy is one way to get those who care about society to get involved with education and politics, and thus, to deal with real issues, rather than merely serving the self-interest of some kind of Nero eating grapes on Mount Olympus. My dad thinks that treating leaders well is unavoidable, and indeed, they deserve to be rewarded. But, everyone has a desire for the good life, and that kind of motivator is what politicians use under their job description. But, how to run politics is not obvious. In some sense, good intentions are not good enough. Politics is not only self-interest, but accepting unknowns, reacting to real-life limitations, and confusingly also having practical knowledge. The addressment of all of these things is basically unamenable and irrational. But, politics, of all things, must do it anyway. Necessity appears to drive the understanding of irrationality, or the failure to understand reason, which is the most fundamental compromise. Politics may not arrive through compromise, but at least a political philosophy is possible that way. That's my impression. I may be wrong. He may not even think that it can be put into words in a rational way. He may think opinions are beside the point, and it's all about analysis. I don't know. He seems to have a great respect for Socrates and John Rawls, although he never mentions these people. His philosophy appears to be a mix of Babel and the golden rule.
My own philosophy on politics, which I don't consider to be my mature philosophy, is that society is about creating value. If people rebel and reject value, that should make it easier to meet demand. People only get their needs met when they cooperate, and meeting immaterial needs is (for the moment, at least), a matter of information such as books, art, architecture, and poetry. Three of the four things can be created by the person who needs them, after witnessing some other piece of information which was not even owned by them. The other element (architecture) is created by wealth. Other elements, such as humor and drama, are a matter of talent and socialization, which sometimes emerge when the other aspects are absent. To provide for the four or more things, there is a requirement for transportation to cultural focal points, or with greater significance, permanent locatedness near a cultural center. If there is no local culture, electronic media, stories, wealth, and symbols can be used to convey potential significance. Again, if there is no interest in culture, then cheaper forms of culture can be substituted. The ambition of the citizen concerns economic aspiration, which is also the aspiration for meaning. The government is allowed to be deceptive by questioning the citizen's willingness to pursue culture. This serves the interest of need-provision, but it is also reverse-psychological, which ultimately benefits the overall society's critical ability to reform the media. Leaders emerge in specific areas, many of them largely disrelated. The result of disrelation is that cultural tools improve ('each having a center' albeit a disrelated one). When society has multiple centers, this supports a de-centralized aspect involving a wide range of cities supported by separate concepts of how to live. The competition between the multiple centers creates a trial-and-error in which the best leadership, information, and culture survives.
Naturally, since the real goal of society is self-serving, the leadership will consist of those who are leaders for its own sake, and those who are entertained will be those who are entertained for its own sake. Those doing more work will be those who are foolish enough to do work for its own sake, and since the work is not totally self-serving, the benefit will be to those who are entertained. The dialectic at this point is thus between the intelligence of being entertained and the ability of the leadership to be self-serving. If it does not reduce to brute survival, the result will be to question the entertainment of the leader, and to serve the entertainment of the common citizen. Rhetorical messages and psychology will glorify the probability of the least common denominator, while challenging leaders to meet their own needs in spite of entertainment that originates from commonality. Perhaps there is a role for the philosopher in this, if he is a creator of symbols which influence the media. Whether it is a philosopher, or a video-game player, or a musician, or (with greater difficulty because of commonality and criticism) a politician, whoever creates new values for society influences the media, and deserves more cultural centralization. If needs are not met, there will be influential people who are not culturally-centered, and the result will be more negativity in the media. When people's needs are met, politicians are more entertained, and the media is full of significant information. The correspondence between entertained politicians and meaningful information creates a golden age. Incidentally, the golden age originates with the symbols of the philosophers, something not everyone needs to know. It could as easily emerge through meaningful music, meaningful art, meaningful architecture, meaningful poetry, or even meaningful politics. But these methods come with more baggage. The philosopher sees it only as a matter of logic, which anyone can use in any which way. If the people are right in their interpretation, then nothing goes wrong. If they're wrong, then they get punished, because they become confused, because something doesn't make sense. If the politician is confused, there's something wrong with the whole society. If the society is confused, there's something wrong with politics. If the philosopher is confused, however, it's just an opportunity for new symbols, or time to admit that something is more important than philosophy. Practicality may be at the root of it, but , as my father says, it's not that easy. In my view it's about creating values, which means creating artificial meaning. Economics is thus the capacity to buy into meaning, and then create it cheaply, and improve it when excess funds are available. In my father's view even values are confused, because there is an inherent competition between people who want the same thing. But in my view, philosophy is much more cheap than some people believe. With mass production in a large society, there are multiple tiers of economization. Goods become almost infinitely cheap to buy. The common people can be provided for, so everyone else is wealthy. It no longer seems like a competitive system.
The real revolution is when something's wrong. And something is wrong when someone is deposed. And someone is deposed when they are not found significant (such as when they have a psychological weakness, or another party becomes stronger). However, what justifies psychological weakness or the strength of another party is fundamentally a failure of significance. Therefore, it is more likely that a politician is deposed than that society improves its meaning. But it is more likely that there is some meaning than that a politician is deposed. According to this logic, what is being served is the meaning of the most secure position. For if the most secure position lacks all meaning, in some way it becomes deposed, no matter the number of citizens who belong to it. They must change their views. And if they are political and meaningless, all of them are deposed. The politician is strongest when his citizens are meaningless, but the citizens tend to be more secure in their significance when they do not insist on their meaning. Therefore, the political conflict is between the great significance of the politician against every other party, and the lesser significance of the citizen against the compromise of all significance. Therefore, both citizen and politician are encompassed by meaning: the least significance is beneath the citizen, and the greatest significance is above the politician. But it is not always by being right that he succeeds, if most people are wrong, and have strength against him. And the common citizen, if he is not a member of a strong party, must be right enough for his information to succeed. So, both the least common denominator and the politician succeed by neutrality. The politician succeeds by having power, being right, providing good information, and pleasing the opposition. The citizen succeeds by being a member of the strongest party, following good information, having meaning, and remaining unquestioned. Therefore, citizenship is about disbelief in the opposition, whereas politics is about strong representation of the least compromised principle. Politics is complex, and citizenship is simple. Both have a very serious involvement with meaning.
Apparently, what Socrates got wrong (dubious prospect), is about the concept of the simple citizen. Some would argue Socrates should have been king, whereas others would argue that there is supposed to be commonality amongst citizens.
Rawls would say Socrates could be treated differently because he behaved differently, but might be treated the same if he did something wrong.
The question is about the consistency of society, and the glorification of the individual. Although no artificial concept of citizen should be adopted, it makes sense that common standards would be upheld. But does this put too much emphasis on social knowledge when specialists may possess some rare 'vibe' of the nouveau?
I, for one, would not sacrifice citizenship rights for libertine idealizations. Libertine idealizations are known to be short-sighted.
No one here is questioning politics, unless it is James R.
The question is not whether there should be government, or whether there should be citizens, but how radical should citizenship rights be, in light of Socrates? What needs can government provide for that would make a Socrates seem less de-stabilizing, more like a conformist?
To some extent, these kinds of questions are largely addressed by a Republic. A Republic is the best compromise achieved between elitism and the commonwealth. If there is a better form of government, it might be best enacted as a function of individual citizenship rights, such as citizenship 'optioning'. This would not eliminate the Republic, but modify its specific citizenship functions. And it is not surprising that a technocratic Republic would adopt some more sophisticated variations.
Whereas, I think my dad would say that the system is functioning or dysfunctioning on a completely different level than I can comprehend. There are enlightened people out there, and some of them make bad politicians. Things are much more unpredictable. Sometimes bad is good, and sometimes bad is horrible.
"My father is a political scientist. He doesn't think politics is absurd..."
I didn't mean anything negative about your father. I am sorry if I offended you or him in any way. All I was saying is that his quote denoted something other than reason that was itself present within an understanding. "Politics is the solution of conflict ((by any means other)) than reason...
You talk about entertainment as well. Here is what I have to say about that.
http://ourforgetfulness.blogspot.com/2015/07/45-entertainment.html
I envy your political writing. You seem to have a great deal to say about politics when I myself exist in such a sphere that itself sways to the melody of a certain Socratic quote. "A man that truly fights for justice must lead a private, not public, life if he is to survive even for a short time"
I hope to someday have such a vast interworking political philosophy...if not like yours than at least similar to yours in vigor.
Thank you. I'll take that as a compliment!
Post a Comment