schmeichel01
Goldmember
‘Man is by nature a political animal’ (Aristotle). Discuss...
-
This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:
1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.
2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.
3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.
Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.
Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.
Thank you!
Feeling Political? Discussion..... Part 2
- Thread starter schmeichel01
- Start date
dark_pablo
Just a Regular Member
its true tho, well maybe it was true, we all now that the man was an animal, some kind of primitive person, and it just evolved, and i think its still evolving. Imagine a man in year 5003 if world exists. I dont think it would like today, but well, thats my opinion...
Imagine all the people...
Imagine all the people...
george w bush is gay
Limberopoulos21
Senior Squad
hmm, soccergaming sure is a funny place.
I would have to say that no matter who you are and if you say that you don't like politics, you have some type of interest in it. Even if it isn't government, people will try to barter for what they want while possibly giving up something at the same time to achieve their goal. So I would have to say that "man is a political animal" would be true.
Ok, feel like I am ready to post something here now...
Is man by nature a political animal? Well, imo the way this question is answered depends on two things - the definition of 'nature' and the definition of 'political'. Now, I am someone who believes that for the most part, other than the processes necessary for survival such as breathing etc., people are more a product of social forces rather than natural ones. Heck, the concept of the 'individual' has only been in existence for a few centuries, but when you look at some political discourse these days that talks about 'individual freedom' and 'individual choice' and the 'sovereignty of the individual', people who use these terms talk as if the individual is something that is ahistroical, natural and pre-existing social formations.
Yet the individual is actually a product of social forces, somthing that was and is conditioned by the social forces and context of the time - largely wrapped up in the utilitarian and liberal (note: small l-liberal rather than big L-liberal) humanist philosophies that emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Basically what I am saying is that all the capacities that are assigned to the individual are actually the result of the dominant philosopgical influences of the time - the liberalist concern with the distinction between private and public, where the appropriate boundary is between the 'individual' and the 'state' (state being the collectivity bigger than the sum of all individuals), what the reasonable expectations and responsibilities are of the 'individual' and the 'state', and so on.. when we engage in these sorts of debates, we are not actually talking about something that is black and whiote and has existed for all time, we are merely carrying on a tradition of dicourse that was enabled by the works of people such as Jeremy Bentham, JS Mill, etc. So when Thatcher said 'society does not exist', she was only able to do so because the hegemony of 'the individual' had become so prominent in the west at that time - but as we have seen the slider between the individual and the social can be moved and I would say that we are becoming more aware of our collective responsibilities now - think 'national security', as one current example of how we (apparently) expect government to have a collective concern over the rights of individuals...
Basically what I am trying to say is that man is not 'naturally' a political animal (I won't even go into the concept of 'animal'). The extent to which a person engages in political activity, or is concerned with political activity, is itself reliant on the social foces operating at the time, and subject to change. Think of the late 19th and early to mid 20th century (and I amthinking mainly here of the 'west'), when there were a number of equally viable social formations competing for dominance - communism, fascism and democracy. Everyone had a stake in what would happen, and especially in the workplaces, organisation around a political goal was common. But at the present time, where we see democracy (underpinned by capitalism) as the overwhelmingly dominant formation, there is a lack of 'competitive' political discourses. Really, politics has become an issue of how to best manage capitalism in a democracy, rather than trying to introduce another form of government. Thanks to the successful co-option of the media into this debate, very few options exist in political debate outside of liberal humansit arguments. How many people who know nothing about the various communisms and socialisms that have existed will nevertheless group them under the same heading and write them off as viable alternatives? The point is, a political opinion can be formed these days on the flimsiest of political knowledge, and given prominence alongside more considered opinions. When I mention the media, think before the Iraq war on US television, when pro-war voices outnumbered those against by 25 to 1. How is it possible for the average joe to reach a considered opinion in such circumstances?
Again, it cracks me up when I see people talking about 'the left' in western societies, calling them a bunch of commies and the like. What a load of rubbish - if they actually studied their politics they would realise that 'the left' (whether they be the Democrats, or the Labour Party in other countries) are simply part and parcel of the same political debate that was started in liberal-humanist philosophies, and are simply different interpretations of the public/private, individual versus collective responsibilies arguments etc. The 'left' in these countries are basically just different ways of managing capitalism, and none of them seek to replace it with something else.
Same with those who look at capitalism and communism as polar opposites. Again, completely off the mark. Both are different ways of managing the same process: industrialisation. Where some countries saw capitalism as the best way of managing the industrialisation process, others saw communism as the best way. And on that alone, communism was actually quite successful in Russia.
ANyway, in short, I don't think man is by nature a political animal, it is more a consequence of the social conditions that exist at the time.
Is man by nature a political animal? Well, imo the way this question is answered depends on two things - the definition of 'nature' and the definition of 'political'. Now, I am someone who believes that for the most part, other than the processes necessary for survival such as breathing etc., people are more a product of social forces rather than natural ones. Heck, the concept of the 'individual' has only been in existence for a few centuries, but when you look at some political discourse these days that talks about 'individual freedom' and 'individual choice' and the 'sovereignty of the individual', people who use these terms talk as if the individual is something that is ahistroical, natural and pre-existing social formations.
Yet the individual is actually a product of social forces, somthing that was and is conditioned by the social forces and context of the time - largely wrapped up in the utilitarian and liberal (note: small l-liberal rather than big L-liberal) humanist philosophies that emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Basically what I am saying is that all the capacities that are assigned to the individual are actually the result of the dominant philosopgical influences of the time - the liberalist concern with the distinction between private and public, where the appropriate boundary is between the 'individual' and the 'state' (state being the collectivity bigger than the sum of all individuals), what the reasonable expectations and responsibilities are of the 'individual' and the 'state', and so on.. when we engage in these sorts of debates, we are not actually talking about something that is black and whiote and has existed for all time, we are merely carrying on a tradition of dicourse that was enabled by the works of people such as Jeremy Bentham, JS Mill, etc. So when Thatcher said 'society does not exist', she was only able to do so because the hegemony of 'the individual' had become so prominent in the west at that time - but as we have seen the slider between the individual and the social can be moved and I would say that we are becoming more aware of our collective responsibilities now - think 'national security', as one current example of how we (apparently) expect government to have a collective concern over the rights of individuals...
Basically what I am trying to say is that man is not 'naturally' a political animal (I won't even go into the concept of 'animal'). The extent to which a person engages in political activity, or is concerned with political activity, is itself reliant on the social foces operating at the time, and subject to change. Think of the late 19th and early to mid 20th century (and I amthinking mainly here of the 'west'), when there were a number of equally viable social formations competing for dominance - communism, fascism and democracy. Everyone had a stake in what would happen, and especially in the workplaces, organisation around a political goal was common. But at the present time, where we see democracy (underpinned by capitalism) as the overwhelmingly dominant formation, there is a lack of 'competitive' political discourses. Really, politics has become an issue of how to best manage capitalism in a democracy, rather than trying to introduce another form of government. Thanks to the successful co-option of the media into this debate, very few options exist in political debate outside of liberal humansit arguments. How many people who know nothing about the various communisms and socialisms that have existed will nevertheless group them under the same heading and write them off as viable alternatives? The point is, a political opinion can be formed these days on the flimsiest of political knowledge, and given prominence alongside more considered opinions. When I mention the media, think before the Iraq war on US television, when pro-war voices outnumbered those against by 25 to 1. How is it possible for the average joe to reach a considered opinion in such circumstances?
Again, it cracks me up when I see people talking about 'the left' in western societies, calling them a bunch of commies and the like. What a load of rubbish - if they actually studied their politics they would realise that 'the left' (whether they be the Democrats, or the Labour Party in other countries) are simply part and parcel of the same political debate that was started in liberal-humanist philosophies, and are simply different interpretations of the public/private, individual versus collective responsibilies arguments etc. The 'left' in these countries are basically just different ways of managing capitalism, and none of them seek to replace it with something else.
Same with those who look at capitalism and communism as polar opposites. Again, completely off the mark. Both are different ways of managing the same process: industrialisation. Where some countries saw capitalism as the best way of managing the industrialisation process, others saw communism as the best way. And on that alone, communism was actually quite successful in Russia.
ANyway, in short, I don't think man is by nature a political animal, it is more a consequence of the social conditions that exist at the time.
I'm not sure about a some of the issues there rhizome.
I feel that more prominence should be given to the definition of 'what is political' rather than 'what is natural'.
I wouldn't argue against survival being the natural instinct of man (and all beings come to think of it), but it also appears that moving up the 'ladder' - or finding your place on it - within groups is also natural. I'm no expert on these matters but it appears to me that who is the 'leader' of a group or a collective is part of human existence. Whether 'leader' means the decision maker, or 'leader(s)' is used to refer to the person(s) who represent the collective voice of the group.
Politics, in this sense, exists naturally where groups of beings gather together to improve their chances of survival. In my opinion man seems naturally inclined to be part of a group and, as such, part of a political system.
I have the feeling that modern capitialst democracies are heading in the wrong direction. For me the rights of the individual are of paramount importance to any fair society. An individual is not merely a cog in the machine of a the state and neither are we merely customers, or bags of money and credit to be exploited by modern capitalism.
The Communist Manifesto (haven't read it - and I should before making comment on it, I know, but from reading critique on it by reliable sources) gives paramount importance to the state. So much so that the individual is no longer recognised as a person but more as a thing. To the extent where anything is acceptable in achieving it's goal of the classless society, from lying, to violence and murder. I find this abhorrent because my philosophy is not a case of 'the end justifying the means', my philosophy is that the end is existent in the means,
Capitalism on the other hand grants us the freedom that communism does not. However, unless it is morally guided it can become as oppressive and exploitative (is that a word?
) as communism, probably more so in the case of the latter. This is what we are seeing at the moment. Modern democracies appear to be becoming run by the 'haves' who give little consideration to the people that they are elected to represent. Big, rich, companies get tax-breaks which would help the have-nots. This modern, unpoliced capitalism seems to be creating a bigger class divide, which is unnacceptable for society to function.
What we need is a blending of the communist principles of social equality and the capitalist principles of individual opportunity.
I feel that more prominence should be given to the definition of 'what is political' rather than 'what is natural'.
I wouldn't argue against survival being the natural instinct of man (and all beings come to think of it), but it also appears that moving up the 'ladder' - or finding your place on it - within groups is also natural. I'm no expert on these matters but it appears to me that who is the 'leader' of a group or a collective is part of human existence. Whether 'leader' means the decision maker, or 'leader(s)' is used to refer to the person(s) who represent the collective voice of the group.
Politics, in this sense, exists naturally where groups of beings gather together to improve their chances of survival. In my opinion man seems naturally inclined to be part of a group and, as such, part of a political system.
Not quite sure what you are referring to here, but here's my two pence.
I have the feeling that modern capitialst democracies are heading in the wrong direction. For me the rights of the individual are of paramount importance to any fair society. An individual is not merely a cog in the machine of a the state and neither are we merely customers, or bags of money and credit to be exploited by modern capitalism.
The Communist Manifesto (haven't read it - and I should before making comment on it, I know, but from reading critique on it by reliable sources) gives paramount importance to the state. So much so that the individual is no longer recognised as a person but more as a thing. To the extent where anything is acceptable in achieving it's goal of the classless society, from lying, to violence and murder. I find this abhorrent because my philosophy is not a case of 'the end justifying the means', my philosophy is that the end is existent in the means,
Capitalism on the other hand grants us the freedom that communism does not. However, unless it is morally guided it can become as oppressive and exploitative (is that a word?
) as communism, probably more so in the case of the latter. This is what we are seeing at the moment. Modern democracies appear to be becoming run by the 'haves' who give little consideration to the people that they are elected to represent. Big, rich, companies get tax-breaks which would help the have-nots. This modern, unpoliced capitalism seems to be creating a bigger class divide, which is unnacceptable for society to function.What we need is a blending of the communist principles of social equality and the capitalist principles of individual opportunity.
I am going to bed now, but will make one comment:
The Communist Manifesto has never been implemented - but for Marx and Engels the State was important only in the transitional stage from capitalism to communism - this transitional stage they called 'socialism'.
So really, places that have been called 'communist' are not actually communist in the strict Marxian sense, because the state still exists...
Also, one could mention that those places that are/ were communist (i mean, socialist) never had a fully developed capitalist economy, thereby negating the very process Marx and Engels described. Unfortunately, these same places made idols of marx and Engels, whose writings were consequently written off by many in the west.
USA Supporter
Reserve Team
He has a wife so he is a metrosexual.
