Passion or Reason? Coercion or Cooperation? War and Peace!
I believe both. Passion to tell me what I want and Reason to tell me how to get it.
I don't believe passion should be suppressed.
If it is there it must be for a reason.
Yet it can wreck havoc.
Reason left on its own tends towards confusion wondering what's the meaning of life.
Yet people should be free to follow their passions in any way they choose (if they live by themselves in the jungle). If they choose to live with other people and enjoy civilization they they agree not to harm others or get in their way and even better help them follow their passions and they will probably help you follow yours. That sounds good but is often so hard to achieve. It requires communication, compromise, consensus which so often lead to endless delays and feared dead ends.
The alternative is easy: coercion does not require endless communication, painful compromise or elusive consensus. It has worked during the ages. In fact it has worked successfully over the ages in conjunction with cooperation. People united in families, tribes, nations, classes and castes to be able to oppress and enslave and reap the benefits. And it worked. It worked so well that it turned war into the pinnacle of human aspirations of achievement. The best inventors, thinkers, strategists and politicians put their efforts in war and it paid until war grew out of proportion with the industrialized massacre of WWII and especially with the resultant nuclear weapons and systems for their delivery with global access.
At that time one of the creators of these weapons Andrei Sakharov found out that science and technology can only develop in free discussion and so does society.
The new weapons made war not only unreasonable but unthinkable.
Unfortunately some of these weapons were in the hands of despotic and corrupt communist regimes. The United States government undertook two dramatically different approaches both of them successful. Passionately defending human rights in the USSR and its satellites led to the premature death of European communism. In China the pragmatic reasonable approach of improving relations and trade preferences led to the only successful communist country in modern times continuing to exist with US help though no longer that hostile if at all..
How is peace better achievable?
Reason without passion can lead to brilliant solutions and enhance understanding. Yet passion I believe should tell us what we really want. Not what other tell us but that what our heart wants deep inside. The passion that is the source of our fondest dreams. The dreams that always come true.
If the USSR and China problems were solved so easily then the Middle East should be far easier bearing in mind the relative weakness of the corrupt regimes there. It will be extremely easy if the goal is set properly: what we really want. What is that that we want and the people there want and will wholeheartedly support. The solution is simple.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Who Is Most Important This Christmas: Santa, Jesus or Me?
I know you would say one of the first two guys and they certainly are more known. Yet to me it seems I am the reason they exist. To judge me, to save me, to bring me presents, to love me and hopefully I am good and stay clear from the naughty list, and love my neighbor a lot (but not more than I love myself and to love my neighbor a lot I must love myself even more). Santa brings presents for me and even when I am the one giving the presents it’s me in the focus again because it’s my loved ones I by presents for and I get to chose them.
And that’s scary. It would have been easier to leave the world to someone like Jesus or Santa to take car of but it looks like they left me make all those important decisions by myself and bear the consequences. I have the freedom of choice because they love me. And I am created in God’s image anyway and should have enough brains to manage, to be successful, to achieve my goals, to be happy, to be me.
And if something goes wrong it looks like I cannot blame either. I can only blame me. That again makes me the most important and that feels good.
Merry Christmas!
And that’s scary. It would have been easier to leave the world to someone like Jesus or Santa to take car of but it looks like they left me make all those important decisions by myself and bear the consequences. I have the freedom of choice because they love me. And I am created in God’s image anyway and should have enough brains to manage, to be successful, to achieve my goals, to be happy, to be me.
And if something goes wrong it looks like I cannot blame either. I can only blame me. That again makes me the most important and that feels good.
Merry Christmas!
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Freedom, Talent and Happiness
Creativity and imagination are the most precious resources of civilization. They are the building material forming the basis for understanding and invention. Luckily it seems their seeds are spread widely and abundantly. At the same time they seem to easily wither and die without proper nurture and care.
A dead dream is everyone’s loss and people can’t follow their dreams if they are hungry, scared or oppressed. Need, fear, and ignorance kill freedom and with freedom the chance for understanding and prosperity.
Freedom doesn’t come free of charge. Precious as it is it must be cherished, earned, and defended. It’s not a goal but a process and indispensable first step towards good life and happiness. Freedom is not divisible. You cannot be partly free. Freedom can only reign supreme or else it dies.
You cannot be truly free if your neighbor is not. That’s even more so if you have special talents and in my opinion everyone has talents. Only some don’t bother to develop them. That’s not simple laziness that is a crime. By ignoring your talents you rob yourself and those close to you from the happiness and good life that you deserve.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Who are you? What do you want?
Pretty normal questions even if they sound a bit rude. A wrong answer to the first one can get you killed in some places like the Middle East or the Balkans, and the second one is the most important question in the world. What you want and actually knowing what you really want shapes what you are and gives meaning to your life. The truth is that most probably you'll get what you really want dreams tend to come true (sometimes nightmares come true too).
I think, what you really are, is shaped by how you see yourself, where you want to be and how others see you. The real you at any moment is somewhere in between those three points. Of course you can always imagine other views like where others want you to be and how you are influence by the other's view of you. And again you have to figure out who you are in general terms. I believe in John Lennon’s credo from Imagine.(there is no country and no religion too) but many people seem to cling to some kind of belonging which they find comforting. I have my own loyalties to family and friends, and am proud of my cultural heritage, but can't imagine using that against any other human being except in clear cut defense situation.
Belonging to a religious, political, professional or sports community how diverse we are not how different we are. It's OK to be proud but stupid to be arrogant. I actually think that you can only be really proud if you are not arrogant. Only when you acknowledge the qualities of other you can shine in your own way too. Anything else would have been a race without opponents. Not much honor in winning one of those.
What do you really want? Fame? Power? Money? ... Love? Our deepest desires are what we really are. Divine sparks of inspiration shaping our calling that we must follow to feel at peace with the universe and to succeed and any wavering from which is frustrating and makes us miserable.
I guess what you want makes who you are. And it's up to me to decide who I am. If what I really want is challenging and inspiring, and deep desires usually are, we need the help and cooperation of other people all with their dreams, desires. world views and identities. If we are true to your inner self and your innermost desires it's more likely to be able to impress friends, neighbors and colleagues to help us follow our dream while perhaps helping them follow theirs because dreams always come true if we build foundations under our castles in the air.
I think, what you really are, is shaped by how you see yourself, where you want to be and how others see you. The real you at any moment is somewhere in between those three points. Of course you can always imagine other views like where others want you to be and how you are influence by the other's view of you. And again you have to figure out who you are in general terms. I believe in John Lennon’s credo from Imagine.(there is no country and no religion too) but many people seem to cling to some kind of belonging which they find comforting. I have my own loyalties to family and friends, and am proud of my cultural heritage, but can't imagine using that against any other human being except in clear cut defense situation.
Belonging to a religious, political, professional or sports community how diverse we are not how different we are. It's OK to be proud but stupid to be arrogant. I actually think that you can only be really proud if you are not arrogant. Only when you acknowledge the qualities of other you can shine in your own way too. Anything else would have been a race without opponents. Not much honor in winning one of those.
What do you really want? Fame? Power? Money? ... Love? Our deepest desires are what we really are. Divine sparks of inspiration shaping our calling that we must follow to feel at peace with the universe and to succeed and any wavering from which is frustrating and makes us miserable.
I guess what you want makes who you are. And it's up to me to decide who I am. If what I really want is challenging and inspiring, and deep desires usually are, we need the help and cooperation of other people all with their dreams, desires. world views and identities. If we are true to your inner self and your innermost desires it's more likely to be able to impress friends, neighbors and colleagues to help us follow our dream while perhaps helping them follow theirs because dreams always come true if we build foundations under our castles in the air.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Marx, Aristotle, Jesus and Jefferson on power and the people
Marx was right the working class rules. Down with Aristotelian aristocracy. The truth is they both were right.
Yes the working class rules but not the working class communist parties tried to portray as digging in the mud or hammer wielding muscular individuals that may have been the working class of the Neanderthal age. The working class or the modern age: thinking, imagining, designing and managing the production of our future rules the world. (In general if you can be replaced by a machine you are not working, just temporarily filling a place due to lack of technology). Does it mean we all rule the world collectively? No. That's not true look around only the best rule the world and those best ones are the aristocracy (that Aristotle was talking about) of the working class (that Marx was taking about). Yes we certainly have the rights unalienable as it is to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but it is only a potential that means nothing if we don’t fight for it.
Jesus said that the meek would inherit the world. Why the meek? Why not the arrogant bullies? I think it's because arrogance is ignorance and only the intelligent, passionate and loving people can rule the world. Their reign doesn't come easy though. Brute power often resists intelligence or even plain common sense. And intelligent people often doubt their own capacities because doubt drives inquiry and knowledge. That's why to succeed the meek need faith to follow the yellow brick road. To stand in front of that fraud who sells himself as the powerful wizard and proudly declare: We are the week and the meek. And we will inherit the world because we know who we are and that there is no place like home.
Yes the working class rules but not the working class communist parties tried to portray as digging in the mud or hammer wielding muscular individuals that may have been the working class of the Neanderthal age. The working class or the modern age: thinking, imagining, designing and managing the production of our future rules the world. (In general if you can be replaced by a machine you are not working, just temporarily filling a place due to lack of technology). Does it mean we all rule the world collectively? No. That's not true look around only the best rule the world and those best ones are the aristocracy (that Aristotle was talking about) of the working class (that Marx was taking about). Yes we certainly have the rights unalienable as it is to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but it is only a potential that means nothing if we don’t fight for it.
Jesus said that the meek would inherit the world. Why the meek? Why not the arrogant bullies? I think it's because arrogance is ignorance and only the intelligent, passionate and loving people can rule the world. Their reign doesn't come easy though. Brute power often resists intelligence or even plain common sense. And intelligent people often doubt their own capacities because doubt drives inquiry and knowledge. That's why to succeed the meek need faith to follow the yellow brick road. To stand in front of that fraud who sells himself as the powerful wizard and proudly declare: We are the week and the meek. And we will inherit the world because we know who we are and that there is no place like home.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Power, Democracy, Government and Sovereignty
If politics is about power and power is the use of resources controlled by others to achieve our goals. It can be achieved through cooperation or coercion. Cooperation takes longer, is more difficult to achieve and may require some modification to the original goals or agenda but is ultimately cheaper and more stable. Coercion is easier and faster but unstable and resource hungry to the extent that it may defeat the meaning of the original goal.
Sovereignty is the justification of power. Although routinely connected with territory is universally accepted that it stems from the people and is expressed in a explicit or implicit social contract which can be unilaterally revoked by the people if the government doesn't deliver the protection of the basic human rights of the citizens.
A state is a country with its people, government, political system and territory (not only the government). Of these the people posses sovereignty over a territory with the government responsible for the protection of human rights with security, law and order, private property and equal opportunity among them. The government can legitimately represent the people internationally but only as long as it defends the people’s interests in the best possible way. Almost always that means avoiding war.
Sovereignty means that the people have the supreme right to govern themselves and conduct their domestic and external affairs. The state includes the people and if the government is oppressive and disrespects the will of the people that government cannot claim legitimacy. Following this logic we cannot speak of the state of North Korea as the government doesn't represent the people. North Korea can be discussed only in terms of the oppressive, illegitimate government on one side and the people about whose opinion unfortunately we don't know much on the other. (Ironically the official name of the country has the people mentioned three times as in "people's" "democratic" and "republic" but that doesn't change the fact that the people are not represented by that government.)
Democratic governments where minority rules are not respected also cannot claim sovereignty because they are forfeiting the right of the minority. Therefore the Civil War in the US did not curtail South's sovereignty but helped defend it because there couldn't be a valid claim to sovereignty in the South if the slave's rights weren't taken into account. Legitimacy can be based on the sovereignty of each and every person.
Similarly it is odd to impose economic sanctions against a totalitarian state as they only punish the people and not the governing tyrants responsible for the crime in question. If we assume that the term state means political organisation of the society in a particular country then that certainly is not the case in a country where there is no liberal democracy (meaning a government which is popular, accountable and respects human rights including the rights of minorities. This excludes popular nationalistic governments like Hitler's or Mussolini's and popular non-secular governments. States that are corrupt and failed cannot legitimately claim sovereignty. Also it is cynical to demand payment of debts incurred by a tyrant the fault for such bad debts lies with those who gave credit to a corrupt individual not the people who had no choice or say.
Sovereignty is of the people and for the people. The state can only exist legitimately to defend their right to life, property, freedom and the pursuit of happiness.
Sovereignty is the justification of power. Although routinely connected with territory is universally accepted that it stems from the people and is expressed in a explicit or implicit social contract which can be unilaterally revoked by the people if the government doesn't deliver the protection of the basic human rights of the citizens.
A state is a country with its people, government, political system and territory (not only the government). Of these the people posses sovereignty over a territory with the government responsible for the protection of human rights with security, law and order, private property and equal opportunity among them. The government can legitimately represent the people internationally but only as long as it defends the people’s interests in the best possible way. Almost always that means avoiding war.
Sovereignty means that the people have the supreme right to govern themselves and conduct their domestic and external affairs. The state includes the people and if the government is oppressive and disrespects the will of the people that government cannot claim legitimacy. Following this logic we cannot speak of the state of North Korea as the government doesn't represent the people. North Korea can be discussed only in terms of the oppressive, illegitimate government on one side and the people about whose opinion unfortunately we don't know much on the other. (Ironically the official name of the country has the people mentioned three times as in "people's" "democratic" and "republic" but that doesn't change the fact that the people are not represented by that government.)
Democratic governments where minority rules are not respected also cannot claim sovereignty because they are forfeiting the right of the minority. Therefore the Civil War in the US did not curtail South's sovereignty but helped defend it because there couldn't be a valid claim to sovereignty in the South if the slave's rights weren't taken into account. Legitimacy can be based on the sovereignty of each and every person.
Similarly it is odd to impose economic sanctions against a totalitarian state as they only punish the people and not the governing tyrants responsible for the crime in question. If we assume that the term state means political organisation of the society in a particular country then that certainly is not the case in a country where there is no liberal democracy (meaning a government which is popular, accountable and respects human rights including the rights of minorities. This excludes popular nationalistic governments like Hitler's or Mussolini's and popular non-secular governments. States that are corrupt and failed cannot legitimately claim sovereignty. Also it is cynical to demand payment of debts incurred by a tyrant the fault for such bad debts lies with those who gave credit to a corrupt individual not the people who had no choice or say.
Sovereignty is of the people and for the people. The state can only exist legitimately to defend their right to life, property, freedom and the pursuit of happiness.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Does a bag of potatoes need philosophy?
Who needs philosophy? Does a bag of potatoes need philosophy? My sons while learning how to drive noticed that it's much easier to drive if you know where you are going. Niki Lauda said that a sack of potatoes can drive very fast if you prop the accelerator with it but you’ll see the difference between a good driver and a sack of potatoes on first bend on the road.
Philosophy won’t help us find where we want to go and what we want to achieve but I believe that it can help us learn how to drive to get there.
Philosophy is not an art, religion, science, but it is the tool that we use when all these other tools don’t work. It’s not about what you want to eat or how to buy the ingredients but about how to cook and often that makes all the difference.
A bag of potatoes certainly doesn’t need philosophy, but an aspiring chef certainly does.
Philosophy won’t help us find where we want to go and what we want to achieve but I believe that it can help us learn how to drive to get there.
Philosophy is not an art, religion, science, but it is the tool that we use when all these other tools don’t work. It’s not about what you want to eat or how to buy the ingredients but about how to cook and often that makes all the difference.
A bag of potatoes certainly doesn’t need philosophy, but an aspiring chef certainly does.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Tarzan and Politics
I like history. I don't like war. Yet historians seem to be preoccupied with war. As if that's all people were doing and thinking of in (I’ll go back to that later with economics). That has somehow spilled into political analysis and international relations theory excessively focusing on power and by power usually understanding something related to violence an oppression which somehow become justified if they have the label of political or international attached to them.
To get things straight I strongly believe that oppression and violence are always wrong. Using force for self-defense though is legitimate.
Politics is not about power, much less about violence and oppression. If that was so then the Mafiosi are the best politicians.
Politics is about cooperation.
And cooperation and society is that what makes us human. Sure bees and wolfs cooperate and that’s their way to survive but wit us people it is a bit different. We can survive on our own. A healthy human can probably survive in the wild gathering fruit and hunting with sticks and stones but that will be a life, natural for sure, but not far removed from the monkeys.
Civilization implies cooperation. Not coercion. Violence shows failure of civilization it's not a prerequisite or even a by product of it.
If coercion civilization was about coercion Hitler's concentration camps would have been celebrated as the epitome of civilization.
Civilization is about cooperation and that's where polices comes in. We the people want a lot; we see our happiness as more than being fed and warm. We want more and that more is only possible in cooperation that makes the pursuit of happiness possible.
To get things straight I strongly believe that oppression and violence are always wrong. Using force for self-defense though is legitimate.
Politics is not about power, much less about violence and oppression. If that was so then the Mafiosi are the best politicians.
Politics is about cooperation.
And cooperation and society is that what makes us human. Sure bees and wolfs cooperate and that’s their way to survive but wit us people it is a bit different. We can survive on our own. A healthy human can probably survive in the wild gathering fruit and hunting with sticks and stones but that will be a life, natural for sure, but not far removed from the monkeys.
Civilization implies cooperation. Not coercion. Violence shows failure of civilization it's not a prerequisite or even a by product of it.
If coercion civilization was about coercion Hitler's concentration camps would have been celebrated as the epitome of civilization.
Civilization is about cooperation and that's where polices comes in. We the people want a lot; we see our happiness as more than being fed and warm. We want more and that more is only possible in cooperation that makes the pursuit of happiness possible.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Personal Political Philosophy
Political Philosophy can only be personal. To paraphrase the crook quotation Ask not what you can do for your country but ask what your country can do for you, because if your county doesn't do anything for you yet you are forced to do more and more for your country without getting anything in return then your country is probably called the Peopl'es Democratic Republic of North Korea or any other People's Democratic Republic which usually has nothing to do with the peoples or the demos or the public except trying to extract as much as possible and stash it away into foreign bank accounts away from harm. Also if you hear a politician asking you to sacrifice for society or the future they most probably equate society with themselves and have in mind the security of their future not yours. But if you live in a country which states that we the people ... and the people means you and me so let's paraphrase it more properly to: I have certain inalienable rights like life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if the government is not up to its task of protecting and supporting my rights I have the right to denounce it. That's the basis of politics. It's not about power Its about finding a way to help each other protect and enhance our rights mostly by cooperation against those who think that politics is about power and exploitation. And if they succeed it's not their fault that they get their way its my fault that I let them encroach on my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
If knowledge is our most powerful and only tool to achieve happiness in fact knowledge and thinking as the only thing that distinguishes us from animals. (I know there are people who consider animals better than people and very often I can see why but still these people cling to our society instead of practicing what they preach and fade into the jungle to lead a life of Tarzan or Mowgli :-) So if knowledge is our most powerful weapon in the fight for freedom and good life and society is the most important amplifier of both our knowledge and efforts then politics should be the most important knowledge that we can ever have. Consequently as I proved that I am the most important subject and object of politics and politics is all about me then studying myself must be the starting point for studying politics.
Since philosophy is about creating good life then political philosophy should start and end with me: my needs, my desires, my aspirations and my plans to get there.
Ethics
Getting there must be moral. Because morality ensures the cooperation of society and society or simply said other people can be our greatest help or obstacle in achieving our goals following our dreams. That's why politics is important. You can always steal and get away with it but probably not for long and that's why it's not wise.
To finish.
You can't sign away your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are not yours because they the were in that well know declaration. It stated a fact, not a claim. You have them no matter what but to make them real you must fight for them, defend them enhance them. Without that they are like an empty bowl you have to work to put the soup in.
If knowledge is our most powerful and only tool to achieve happiness in fact knowledge and thinking as the only thing that distinguishes us from animals. (I know there are people who consider animals better than people and very often I can see why but still these people cling to our society instead of practicing what they preach and fade into the jungle to lead a life of Tarzan or Mowgli :-) So if knowledge is our most powerful weapon in the fight for freedom and good life and society is the most important amplifier of both our knowledge and efforts then politics should be the most important knowledge that we can ever have. Consequently as I proved that I am the most important subject and object of politics and politics is all about me then studying myself must be the starting point for studying politics.
Since philosophy is about creating good life then political philosophy should start and end with me: my needs, my desires, my aspirations and my plans to get there.
Ethics
Getting there must be moral. Because morality ensures the cooperation of society and society or simply said other people can be our greatest help or obstacle in achieving our goals following our dreams. That's why politics is important. You can always steal and get away with it but probably not for long and that's why it's not wise.
To finish.
You can't sign away your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are not yours because they the were in that well know declaration. It stated a fact, not a claim. You have them no matter what but to make them real you must fight for them, defend them enhance them. Without that they are like an empty bowl you have to work to put the soup in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)