News:

Actually sport it is a narrative

Main Menu

Double Subject Questions (Politics and Philosophy)

Started by Arturo, December 09, 2016, 01:51:36 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Arturo

Hi, I wasn't really sure where to put this so it's going here. The questions are about politics, but they're coming from a philosophy perspective.

Are politics important? And what are politics?

Sure we can say this or that is what we consider something under the umbrella term of politics, but what would all of politics be defined as?

What would be necessary and/or sufficient enough for something to be politics? Would it have to most people in a community (such as a town or a whole country) have to be talking about it to make the subject political? Would that then make pop culture apart of political issue? Would it be that politicians have to be talking about it to make it political? Would it have to be that most people in a community and politicians are talking about a subject to make that subject political? If this is so, that means politics has intrinsic value. Also, if this is so, what do you think of it? Do you think politics have intrinsic value?

Is negotiation for the sake of securing a future among nations necessary or sufficient for negotiation to be considered politics? Is law making alone sufficient or necessary to be considered politics?

What is negotiating? What is law making? I think I've burned myself out here.
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Arturo

Ok I'm going to give another shot at it. These post will probably be more to the affect of a facebook post, so here it goes:

Trying to get what you want is sufficient to be negotiation. Asking for your room mate to clean the dishes is sufficient to be considered negotiation. But if all you are doing is barking out orders, you will likely not get what you want. So you have to give the other person something they want sometimes. That would make it a sufficient condition to negotiation. Now maybe the other person does not want to negotiate with you and you have to bring them to the table. Would any form of coercion or persuasion to bring them to you be sufficient to be called negotiation? I am not sure.

So from this, I can say that when you are trying to get what you want, trying to give someone what they want for the purpose of getting what you want, and maybe trying to bring them to negotiate with you by any means, is happening, that these are sufficient enough to be considered negotiation.
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Recusant

#2
These are interesting posts. I read the first one, and I had trouble understanding it. Questions like "Are politics important?" and "What are politics?" leave me wondering what sort of perspective you're using. Do you reject the generally accepted definitions of the word? (In the broadest sense: "the total complex of relations between people living in society.") In countries that aren't at war, most people's lives are affected by politics to a greater or lesser extent (and even they are at war, if we accept Clauswitz's "War is the continuation of politics by other means"). It's practically impossible to escape the effects of politics. With that in mind, it would seem that the reasonable answer to whether politics are important is "yes."
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Arturo

#3
QuoteThese are interesting posts. I read the first one, and I had trouble understanding it. Questions like "Are politics important?" and "What are politics?" leave me wondering what sort of perspective you're using. Do you reject the generally accepted definitions of the word?

Well not rejection of the generally accepted definition, I didn't know what the definition is. So I was trying to come up with a proper definition by coming up with conditions for what someone might consider falling under the word "politics".

I see you linked the Marian Webster Dictionary definition of politics. The reason I didn't look up a accepted definition is because I knew it would say something like "the art and science of government". Well not everybody knows what that entails. What is the science of government? And does it have to be government to be considered politics or can politics also be the art and science of a household? Like if the adults are trying to figure out how to pay bills and what is the best way to go about it among themselves. This also wouldn't be considered the "total complex relation" of people in a society, it's just a few people living together.

I guess if you go by what I just said, I guess I would reject the consensus on the definition.

QuoteIt's practically impossible to escape the effects of politics. With that in mind, it would seem that the reasonable answer to whether politics are important is "yes."
When I finished my thought experiment, I discovered politics have intrinsic value. With that alone, I almost said that politics are not important.

But then I thought, well what about politics could give them instrumental value? So deleted what I said about politics not being important and typed in the stuff about law making and negotiation in the OP and finished.

So considering what I said about negotiation, I'd say the instrumental value of politics would be that negotiation among countries to achieve a goal would make politics important, because every day people cannot negotiate wants and needs to other countries. So we need negotiation on the representative scale to get things we want, and if we consider negotiation to be politics, then it is very important.

The instrumental value of a people talking about politics (as I described it) as a way for a government to form policies on it's people is not important to me because:
1) it shows an over bearing government
2) people are not properly equipped to make rational arguments to their law makers on why and how a policy should happen

But people talking about a subject in itself is what shows to me politics has intrinsic value. And people just talking doesn't make it important. It becomes important only when it is used as a means to an end.
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Dave

As a person who is extremely anti-political, in the context it is most often used in the media and everyday use, I can't offer an objective pov.

Though I will admit that politics and ideology are often conflated I am not surprised because the dividing line needs an electron microscope to detect. The phrase, "political suicide" (usually meaning, "Our supporters will not sanction it," ) often applies to much needed measures that go against party ideology. Party politics so often mean that a good idea gets scrapped because it was thought up by the other side. Though, somewhat changed, it may be introduced later trumpeted as their own idea.

I am also against the "whipping" of representatives to defend the party against their personal misgivings.

Too often at work I saw personal politics cost the company money and lose them standing with customers. I actually heard my last boss say, "I'll not agree to anything that man says no matter how good it is." The same guy told a lie to a big customer to protect his position - but the customer learned the truth, by accident, chatting to a salesman. That the company kept him on was, in my mind, indicative of poor politics throughout.

To my simple mind politics, practised as a means of manipulating authority and power, is one of the main causes (aside from natural disasters and simple greed) of death and despair in the world. Ordinary people do not start wars, neither do generals, politicians do. Religion often becomes just another form of politics.

[/rant]




Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Bad Penny II

Take my advice, don't listen to me.

xSilverPhinx

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being very high, how corrupt are the politicians in your thought experiment? I ask because I don't see politics per se as necessarily inherently "evil" while politicians can be. An ideal world where politicians exist to serve their country and the people who elected them to power would be very different from one in which tyrants reign supreme with little to no consideration for their people.

(But human beings are political animals, and politics is not merely for politicians. Anyone who's been in a toxic workplace environment knows this to a T, and probably has done some reading up on Machiavelli, Thucydides, Clausewitz, Jomini and Sun Tzu in their free time. Ok, that's more philosophy of war but stuff like "How to Win Friends and Influence People" just doesn't have that umphf.  ;) )

As for negotiation, it's useful to distinguish between "soft" which has more to do with persuasion and "hard", being the more coercive techniques. 
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Arturo

I think politicians in America serve the country, but they don't know when to tell their voters no. So we get this over-bearing/over produced laws that make it worse and worse for the rest of the country. The idea of a free country really is just an idea when it comes down to all the things you can be penalized for. Everything in business has to be regulated from the ground up. You have to pay taxes on land you own. You have to get a permit to make changes to your house, even if parts of it are rotting. Science gets less and less funding from the Feds. The list goes on.

So I wouldn't say the politicians are corrupt, I'd say the people who vote for and write to policy makers are collectively, idiots.
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

xSilverPhinx

So who do you think holds the most power in this 'negotiation' that is politics in the case of the US?  The people or the politicians?
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Arturo

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 13, 2016, 10:38:19 PM
So who do you think holds the most power in this 'negotiation' that is politics in the case of the US?  The people or the politicians?

Well when I wrote negotiation, I meant as in political leaders making negotiations with foreign countries. Perhaps I assumed too much about it, but if I were to say it now, I'd say negotiation power would have to have the following things. The more you have, the more negotiation power you wield.

money
social class
resources
following
ability to use power
power effectiveness

Looking at this, I would say a person of the Legislative or Executive Branch would have the most power. However, some can trump others in enough numbers. Such as when a new social group joins a community. The more of that social group that joins, the more the power they have in getting what they collectively want from that community. That is what the people are scared of in immigration.

So when it comes to domestic politics, Politicians would have the most negotiation abilities, while the people hold the most force in power.
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱