The perplexity of our tumultuous political circumstances is disheartening to the great mass of people, and respectfully so. Disorder, disunity,
disenfranchisement, and dishonor are all a few powerful words the escape the confines of my mind into text as a way of expressing interpretation of
the emotions of disaffected peoples. Our politics is in disarray, no clear potential for a permanent or even temporary fix to the complex problems
which keep us awake at night. Politicians either too dim to comprehend the market mechanisms they so carelessly toil with or lacking the moral courage
and honorable conviction to compassionately stand up to fix the flimsy house of cards we call America.
For what purpose would it serve them to engage the political process for genuine reform when the American people are hopelessly lost in another world
altogether? Ideas are not sanctioned by the body politik unless they conform to the political paradigm established so as to continue on our present
path to self-annihilation through what is often observed by me and others, as a sort of political inebriation.
Unlike many others who have been unwilling, there is no other explanation, to reconstruct their political and ideological beliefs to fit a more
appropriate self-enriching philosophical position, I have. There are many good people who have, for one reason or another not expanded the horizons on
the political front. Basically, as we are told, there are only a few set political ideologies in politics. You have Conservatism, Liberalism,
Libertarianism, Socialism, Fascism, Anarchism, and Communism. Fair enough, but what does each one mean?
At this point people will either search for the definition from an external source, will recite talking points so graciously provided by the adherents
to fallacy, or scramble together an assortment of self-styled “what it means to me” labels. When one asks you to define what a certain philosophy,
ideology, etc… means, your answer, unless properly educated, not indoctrinated, in the subject will be erroneous at best.
Since the time of modern alignment of politics which slowly began after the onset of the age of enlightenment, fully coming to fruition after World
War I, we have constructed within our own thought philosophies. Be they great or disastrous. The problem that suddenly arises to me from reading
individuals philosophical positions is that they are built upon a premise of individual knowledge, experiences, and rationale. Little, if any, credit
is assigned to outside influences. Of course there is the “my mother was a great influence” or “so and so philosophers were an influence”, but
that only goes so far.
What I view as being the problem with today’s political establishment, going outside the realm of parties and individual nations, is that people
have established philosophical positions from their own minds. What is the problem with that? For starters you are not the only person in this world,
your ideas are not the only important ones, and you are not always right. So where can you find a source from which to judge your philosophy, that
should be the million dollar question. What established source, which has long been known as bedrock of your society, can you compare your philosophy
to so as to justify it?
For the religious among us the answer may be your respective organized religious institution. That is good, actually for much of Western history truly
beginning with Greek philosophers, religion had been the most critical foundation from which to examine your own thoughts. One cannot be the examiner
of your thoughts, the bias is obvious. You must seek an objective source of knowledge and wisdom that, itself, is not subject to emotional
With the above stated I would now like to turn towards another point that is important. Have you ever taken the time to notice that in today’s world
we tend to interpret the outside institutions based upon our personal political opinions of them? Long gone are the days where these institutions
would be used as a mechanism from which we may shine a light upon ourselves so as to judge the value of our thoughts, values, and morals. Now we take
our thoughts, values, and morals then make them into the lights from which to observe the outside. Unfortunately, far too often said light is darkened
by the supposed infallibility of our person’s.
By this point you may not be able to make clear sense of my post. Hopefully after a short time of personal and inner reflection the meaning of this
thread will come to you. Now I shall leave you with a set of quotes that are particularly relevant to this OP.
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as
their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and
presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves.
Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must
be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
– Edmund Burke
“Man is insatiable for power; he is infantile in his desires and, always discontented with what he has, loves only what he has not. People complain
of the despotism of princes; they ought to complain of the despotism of man.” –
Joseph de Maistre
“When the old Liberals removed the gags from all the heresies, their idea was that religious and philosophical discoveries might thus be made. Their
view was that cosmic truth was so important that every one ought to bear independent testimony. The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant
that it cannot matter what any one says. The former freed inquiry as men loose a noble hound; the latter frees inquiry as men fling back into the sea
a fish unfit for eating. Never has there been so little discussion about the nature of men as now, when, for the first time, any one can discuss it.
The old restriction meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion. Modern liberty means that nobody is allowed to discuss it. Good
taste, the last and vilest of human superstitions, has succeeded in silencing us where all the rest have failed.” –
edit on 8/14/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)