It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The illusion of perpetual infallibility of individual philosophy

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
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 leanings.

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.” – G.K. Chesterton
edit on 8/14/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   


You have Conservatism, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Socialism, Fascism, Anarchism, and Communism. Fair enough, but what does each one mean?


conservatism and liberalism arent what the perceptions of them are.

socialism.,fascism and communism is the current state of the us government of today .

what do they mean? pure evil being cheered on by the yes more please crowd.

libertartianism with a side of anarchism would be a good thing for this country today.

thats my philosophy of looking to within to solve my problems and if more people did that things wouldnt be so bad right now.

my moral compass runs true oh well most of the time but i do have occasionaly lapses in judgement.
edit on 14-8-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
I think I get what you are saying here. From my point of view, one must by matter of circumstance use one's own knowledge and experience to form an opinion on anything. What else do we have since everything is base don our relative experience of matters. However, this cannot be done in a vaccum. Even though our understanding of events outside of our experience is filtered through own own perceptions, these outside events are critical to policy when it relates to a body larger than outselves.

I have, in my short blip of an existance in this body, gone through several schools of thought. I have been a Christian, a humanist, a renegade, a humanist, and even an arachist. I have since shed the labels. I don't know what I will end up as in the end, but I have definately learned the lesson that noone can exist in a vaccum. I can never recreate all of the knowledge and experience of 10s of thousands of years of human existance. Instead I try, sometimes clumsily, to embrace it. I wish more people would do the same, especially in the realm of politics.

Kudos to a great OP.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Mystic and metaphysical India produced her Avatars, Rama Krishna and Buddha, who brought Knowledge and Enlightenment to the world. Rational and Humanistic China brought forth her Great leaders Lao-Tse and Confucius, who brought to us the ideas of the Tao and of proper conduct. Utilitarian and artistic Japan gave birth to her brave Samurai and the ideas of Shintoism, loyalty, gratitude, endurance, knighthood, and beauty. In Egypt there was Hermes, the thrice great, the supposed son of Osiris and Isis, who became the father of mystic and esoteric brotherhoods of all lands, formulating the ideas of Knowledge (science), Wisdom, Love, Beauty, and Immortality. Persia produced an Avatar, Zoroaster, who taught the dualistic doctrine of the Good and Evil, and struck a keynote of purity for the world. In the land of the Hebrews, Moses became the Law giver and stood for righteousness. Greece produced the Great Orpheus, the supposed son of Apollo who brought a gospel of beauty. Rome produced no special Savior but gave the conception of law and order to the world. And finally Jesus brought to the world the great ideas of Love and Self-sacrifice and the Kingdom of God which is within, pointing the way to the coming of the new era of the new state of consciousness of the Brotherhood of Mankind. Thus, each era has its definite keynote, each brings us a new concept and yet we see the same unifying force everywhere. All point in the same direction, all have the same goal.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
socialism.,fascism and communism is the current state of the us government of today .


Yeah yeah, we know you don't like socialism. We've seen it before.
But the US government is elitism and corporatism.

Don't tag everything you don't like with socialism like a brainwashed right wing extremist.
edit on 14-8-2011 by User8911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I think it's human to have a personal philosophy that is determined mostly by our immediate experiences.
Only the rare have the ability to comprehend life has a whole and build a philosophy around a society.

A real leader doesn't take the power, he is chosen by the people.
He should sacrifice his greed for the wealth of his people...

There is nothing wrong with individual philosophy, that's what make things evolve.
What is wrong, is that our leaders should have a social philosophy and make optional their plans of being rich after they don't govern anymore.

At the moment is mostly feels like leaders are there for greed, power, wealth and our willing to sacrifice the people for it.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Misoir.
I think what I have come to respect most in your posts of late is your broadness of observation. Observations that don't immediately have to line up with any one side of our present political spectrum but rather skate the edge of the crevice.


Anyway, can I assume that these thoughts that you present so fluently are a synopsis of Burke's thinking as well?



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TerryMcGuire
reply to post by Misoir
 


Misoir.
I think what I have come to respect most in your posts of late is your broadness of observation. Observations that don't immediately have to line up with any one side of our present political spectrum but rather skate the edge of the crevice.


I am glad you have observed that. It gives people the ability to form their own conclusions from what I have written, which is better than telling someone what to think. Unfortunately not many other people on ATS desire to give others such freedom of decision making.


Anyway, can I assume that these thoughts that you present so fluently are a synopsis of Burke's thinking as well?


Perhaps not a completely accurate synopsis but rather an attempt at forming one as I have studied Burke a lot, he is my favorite of all philosophers, but my knowledge of him is not thorough enough to create a genuine synopsis. You may want to read an article that gave me the motivation to write this.

www.frontporchrepublic.com...



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

edit on 14-8-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7

log in

join