"The Unexamined Life is not worth living." ~Socrates
Yet whether a Life is examined or unexamined,
Either way it must still be Lived.
I believe 'Examination' of a Life is an individual's Self-Consciousness. Thus an Examined Life is a Self-Conscious Life. Not all men are Self-Conscious; therefore not all men lead Examined lives. It is therefore necessary to posit any theory of Politics on the basis of this distinction. As it lays out, there are those (men) who are Moved, representing the Masses, versus those who are the Movers, representing the political "Elite". Politics, then, is built upon this presupposition, that a small minority of men, Move humanity and the rest of men, according to a set of certain principles, or "Natural Law", or psychology/sociology of the masses, etc. Men must know the nature and power of Influence, Persuasion, Belief, Ideology, Motivation, Ambition, and more. It it is critical to distinguish what men are 'moved by' of their own volition, "independently", as though they were not in any society, or completely removed from other men altogether.
Men are hungry, driven by their stomachs.
Men are sexually desirous, driven by their genitals.
Yet, as with the first preposition, very few men are 'Self-Aware' of his condition, of his strengths or weaknesses. Thus there quickly befalls a Hierarchy between those who Control (and Move) versus those who are Controlled (and Are Moved). Those that dictate who can or cannot eat. Those who dictate who can or cannot reproduce.
...this thread will be designed to discuss, debate, and determine the nature of the Political Man, in all areas of life, whether examined and self-conscious, or unexamined and easily moved.
The Political Man
-
promethean75
- Posts: 5047
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: The Political Man
^^^ lol well played
-
promethean75
- Posts: 5047
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: The Political Man
Socrates: ... and so, the unexamined life is not worth living.
Heleonides: and the examined life is worth living, Socrates?
Socrates: that is true, Heleonides.
Heleonides: have u ever examined Wizzz's life?
[Socrates spends three days with Wizzz to examine his life]
Socrates: Heleonides, i have examined Wizzz's life.
Heleonides: and what do u say, Socrates?
Socrates: the unexamined and some examined lives are not worth living, Heleonides.
Heleonides: and the examined life is worth living, Socrates?
Socrates: that is true, Heleonides.
Heleonides: have u ever examined Wizzz's life?
[Socrates spends three days with Wizzz to examine his life]
Socrates: Heleonides, i have examined Wizzz's life.
Heleonides: and what do u say, Socrates?
Socrates: the unexamined and some examined lives are not worth living, Heleonides.
Re: The Political Man
promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 1:45 pm Socrates: ... and so, the unexamined life is not worth living.
Heleonides: and the examined life is worth living, Socrates?
Socrates: that is true, Heleonides.
Heleonides: have u ever examined Wizzz's life?
[Socrates spends three days with Wizzz to examine his life]
Socrates: Heleonides, i have examined Wizzz's life.
Heleonides: and what do u say, Socrates?
Socrates: the unexamined and some examined lives are not worth living, Heleonides.
-
Gary Childress
- Posts: 8355
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: The Political Man
In my experience bigotry and xenophobia don't stand up to self-examination. But then, I'm just a nut case, apparently.
-
Impenitent
- Posts: 4369
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: The Political Man
Aside from giving Plato some great story ideas, Socrates ran a magnifying glass company...
-Imp
-Imp
Re: The Political Man
Everybody is "bigoted and xenophobic" though.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 2:54 pmIn my experience bigotry and xenophobia don't stand up to self-examination. But then, I'm just a nut case, apparently.
Do the Liberal-Leftist-Democrats accept Trump?
Do the Liberal-Leftist-Democrats accept MAGA voters?
No. So they're being bigoted, intolerant, and xenophobic, against Conservative-Right-Republicans.
Should Nazis be tolerated and accepted? Should Communists? Should Jews? Should Israel "tolerate" Gaza and Hamas?
It's easy to see that Divide & Conquer is essential to Politics. One group is not acceptable within another. Some types of humanity are not tolerated within others.
Re: The Political Man
Let's talk about Human Loyalty for a moment.
The Natural Allegiance of animals begin within their own specie, their own race, their own ethnicity, their own tribe, and finally their own house. Therefore, 'Politics' is an expression of one's Individuality, and cannot be separated from a Society. Because even if Individual is separated from his Society (his House), then that does not erase his past and history. It does not erase his genetic lineage, heritage, and standing. It does not erase his appearance, his height, his weight, his face, his description. Because Species naturally gravitate to their own Kind, their own Kin, so too do humans generally do the same.
Therefore, "Multiculturalism" is the Exception to the rule of Nature, not the Norm. Thus creates a standard of such (Racialist) Normalcy.
Because Politics and Human Allegiance/Loyalty begins this way, it makes a very powerful and profound statement, to 'go against Nature' in the same way it would mean to go against your own Specie, your own Race, your own Tribe, your own House, etc.
Ultimately, One (Man) can betray Himself. Such a man, would then, be a threat to every Society. Because he cannot trust Himself.
The Natural Allegiance of animals begin within their own specie, their own race, their own ethnicity, their own tribe, and finally their own house. Therefore, 'Politics' is an expression of one's Individuality, and cannot be separated from a Society. Because even if Individual is separated from his Society (his House), then that does not erase his past and history. It does not erase his genetic lineage, heritage, and standing. It does not erase his appearance, his height, his weight, his face, his description. Because Species naturally gravitate to their own Kind, their own Kin, so too do humans generally do the same.
Therefore, "Multiculturalism" is the Exception to the rule of Nature, not the Norm. Thus creates a standard of such (Racialist) Normalcy.
Because Politics and Human Allegiance/Loyalty begins this way, it makes a very powerful and profound statement, to 'go against Nature' in the same way it would mean to go against your own Specie, your own Race, your own Tribe, your own House, etc.
Ultimately, One (Man) can betray Himself. Such a man, would then, be a threat to every Society. Because he cannot trust Himself.
Re: The Political Man
You cannot have Loyalty—without Betrayal.
At what point are you a 'Liberal', do you or would you switchover, and Betray, your fellow "Liberals", for Conservative values?
Likewise,
At what point are you a 'Conservative', do you or would you switchover, and Betray, your fellow "Conservatives", for Liberal values?
As US and Western Politics demonstrates this loyalty, and betrayal, it is usually a matter of money. Political "Loyalty" has a price-tag. And this price-tag can run all the way down from the Macro level to the Micro, the House/Family/Kinship. Would you betray your own parents, for a dollar? Your siblings? Your children, your spouse? Again, would you betray Yourself, for money? And isn't that what everybody does, everyday, anyway? The majority of humanity earn their living through wages and jobs, by which they sell their loyalty to an Employer (Capitalism). Or, a significant portion of a population sell their loyalty directly to the Government, as a Soldier, as an Officer, as a Social Worker, etc. Then there is selling yourself to your Church, the "spiritual" price tag.
In all of these, an individual person's loyalties, and betrayals, can begin to be measured—if not directly (through money, through a numerical cost), then indirectly by Action, by what you are willing or not to Do, when the moments in life arise, where your loyalty is put to the test.
Will you stand idly by, while your life or livelihood is attacked, by criminals or traitors? Or will you-yourself betray those you were formerly committed?
At what point are you a 'Liberal', do you or would you switchover, and Betray, your fellow "Liberals", for Conservative values?
Likewise,
At what point are you a 'Conservative', do you or would you switchover, and Betray, your fellow "Conservatives", for Liberal values?
As US and Western Politics demonstrates this loyalty, and betrayal, it is usually a matter of money. Political "Loyalty" has a price-tag. And this price-tag can run all the way down from the Macro level to the Micro, the House/Family/Kinship. Would you betray your own parents, for a dollar? Your siblings? Your children, your spouse? Again, would you betray Yourself, for money? And isn't that what everybody does, everyday, anyway? The majority of humanity earn their living through wages and jobs, by which they sell their loyalty to an Employer (Capitalism). Or, a significant portion of a population sell their loyalty directly to the Government, as a Soldier, as an Officer, as a Social Worker, etc. Then there is selling yourself to your Church, the "spiritual" price tag.
In all of these, an individual person's loyalties, and betrayals, can begin to be measured—if not directly (through money, through a numerical cost), then indirectly by Action, by what you are willing or not to Do, when the moments in life arise, where your loyalty is put to the test.
Will you stand idly by, while your life or livelihood is attacked, by criminals or traitors? Or will you-yourself betray those you were formerly committed?
Re: The Political Man
Politics begins in the womb, at birth, in weaning.
The profound relationship between mother and child is the first Polity, the first Relationship, and therefore, the first relationship all humans have between Subject and Authority. The helpless infant is totally Dependent upon the Mother. Thus the human development into Politics will be the same relationship any Subject has with their Mother. If the Mother is loving and caring, then the person/Subject will expect such love and care in relationships between State or Church. If the Mother is hateful and neglectful, then the person/Subject will expect such hate and neglect in relationships between State or Church. These relationships are furthest extracted toward Humanity and Nature.
If your infancy was Kind (positive, loving, cared for), then toward Nature and animals you will be Kind.
If your infancy was Cruel (negative, hateful, neglected), then toward Nature and animals you will be Cruel.
Because in Animals and Nature, Mankind sees his infantile 'Innocence' and 'purity' (Bliss) reflected in Animals. An animal "knows naught" what it does. It cannot be 'Blamed' for its Instincts and Reflexes. Thus animals, and Nature, have no Autonomy, have no 'Choice', as Constructed and Determined by Mankind.
The profound relationship between mother and child is the first Polity, the first Relationship, and therefore, the first relationship all humans have between Subject and Authority. The helpless infant is totally Dependent upon the Mother. Thus the human development into Politics will be the same relationship any Subject has with their Mother. If the Mother is loving and caring, then the person/Subject will expect such love and care in relationships between State or Church. If the Mother is hateful and neglectful, then the person/Subject will expect such hate and neglect in relationships between State or Church. These relationships are furthest extracted toward Humanity and Nature.
If your infancy was Kind (positive, loving, cared for), then toward Nature and animals you will be Kind.
If your infancy was Cruel (negative, hateful, neglected), then toward Nature and animals you will be Cruel.
Because in Animals and Nature, Mankind sees his infantile 'Innocence' and 'purity' (Bliss) reflected in Animals. An animal "knows naught" what it does. It cannot be 'Blamed' for its Instincts and Reflexes. Thus animals, and Nature, have no Autonomy, have no 'Choice', as Constructed and Determined by Mankind.
Re: The Political Man
Likewise the infant is the direct result of the Mother's relationship with the Father.
Most Humans have a generally 'positive' infancy and relationship with their Mother—but the Father is a different story.
I will put the estimates at 80% positive relationship with Mother,
And 40% positive relationship with Father.
Therefore most Humanity are positive toward Women in general (as Mothers), but are negative toward Men in general (as Fathers). Because of these necessary Biological relationships, and their Estimated degrees of relation (as positive or negative), the greater Polity of all Humans now begins to take shape: Relationships are skewed positively toward Females, but negatively toward Males.
For proof of this, one only need to participate on this Forum in anyway: whether passively reading or actively writing. Most females do not participate in Philosophical debates. And most of the women who do, who are Rare, act 'Agreeably' and passively in discussions and debates. Only the rarest type of female would be 'Disagreeable' then, in the context of Philosophy, or furthermore if they were driven toward Politics.
While males, on the other hand, would be Disagreeable, Negative, and generally taken as Untrustworthy. Males would have an intrinsically different type of 'Authority' (stemming from Parenthood/Fatherhood) than females.
While all Humans know these facts and relationships intuitively—(as intuitive as they know their own biological mother or father)—these must be stated here as the Basis of Polity and Policy, which will eventually shape and drive their Worldview, Core Values, and Metaphysics (Perspective/Beliefs) of the World.
Most Humans have a generally 'positive' infancy and relationship with their Mother—but the Father is a different story.
I will put the estimates at 80% positive relationship with Mother,
And 40% positive relationship with Father.
Therefore most Humanity are positive toward Women in general (as Mothers), but are negative toward Men in general (as Fathers). Because of these necessary Biological relationships, and their Estimated degrees of relation (as positive or negative), the greater Polity of all Humans now begins to take shape: Relationships are skewed positively toward Females, but negatively toward Males.
For proof of this, one only need to participate on this Forum in anyway: whether passively reading or actively writing. Most females do not participate in Philosophical debates. And most of the women who do, who are Rare, act 'Agreeably' and passively in discussions and debates. Only the rarest type of female would be 'Disagreeable' then, in the context of Philosophy, or furthermore if they were driven toward Politics.
While males, on the other hand, would be Disagreeable, Negative, and generally taken as Untrustworthy. Males would have an intrinsically different type of 'Authority' (stemming from Parenthood/Fatherhood) than females.
While all Humans know these facts and relationships intuitively—(as intuitive as they know their own biological mother or father)—these must be stated here as the Basis of Polity and Policy, which will eventually shape and drive their Worldview, Core Values, and Metaphysics (Perspective/Beliefs) of the World.
Re: The Political Man
Because Politics is engendered between the sexual relationship of Mother and Father, so too is it Racial.
Most Humans are Racially Homogeneous because Hominids and Mammals have a very strong in-group sexual preference. Humans, Mammals, and Life in general, prefer their own Specie's Kindred versus 'alien' outsiders and strangers. Because this is the Norm, any preference for inter-Racial relationships or sexual unions are the Exception to the rule/nature. Again, with Humanity, an Estimation is necessary that 95% of Hominids are Homogeneous versus Heterogeneous. Most will copulate and breed within their own Kind/Ethnos/Race, while a small fraction (5%) will not.
In these Exceptions, the mixed-race child will naturally align with the Mother, as denoted above, before the Father. Thus, when it comes to racial-mixing of any kind, the Biological Mother will inherit a natural Loyalty and Identification, before the Father.
From these observations, the Polity between Infant, Mother, and Father already exemplify (in Sexual Behavior) characteristics of Sex/Gender and Race/Ethnicity, by which the Mother (Female gender) and her Ethnic-Racial composition are naturally favored (by default) of the Infant. Again, because of the necessary caregiving, breastfeeding, and weaning of the Mother to the Infant.
Now abstracted to Human Politics, already there is a general favorability (Positivity) toward Females, and one's own Kind/Race/Ethnos, and if the result of Heterogeneity (inter-mixing), then the Mother's Race will take precedence in terms of Political Loyalty.
Abstracted greater than Politics, to the level of 'Ideologies', it should begin to become obvious and common sense to all, that Matriarchal and Matrilineal ideologies will manifest at the Beginning of human history, and through all Mythologies, by which 'Motherhood' is venerated and intrinsic to political loyalty—because whom will an infant or child naturally favor, if not his/her own biological Mother? And why would an infant, or anybody else, favor the loyalty of a Stranger, or Foreigner, before one's own Kin? The answer to this is in the 'Negative' aspect of Infancy, by which a child is Neglected, to the point of Abuse or complete Deprivation/Abortion/Murder/Sacrifice of a child.
Therefore, if infants or children are Neglected by the biological mother, or Abandoned completely, then the infant will latch onto and 'connect' to any presumed "Positivity" it can find, like a drowning man at sea latches onto a life preserver or hunk of wood. And this new preserver, will supplant and replace Biological Motherhood with an Artificiality: Surrogacy.
Humans can even be 'imprinted', as animals are, in the case of Feral Children being taken in by animals, such as a pack of dogs or wolves. Surrogacy, then, is not limited to Specie, as it is not limited to Race or Gender. If a Mother is not found, then the infant can latch onto a Father, for example, but will then have a skewed sense of Gender as consequence.
Most Humans are Racially Homogeneous because Hominids and Mammals have a very strong in-group sexual preference. Humans, Mammals, and Life in general, prefer their own Specie's Kindred versus 'alien' outsiders and strangers. Because this is the Norm, any preference for inter-Racial relationships or sexual unions are the Exception to the rule/nature. Again, with Humanity, an Estimation is necessary that 95% of Hominids are Homogeneous versus Heterogeneous. Most will copulate and breed within their own Kind/Ethnos/Race, while a small fraction (5%) will not.
In these Exceptions, the mixed-race child will naturally align with the Mother, as denoted above, before the Father. Thus, when it comes to racial-mixing of any kind, the Biological Mother will inherit a natural Loyalty and Identification, before the Father.
From these observations, the Polity between Infant, Mother, and Father already exemplify (in Sexual Behavior) characteristics of Sex/Gender and Race/Ethnicity, by which the Mother (Female gender) and her Ethnic-Racial composition are naturally favored (by default) of the Infant. Again, because of the necessary caregiving, breastfeeding, and weaning of the Mother to the Infant.
Now abstracted to Human Politics, already there is a general favorability (Positivity) toward Females, and one's own Kind/Race/Ethnos, and if the result of Heterogeneity (inter-mixing), then the Mother's Race will take precedence in terms of Political Loyalty.
Abstracted greater than Politics, to the level of 'Ideologies', it should begin to become obvious and common sense to all, that Matriarchal and Matrilineal ideologies will manifest at the Beginning of human history, and through all Mythologies, by which 'Motherhood' is venerated and intrinsic to political loyalty—because whom will an infant or child naturally favor, if not his/her own biological Mother? And why would an infant, or anybody else, favor the loyalty of a Stranger, or Foreigner, before one's own Kin? The answer to this is in the 'Negative' aspect of Infancy, by which a child is Neglected, to the point of Abuse or complete Deprivation/Abortion/Murder/Sacrifice of a child.
Therefore, if infants or children are Neglected by the biological mother, or Abandoned completely, then the infant will latch onto and 'connect' to any presumed "Positivity" it can find, like a drowning man at sea latches onto a life preserver or hunk of wood. And this new preserver, will supplant and replace Biological Motherhood with an Artificiality: Surrogacy.
Humans can even be 'imprinted', as animals are, in the case of Feral Children being taken in by animals, such as a pack of dogs or wolves. Surrogacy, then, is not limited to Specie, as it is not limited to Race or Gender. If a Mother is not found, then the infant can latch onto a Father, for example, but will then have a skewed sense of Gender as consequence.
Re: The Political Man
How awful it must be to find oneself interested in this kind of tripe. 
Re: The Political Man
Now that Gender and Race are setup as the basis of Polity, between Infant, Mother, and Father, obviously this will threaten the greater Policies which wish to undermine and deny the existence of "Gender" or "Racial" Politics.