Saipea
12-04-2006, 00:38
As ideologies become more polarized, and people, everso naturally inclined to creating/harboring gestalts, become more fixated on so-called political "maxims", I find myself worrying about whether there really is an impending clash between "left" and "right", and, worse still, if there isn't such an aforesaid clash, what might become of the rational thought and intellect that is supposed to exist in political philosophies which we now find so lacking?
Thus, forgive my directness (and perhaps, incisiveness), as I break down what I once deemed adumbrations but now see, much like all "stereotypes", as true-to-form characterizations of the "left" and "right", at least to a 90% accuracy of all their adherents:
The Left: Idealistic empathy, "heart" without "brain", morals without realism, foresight without insight.
* Understands the transience of the environment and the utmost importance of protecting it BUT does not see that it is, at the same time, a resource to be used.
* Understands the importance of social awareness, justice, and acceptance BUT irrationally contorts this desire to the point of unrealistic educational/institutional endeavors for aforesaid social awareness and/or de facto constraints on free speech and rational/comedic commentary that indicates anything besides the misguided notion that "everyone is equal."
* Understands that striving for economic egalitarianism and dissolving of capitalist "caste" system is important BUT does not see that achieving this end in its entirety is impossible until, say, soulless yet subservient and efficient robots are able to do the jobs hitherto assigned to the proletariot.
* Understands that critiquing "Western" philosophy and ones own government, along with empathizing with and attempting to appreciate philosophies of foreign and "terrorist" groups is laudable and healthy for personal development BUT is so completely turned around that it fails to see when the "Other" is "bad" simply for being bad and not simply for being "Other," and thus finds itself supporting bad in lieu of reason.
* Understands the importance of the seperation between church and state, Christian monopoly on morals and inherent altruism, faith and science BUT misguidedly seeks to eradicate the formers at the expense of respect for the latters.
The Right: Realistic austerity, "brain" without "heart", rationality without pity, insight without foresight.
* Sees the environment as a resource BUT does not understand that it is finite and quickly disappearing nor cares about the effects of its abuse in the present on those in times to come (for whatever misanthropic reason.)
* Sees that people are different and of varied capabilities BUT, like The Left, is unable to keep this distinction on a person-to-person basis and often finds itself attacking or alienating other individuals for simply being dissimilar from oneself.
* Sees that Capitalism is, for all intents and purposes, the "greatest good for the greatest number" that emphasizes and rewards independent success and ingenuity BUT does not understand that skewed income rates for various members of the established upper class undermines various tenets of proper economic philosophy -- not to mention is completely superfluous and unfeeling. The lack of compassion for lower "caste members" is equally distressing in its sterility, especially when gilded with false economic claims such as "trickle-down theory."
* Sees that undemocratic, oligarchical, xenophobic, mysoginistic, homophobic, and dangerously violent groups and nations (often characterized as such by the UN) are valid threats BUT fails to understand that the same attributes, though lighter in nature, are still alive and well in the "Western" world when compounded with equally delusional religious philosophies.
* See(s) above
Alright, so my analysis is, much like any other philosophical analysis, highly subjective. It is also, hopefully, inflammatory to a cerain degree. And if you fit into neither of the aforementioned categories, or none of the aforementioned dichotomous viewpoints, my apologies and congratulations: I'm sure I have (and do) fall into at least one of those ideological quagmires.
Basically, what I've been setting the stage for is this: not another cry for an end to partisanship, nor contrarily a call for solidarity within either of the previously "described" political "camps" -- simply a new (or rather, renewed) approach to political philosophy altogether. While I entertain no delusion of a consolidating everyone's personal philosophy, I'd like to see a unified approach to the formation of each individual's political outlook.
Succinctly, "realism with empathy", a path that not only employs positive aspects of both The Left and the Right, but one that acts as both a counter (for realism keeps idealistic empathy in check and empathy keeps selfish realism in check) and measure (for rationalism can be used to justify empathy and empathy [with a scope that oscillates between "one" and "many"] can be used to justify realism) for ideas set forth to be addressed by this philosophy.
Thus, forgive my directness (and perhaps, incisiveness), as I break down what I once deemed adumbrations but now see, much like all "stereotypes", as true-to-form characterizations of the "left" and "right", at least to a 90% accuracy of all their adherents:
The Left: Idealistic empathy, "heart" without "brain", morals without realism, foresight without insight.
* Understands the transience of the environment and the utmost importance of protecting it BUT does not see that it is, at the same time, a resource to be used.
* Understands the importance of social awareness, justice, and acceptance BUT irrationally contorts this desire to the point of unrealistic educational/institutional endeavors for aforesaid social awareness and/or de facto constraints on free speech and rational/comedic commentary that indicates anything besides the misguided notion that "everyone is equal."
* Understands that striving for economic egalitarianism and dissolving of capitalist "caste" system is important BUT does not see that achieving this end in its entirety is impossible until, say, soulless yet subservient and efficient robots are able to do the jobs hitherto assigned to the proletariot.
* Understands that critiquing "Western" philosophy and ones own government, along with empathizing with and attempting to appreciate philosophies of foreign and "terrorist" groups is laudable and healthy for personal development BUT is so completely turned around that it fails to see when the "Other" is "bad" simply for being bad and not simply for being "Other," and thus finds itself supporting bad in lieu of reason.
* Understands the importance of the seperation between church and state, Christian monopoly on morals and inherent altruism, faith and science BUT misguidedly seeks to eradicate the formers at the expense of respect for the latters.
The Right: Realistic austerity, "brain" without "heart", rationality without pity, insight without foresight.
* Sees the environment as a resource BUT does not understand that it is finite and quickly disappearing nor cares about the effects of its abuse in the present on those in times to come (for whatever misanthropic reason.)
* Sees that people are different and of varied capabilities BUT, like The Left, is unable to keep this distinction on a person-to-person basis and often finds itself attacking or alienating other individuals for simply being dissimilar from oneself.
* Sees that Capitalism is, for all intents and purposes, the "greatest good for the greatest number" that emphasizes and rewards independent success and ingenuity BUT does not understand that skewed income rates for various members of the established upper class undermines various tenets of proper economic philosophy -- not to mention is completely superfluous and unfeeling. The lack of compassion for lower "caste members" is equally distressing in its sterility, especially when gilded with false economic claims such as "trickle-down theory."
* Sees that undemocratic, oligarchical, xenophobic, mysoginistic, homophobic, and dangerously violent groups and nations (often characterized as such by the UN) are valid threats BUT fails to understand that the same attributes, though lighter in nature, are still alive and well in the "Western" world when compounded with equally delusional religious philosophies.
* See(s) above
Alright, so my analysis is, much like any other philosophical analysis, highly subjective. It is also, hopefully, inflammatory to a cerain degree. And if you fit into neither of the aforementioned categories, or none of the aforementioned dichotomous viewpoints, my apologies and congratulations: I'm sure I have (and do) fall into at least one of those ideological quagmires.
Basically, what I've been setting the stage for is this: not another cry for an end to partisanship, nor contrarily a call for solidarity within either of the previously "described" political "camps" -- simply a new (or rather, renewed) approach to political philosophy altogether. While I entertain no delusion of a consolidating everyone's personal philosophy, I'd like to see a unified approach to the formation of each individual's political outlook.
Succinctly, "realism with empathy", a path that not only employs positive aspects of both The Left and the Right, but one that acts as both a counter (for realism keeps idealistic empathy in check and empathy keeps selfish realism in check) and measure (for rationalism can be used to justify empathy and empathy [with a scope that oscillates between "one" and "many"] can be used to justify realism) for ideas set forth to be addressed by this philosophy.