Quote:
Indeed, I would agree that this is one of the least regulated of my statements, and the fact of eventual collapse is likely much more miniscule and gradual than what I have described. However, it is looming, and indeed a great threat to society. By no means is this unique to me; many people see the same thing under a different guise. Some see it in the form of the U.S. submitting to the French, and some see it in the form of our simple economic collapse. However, what causes these two things? That lies at the base of my arguement. Regardless of how I let some of my rhetoric slip through in the last statement, my ideal there sits strong.
Additionally, of course I would never preach our coming collapse. That is a foolish approach for anyone going into politics. I would sing of our avoidance of that collapse if we work towards that end. Few people would listen to a thing I say and fly to the optimist in speach. This, of course, is a discussion; my political views are far less guarded here, and thus my pessimistic view of reality is apparent.
Also, I find it interesting in how you paint me pessimistic, and yet your next statement is that we are powerless to stop the ailings of society. That, in my opinion, is the most flawed position you can take. Society is the very production of the people; to say the people have no control over something they define seems a contradictory statement. The people are those that facilitate the collapse of every society, just like they facilitate every time they rise up off their feet. Even the leaders they choose are only powerful by their will; the will of the people, in essence, can never be curtailed by force or fate.
Let me extend your statement, "The people responsible for voting in the presidents don't give a rat's a** about what you have to say concerning the way the U.S. is headed..." Indeed, though that's not how you rally a cause. You tout the solution as your banner, not the problem you are trying to fix. You'll notice that very few politicians will get up on a pulpit and describe how horrible society is... They all carry their solution up onto their shoulders, which is what people want. Hence Obama's ideas of "change", or even F.D.R.'s famous statement, "There is nothing to fear but fear itself..." an open defiance of strife and hard times, instead presenting the bright future as an alternative.
Additionally, you are correct again. I will never be the "Greatest Rule" or the "Final State" (Though, I didn't phrase it so extremely. Just Tyranny.). That is the role of the people, those who make up the government and the populace. Indeed, a president may advocate a certain regime, but that is his sole ability: to advocate and arrange, to plan. No man is a state, yet by all means, a man can be the perpetrator of a state.
If my youngness is what provides me optimism in this potential, then so be it. Philosophers and perpetuators of philosophy are viewed far differently in the eyes of history. Though they probably have an intricate philosophy themselves, few leaders are ever viewed as philosophy. Perhaps that is the difference between the two; the ones in power practice philosophy, yet do not bear the name of the philosopher. Once a philosopher enters a political office, bad or good, they throw off the name of philosopher for another: the advocate. Thus, I will aspire to be both. Indeed, this was Plato's own ideal for the character of a regime.
Additionally, of course I would never preach our coming collapse. That is a foolish approach for anyone going into politics. I would sing of our avoidance of that collapse if we work towards that end. Few people would listen to a thing I say and fly to the optimist in speach. This, of course, is a discussion; my political views are far less guarded here, and thus my pessimistic view of reality is apparent.
Also, I find it interesting in how you paint me pessimistic, and yet your next statement is that we are powerless to stop the ailings of society. That, in my opinion, is the most flawed position you can take. Society is the very production of the people; to say the people have no control over something they define seems a contradictory statement. The people are those that facilitate the collapse of every society, just like they facilitate every time they rise up off their feet. Even the leaders they choose are only powerful by their will; the will of the people, in essence, can never be curtailed by force or fate.
Let me extend your statement, "The people responsible for voting in the presidents don't give a rat's a** about what you have to say concerning the way the U.S. is headed..." Indeed, though that's not how you rally a cause. You tout the solution as your banner, not the problem you are trying to fix. You'll notice that very few politicians will get up on a pulpit and describe how horrible society is... They all carry their solution up onto their shoulders, which is what people want. Hence Obama's ideas of "change", or even F.D.R.'s famous statement, "There is nothing to fear but fear itself..." an open defiance of strife and hard times, instead presenting the bright future as an alternative.
Additionally, you are correct again. I will never be the "Greatest Rule" or the "Final State" (Though, I didn't phrase it so extremely. Just Tyranny.). That is the role of the people, those who make up the government and the populace. Indeed, a president may advocate a certain regime, but that is his sole ability: to advocate and arrange, to plan. No man is a state, yet by all means, a man can be the perpetrator of a state.
If my youngness is what provides me optimism in this potential, then so be it. Philosophers and perpetuators of philosophy are viewed far differently in the eyes of history. Though they probably have an intricate philosophy themselves, few leaders are ever viewed as philosophy. Perhaps that is the difference between the two; the ones in power practice philosophy, yet do not bear the name of the philosopher. Once a philosopher enters a political office, bad or good, they throw off the name of philosopher for another: the advocate. Thus, I will aspire to be both. Indeed, this was Plato's own ideal for the character of a regime.
This topic got very much more interesting and subjective compared to what we were having before.
Let me deffend my pessemist vs optimist statements. I think our viewpoints on society are quite different. You seem to think society is formed by people...I am not exactly so certain. It seems to me more likely that people are mentally determined by the society they live in. I would use as proof the results of the last election. Bush won by a staggering land slide (8 points is all I know but 8 points in this nation is a land slide of electoral votes) but barely won the popular vote. I also looked at the demographic after the election of the popular vote in the US outlining those counties that Kerry won and those that Bush won.
The map was staggering. 85% of the country was covered in red (Bush) and only 15% in blue (Kerry). Now I has to of course as myself why the vote was so close then and why Kerry was even within the eight points until I looked at what counties were in red...and what they contained. The blue counties contained Los Angelas, New York, Miami, the whole of palm beach county, Seattle and half of Denver.......thats it. Thats all that Kerry won.
Now what are all those places? Big cities. What are all the other places? Not so big cities....what does this tell us? That people who are from largers cities make up the majority of the democratic party. Was the Democratic party spread out to the rural society? No....Was the Republican party infultrating our cities? Well....some....Dallas, Austin, Detroit...sure....but those cities compared to New York, LA and Miami are dwarfed. Essentially what you are...and where you are...and who you grew up with and around shape your thinking. And thus SOCIETY....shapes people, not the other way around.
People make up society, but society shapes them into it's mold. There are exceptions of course but that is the nature of human beings.
As for Obama...I think it is entirely all too foolish to think "change" is actually a solution as a president doesn't have the power to change the state of the nation. Not only that, but change to what? And how? If you ascribe to the certain governmental standards that this country was founded upon technically it would be unconstitutional to actually attempt to use the government to make any sorts of changes to our daily lives....That is not it's purpose. So unless he plans on changing the government to where it is involved less than it is now then change would not be a good thing at all.
I can recall four other political figures that were elected under the banner of change.
Stahlin (Soviet Russia), Kim Il-sung (North Korea), Mao Zedong (China), and oh yeah this one guy......HITLER.
Change is not necessarily a good thing.
Anywho, enough about Obama. I don't like him but I have my quams with the republican party as well so lets not make this about this election. I agree the world is stuck in a state of circularity as far as politics go, but it's an improving state of circularity. We are refining the process and getting more and more idealistic about what government should be, and some of them (Japan for example) are actually doing it quite well.
In any case, I am not faulting you for being young, but as you are young remember to yourself that you are young and that firey optimism you exude is a good thing so long as it is kept in check. Desiring change can cost you if the change is not the right one. Older people understand this and that is why you get annoyed at them for taking too long to decide things. They realize that a decision can sometimes mean doom for things to come.
Good luck in your aspirations, but keep in mind the monster you must be in order to govern well. Justice is not always what seems morally right unfortunately. But remind yourself that justice is always right...and what seems morally right may be flawed by subjectivity.
