Relation between view of mankind and politics?

[DainBramaged]

I'm just testing a theory that my Intro to Political Science teacher proposed. I doubt it's his original idea, I'm just curious.

 

[Polish3d]

I hope he didn't say that modern liberalism was more optimistic than modern conservatism


It could be worse though, we are doing two weeks on Marx in my philosophy class and my teacher keeps telling us that "they" (bourgoues) don't want us to be educated so "we" (Proletariat) don't get ideas about better lives for ourselves... pure class warfare stuff, stupid, false characterization

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Frackal
I hope he didn't say that modern liberalism was more optimistic than modern conservatism


It could be worse though, we are doing two weeks on Marx in my philosophy class and my teacher keeps telling us that "they" (bourgoues) don't want us to be educated so "we" (Proletariat) don't get ideas about better lives for ourselves... pure class warfare stuff, stupid, false characterization

Unless she specifically said proleteriat and bourgeoise, i doubt she's a marxist. There's a whole lot more to Marxism than pure class warfare. Class warfare exists in our society too.

 

[Polish3d]

No, he is a Marxist if you consider a Marxist someone who thinks Marxism should replace capitalism and is better than Capitalism.

 

[Tab]

Isn't that kind of a false dilemma? There's more to it than just "good" or "bad".

 

[Polish3d]

Are you a Hobbes or a Locke?

I think Locke has already been proven the winner

But yes, it could be much more detailed

 

[Steeplerot]

Sad, a education wasted on such aggrogance.

If you know so much maybe you should ask her to teach.

Do yourself a favor, drop out save your money and buy o'reilley for kids, its seems more your speed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
I'm just testing a theory that my Intro to Political Science teacher proposed. I doubt it's his original idea, I'm just curious.

How are you testing it? What difference does it make what we think as far as the truth of your professor's theory is concerned? And what does the true nature of man have to do with a theory, also, if what man's true nature accords not at all with the nature he actually expresses.

The facts, as I see them, are that man hates his true 'good self' and acts out of a falsely created ego that substitutes his real good that he was taught as a child to despise, with a truly hideous false ego that pretends to be good but is motivated by repressed feelings of hostility, that hidden self hate expressed outwardly. Man, then is a good being that is evil because he hides the feeling of being evil behind an ego that thinks it's good but is actually evil and can't recover the goodness because of the false belief in the feeling that the good is evil. Therefore man is evil in manifestation but good in his unknown core, sees his own evil as good and his own good as evil.

Ones political stand, therefore, is determined not by your view on the nature of man so much as the degree of ones self understanding. If you are all ego and false pretense and terrified of introspection you will think yourself the greatest of men. You will be into personal responsibility and law as necessary to control men.

If you have seen into your own feelings of worthlessness to some degree and realize that they are only feelings that one can feel and survive you will lean to compassion and cooperation as the way to liberate men.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Sad, a education wasted on such aggrogance.

If you know so much maybe you should ask her to teach.

Do yourself a favor, drop out save your money and buy o'reilley for kids, its seems more your speed.

I am deeply hurt by your callous remarks

 

[Steeplerot]

Well you are lucky to be able to afford school, and yet all you do is complain about learning something not off of tv.

 

[Polish3d]

I love almost all of my other classes, I am critical of this teacher for good reason

Its ok to criticize one's teacher's ideas if you think their ideas are poorly reasoned

 

[Steeplerot]

Eh, count it as a freebie, marx is a important philosopher anyway.

I can't stand fascism but read all about hitler, even if you hate what marx says it is a important aspect of the modern world.

You know what they say, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

 

[Polish3d]

I dont necessarily hate what Marx said, given the context of the times, the Prole vs Bourg idea might have been moer accurate. I havent read the Communist Manifesto but might one day some day

I dont like my teacher saying crap like "They" dont want you to be educated because "They" dont want you to think for yourself... along with all the other stuff

He's not a bad guy really, just his lectures are more fit for P+N or angryproles.com.mie than a general philosophy class

 

[Proletariat]

Hi.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
Hi.

Nobody asked you to speak..Back to work!

:laugh: :laugh:

 

[Dissipate]

As far as I know, both 'liberals' and 'conservatives' have a pessimistic view of mankind. The reason why is that they both strongly believe in the Hobbsian tale of the war of all against all in the 'state of nature.' Therefore, they believe that a state is necessary to restrain man's natural tendencies to war. Civilized society to them is something of an aritificial and fragile condition enforced from the top down.

My view of mankind depends on the situation he is in. I have a pessimistic view of mankind when it comes to power. Power corrupts mankind. History has shown this over and over and over again. Therefore, I believe that the more centralized power becomes in the world, the worse off the world will be. The more de-centralized power is in the world, the better off the world will be. As long as people are restricted to private spheres of influence, they can do great things and accomplish great tasks through voluntary exchange. If a small group of people get to control a much larger number of people, they will inevitably enslave them.

I see politics as nothing more than a massive centralization of power. Hence, I see politics as creating a situation that is highly destructive. The more political society becomes, the closer we get to total oblivion.

Democracy was an attempt to de-centralize the centralized power. It has failed, and will continue to fail at doing so. Anyone who thinks they can control a politician by pressing a button or punching holes in a card is deluding themselves.

 

[magomago]

I picked that I think people are inherently good, but I chose convservative. In reality my stances are much more left leaning because I don't care what others do. But my stances that pertain to myself are MUCH more conservative....so not sure exactly wher eI would go

 

[Red Dawn]

I've come to realize that there is some truth in every lie, you just have to know how to interpret it. How's that for optimism?

 

[miketheidiot]

i'm liberal and i don't believe that man is either inherantly good or inherantly evil.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Frackal
I hope he didn't say that modern liberalism was more optimistic than modern conservatism
...

Why is that? As far as I can tell, neither side has an especially optimistic view of mankind, seeing as how neither side really supports the basic ideas of social libertarianism. I think a good, but crude, measurment of how positive a person's views of human nature are is to see how much of a social libertarian they are. Do they trust that people, given the freedom to do what they want, will be generally good or generally evil?

Like I said, I don't think either liberal or conservative viewpoints would really agree with the basic ideas of social libertarianism...but I'm sorry to say that I think modern liberals are closer than modern conservatives.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
As far as I know, both 'liberals' and 'conservatives' have a pessimistic view of mankind. The reason why is that they both strongly believe in the Hobbsian tale of the war of all against all in the 'state of nature.' Therefore, they believe that a state is necessary to restrain man's natural tendencies to war. Civilized society to them is something of an aritificial and fragile condition enforced from the top down.

My view of mankind depends on the situation he is in. I have a pessimistic view of mankind when it comes to power. Power corrupts mankind. History has shown this over and over and over again. Therefore, I believe that the more centralized power becomes in the world, the worse off the world will be. The more de-centralized power is in the world, the better off the world will be. As long as people are restricted to private spheres of influence, they can do great things and accomplish great tasks through voluntary exchange. If a small group of people get to control a much larger number of people, they will inevitably enslave them.

I see politics as nothing more than a massive centralization of power. Hence, I see politics as creating a situation that is highly destructive. The more political society becomes, the closer we get to total oblivion.

Democracy was an attempt to de-centralize the centralized power. It has failed, and will continue to fail at doing so. Anyone who thinks they can control a politician by pressing a button or punching holes in a card is deluding themselves.

Because you cannot diagnose the cause of man's lust for power in his feelings of insecurity based on trained self hate your conclusions and solution are false. Power corrupts those who can be corrupted by power and that is all it can corrupt. The power of the One Ring was resisted by innocence and wisdom faith and loyalty, if you will remember. And democracy is not a 'was'. What you do not acknowledge in your 'all is corruption' pessimistic scheme is that private spheres of influence are as subject to corruption by power as anything else and will be no more successful at curbing power-seekers as you suggest is democracy. The answer to human woe lies in understanding. To understand man one needs only to understand ones self. The road to self understanding is real love and it is love that conquers power.

 

[Stunt]

Whoa...deja vu.

My thread a few a couple weeks ago

Your teacher is copying me!!

I've been discussing politics more recently with my more socialist oriented acquaintances about a broad range of issues; healthcare, taxation, welfare, foreign policy, military, etc etc.

Through this, I have more or less percieved the idea that government in effect saves us from ourselves. All government does is restrict, either in the form of justice, environmental, social, economic, fiscal and the like; forcing limitations on our lives in hopes of forming the greater good unknown by the general population.

Therefore it is my view your socialist and capitalist tendencies all come back to how pessimistic or optimistic you are with regards to the human race. If you believe humans in essence are good people and know the difference between right and wrong, you have no problem giving them more power/freedom in their lives (capitalist). If you think people are in essence greedy, selfish and cannot survive alone; you are more willing to restrict their actions through the governing of their lives.

Please note this point doesn't fit nicely into any political party. Social restrictions run rampant in social conservative issues and the same for fiscal liberal issues where economic/fiscal restrictions run rampant.

Various perceptions of the human race as a whole will in the end determine your political outlook; that's what I have noticed at least.

 

[HombrePequeno]

I'm libertarian and I believe people are inherently neutral...but if I had to choose I would say they were slightly more good than bad. I'm assuming you mean liberal in the Democrat sense and not liberal in the more freedom sense.

Anywho, I agree with Rainsford. It really does come down to how much freedom you will allow people. There's not too much of a difference between Republicans and Democrats in that area. It's just which area (economic or social) you think they are inherently good in.

 

[shira]

I'm a liberal, and I believe that people are inherently self-interested. Whether an action is good or evil is a matter of perspective.

"Evil" cannot simply mean that someone has caused a bad outcome. To me, someone is "evil" only if they knowingly strive to do what they believe to be bad.

If an assassin attempts to kill a benevolent ruler (where the assassin believes the ruler to be good), but misses his target and accidentally kills a would-be suicide bomber, the assassin is still evil.

If an insane person, following what he believes to be the voice of God talking to him, assassinates that benevolent ruler, the insane person is not evil.

And this can get very complicated: If someone (NOT insane) truly believes that they are doing God's will in blowing up a wedding party, are they evil?

Suppose God really did want the bomber to blow up the wedding party. Is the bomber evil?

 

[Vic]

I am neither (being a Locke libertarian) and believe that people are inherently good. The key to a more ideal society is to encourage people in a positive manner to act towards their own positive self-interest. That is what capitalism and liberty are all about.

Marx was a fool. A Hegelian mystic wrapped up in delusions of Aristotlean dualism. The most ironic thing about communism is how easily it has been twisted to fascism, and how easily its adherents have been able to blind themselves to their own wrongs and hypocrisies. Such is its own nature. Frackal's professor, for example, would probably not appreciate having it pointed out to him that the so-called bourgeois of the modern era are more likely to be socialist than non-socialist, and more likely to support a "lowest common denominator" style of education that suppresses acheivement rather than encouraging it.

Most people these days, liberal and conservative, are not optimistic about people in general. They have been brainwashed by a culture of fear into hating and distrusting their fellow humans. This fear has been implanted into the people for the purpose of controlling them, and for having them surrender control. Liberal vs. conservative is actually just a battle between 2 different forms of fascism.