I think that societies should be examined in two categories: those with and without classes. Some of you might feel the urge to point out how this is a simple and basic separation so on and so forth. Nevertheless, this will take on dire importance as we advance.
To put it simply, how do we determine the difference between a society with classes from one that doesn’t? For me, the answer to this question lies on the concept of “private property”. With this proposition we find ourselves in Rousseau’s territory:
“Le premier qui, ayant enclos un terrain, s'avisa de dire: Ceci est à moi, et trouva des gens assez simples pour le croire, fut le vrai fondateur de la société civile. Que de crimes, que de guerres, de meurtres, que de misères et d'horreurs n'eût point épargnés au genre humain celui qui, arrachant les pieux ou comblant le fossé, eût crié à ses semblables: Gardez-vous d'écouter cet imposteur; vous êtes perdus, si vous oubliez que les fruits sont à tous, et que la terre n'est à personne."
-Jean Jacques Rousseau (Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes)
“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”
-Jean Jacques Rousseau (Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men)
Here we can clearly observe that Rousseau considers the moment when private property was found as both the beginning of civil (modern) societies and the source of the inequality amongst men. For Rousseau, this is not a simple step that can be taken back, but more of an inevitable and horrible fate, a miserable prophecy upon all of mankind, a breaking point, a rupture.
I must point out that I do agree that private property is not a simple step that can be taken back, yet I disagree on the assumption that this is as though a prophecy upon mankind, an inevitable fate. However, I will stop talking of this subject for now, as I intend to write more on it later.
We can summarize the goal of this note as distinguishing societies with classes from those that don’t through the concept of private property, all the while emphasizing that there is a breaking point, a rupture if you would call it, on the moment where a society adopts the notion of private property, and that this breaking point or rupture is for me irreversible but not inevitable.
28/10/2008
A Small Step: Deconstruction of the concept 'Leader' (2)
After some critical thinking, I noticed it's mostly the fear of responsibility that creates the need of leaders. Carl Jung too studied the types of personalities, and it is quite obvious most of these types rather follow a conventional way to do their jobs/errands/projects generally. Rather than experimenting new ways or to try and see different aspects of different situations.
People who rather follow the methods they've got used to, are mostly the ones who choose following over leading too, so it's not so hard to see that they are relative facts. Leading and originality are more then parallel, because in the end, leading too means walking paths that has been never ever been walked before (in a way).
Although I do think people never completely comprehend the goals and the vision of their leaders most of the time, they choose to follow them, because it is the best option they have. They care only about their own benefits (human nature, can't blame them) and they care only a little about the consequences of following such leader. Such as their unawareness about the leader's source of power; just like Samson gets his power from his hair, leaders get their power from their followers (numbers), and so if you eliminate that factor, no matter how strong the individual may be, individual will become utterly nothing in the eyes of the society.
As Montaigne too explains, most of the society can't burden theirselves with the responsibility of the others or others lives. Therefore it's only natural for a society contain few number of leaders, and even fewer number of them are (any) 'good'.
However, I think people who have such skill (Leading) care little about their responsibility to the others. They care, and they are responsible, but not in the exact way the followers think so. Ofcourse leaders care about their followers, ofcourse the state cares about the people/nation/community. But there are limits.
Such limits causing leaders to become aware of their need of followers, in order to sustain or increase power they have to make do everything in their power. But there are facts crossing those facts too. Such as greater good. In order to achieve the greater good, sacrifaces has to be made, sacrifaces can end up with a huge loss of influence. But when done properly, recovery is easy. In the end, if I have to quote myself, "Society: They care only about their own benefits (human nature, can't blame them) and they care only a little about the consequences of following such leader."
So, as long as you give them what they want, and we all know they are after superficial benefits, they'll start loving you again, no matter how you offended them, they'll start giving you the power you need to do your bidding as you like again.
People who rather follow the methods they've got used to, are mostly the ones who choose following over leading too, so it's not so hard to see that they are relative facts. Leading and originality are more then parallel, because in the end, leading too means walking paths that has been never ever been walked before (in a way).
Although I do think people never completely comprehend the goals and the vision of their leaders most of the time, they choose to follow them, because it is the best option they have. They care only about their own benefits (human nature, can't blame them) and they care only a little about the consequences of following such leader. Such as their unawareness about the leader's source of power; just like Samson gets his power from his hair, leaders get their power from their followers (numbers), and so if you eliminate that factor, no matter how strong the individual may be, individual will become utterly nothing in the eyes of the society.
As Montaigne too explains, most of the society can't burden theirselves with the responsibility of the others or others lives. Therefore it's only natural for a society contain few number of leaders, and even fewer number of them are (any) 'good'.
However, I think people who have such skill (Leading) care little about their responsibility to the others. They care, and they are responsible, but not in the exact way the followers think so. Ofcourse leaders care about their followers, ofcourse the state cares about the people/nation/community. But there are limits.
Such limits causing leaders to become aware of their need of followers, in order to sustain or increase power they have to make do everything in their power. But there are facts crossing those facts too. Such as greater good. In order to achieve the greater good, sacrifaces has to be made, sacrifaces can end up with a huge loss of influence. But when done properly, recovery is easy. In the end, if I have to quote myself, "Society: They care only about their own benefits (human nature, can't blame them) and they care only a little about the consequences of following such leader."
So, as long as you give them what they want, and we all know they are after superficial benefits, they'll start loving you again, no matter how you offended them, they'll start giving you the power you need to do your bidding as you like again.
18/10/2008
A Small Step: Deconstruction of the concept 'Leader'
This will be a tiny entry for some ideas to spark.
Ask the right questions and you might be getting somewhere. Try questioning statues like: King/Queen, President/First Lady. Try questioning the immediate need for appointing a leader after ones fall.
Try questioning the T.V Series 'Lost', even though their plane crashes on a desolate island which is completely free of juristical concepts such as law, order and punishment. Which means they are completely free to do whatever they want. Leaders come up even before they are needed, and people start to follow them. Leaders clash with each other for power and for followers.
- There are over 5000 kinds of Mammals on Earth, most of them live in packs or families.
- Some of them are considered as 'Social Animals', such as gorillas, wolves, and humans.
- In the group, the 'Social Animals', always contains an 'Alpha Male'.
- The strongest, and perhaps the wisest of them can become an 'Alpha Male'.
- 'Alpha Pair', consists of the male and female Alpha.
- 'Alpha Female' is the choice of the 'Alpha Male'.
- Therefore, we can say 'Alpha Male' appoints the 'Alpha Female'.
- There is always a conflict between one Alpha and the other, not to mention the candidates.
- If an 'Alpha Male' dies, he gets replaced instantly.
- If he gets overpowered by other males, or gets defeated, he loses the statue of 'Alpha', and gets replaced.
- In some cases, after the defeat, the old 'Alpha Male' exiles himself.
- If he does not, the old 'Alpha Male' is forced to leave.
Ask the right questions and you might be getting somewhere. Try questioning statues like: King/Queen, President/First Lady. Try questioning the immediate need for appointing a leader after ones fall.
Try questioning the T.V Series 'Lost', even though their plane crashes on a desolate island which is completely free of juristical concepts such as law, order and punishment. Which means they are completely free to do whatever they want. Leaders come up even before they are needed, and people start to follow them. Leaders clash with each other for power and for followers.
13/10/2008
Political Power, Ideology and Society #1
When debating different forms of political power, we have the tendency to immediately assume that the State should be separated from the rest of them. This assumption could be argued to be well placed, if we were to separate different forms of political power according to the sovereignty problem.
The sovereignty problem is basically the question of where the political power claims its right to rule. Before the modern State that has its roots back in the fifteenth century, this problem was overcome with the notion of divinity: the political power (the ruler or the ruling class etc.) would claim that it is God(s) incarnate, or the son of God(s), or the messenger of God(s) or yet (s)he who speaks the Law of God(s). This would basically mean that the political power claims that the right to rule over the people belongs to some sort of divinity, and the political power represents that divinity whereas the modern State overcomes this problem with an idea that is much more appealing to our minds today: the society. The modern State claims that the people have the right to determine their own Law and that the political power represents the society.
In short, the difference between other forms of political power and the State is the mere difference of where the political power claims its right to rule from. This shift in the source of sovereignty, combined with the humanist thought that places man as a centre for all values brings forth one of the more basic problems with modern societies: what is the difference between the individual that placed his/her faith in religion and obeyed the so called Law of God(s) that was enforced by the political power and the individual that placed his/her faith in humanity and the people and obeyed the so called Law of the people that’s being enforced by today’s political powers?
The sovereignty problem is basically the question of where the political power claims its right to rule. Before the modern State that has its roots back in the fifteenth century, this problem was overcome with the notion of divinity: the political power (the ruler or the ruling class etc.) would claim that it is God(s) incarnate, or the son of God(s), or the messenger of God(s) or yet (s)he who speaks the Law of God(s). This would basically mean that the political power claims that the right to rule over the people belongs to some sort of divinity, and the political power represents that divinity whereas the modern State overcomes this problem with an idea that is much more appealing to our minds today: the society. The modern State claims that the people have the right to determine their own Law and that the political power represents the society.
In short, the difference between other forms of political power and the State is the mere difference of where the political power claims its right to rule from. This shift in the source of sovereignty, combined with the humanist thought that places man as a centre for all values brings forth one of the more basic problems with modern societies: what is the difference between the individual that placed his/her faith in religion and obeyed the so called Law of God(s) that was enforced by the political power and the individual that placed his/her faith in humanity and the people and obeyed the so called Law of the people that’s being enforced by today’s political powers?
Political Power, Ideology and Society
My general approach towards this blog will be writing down short and comprehensible (hopefully both) notes and publishing them, each note aiming at exposing how certain mechanisms within modern societies work, hoping to achieve a common understanding amongst the readers about the definitions of political power, ideology, the State etc. through the help of some of the thinkers that has had strong influences on myself.
I would than like to use these points of reference to try and analyze modern societies, politics and ideology, all the while emphasizing on the many conflicts we encounter as people in our every day lives. Although I am as sceptical as anyone could be as to whether these little notes and ideas would bring any clarity to anyone, I see no harm in trying.
This introductory note’s purpose is to let the reader know that I do not in any way, claim to be neither objective nor academic. These little notes are not to be confused with proper articles, as no references are made and the goal of achieving undisputable facts is not sought. Because of this, feel free to contribute by both making new arguments that support mine or ones that conflict mine to bring up new discussions.
Regards,
Ali Gören
I would than like to use these points of reference to try and analyze modern societies, politics and ideology, all the while emphasizing on the many conflicts we encounter as people in our every day lives. Although I am as sceptical as anyone could be as to whether these little notes and ideas would bring any clarity to anyone, I see no harm in trying.
This introductory note’s purpose is to let the reader know that I do not in any way, claim to be neither objective nor academic. These little notes are not to be confused with proper articles, as no references are made and the goal of achieving undisputable facts is not sought. Because of this, feel free to contribute by both making new arguments that support mine or ones that conflict mine to bring up new discussions.
Regards,
Ali Gören
12/10/2008
On Love
Love is...
...well, it's a comparative concept.
Scientifically, it's nothing but chemicals in your brain going crazy along with the hormones in your body. But, there must be a reason for this to occur. After all nothing happens without a rhyme or reason.
First of all, what is love? (Not related: ' Haddaway - What is Love')
It's a relapsing and recurring phenomenon. Most of us had a taste of it, some of us regretted it, some of us loved it.
I said "nothing happens without rhyme or reason" and that is completely true, but I believe the reasons for this particular phenomenon are hidden really really deep inside of us. And even if we were to see those reasons, we'd probably never accept them. Love may be a strong signal for us to reproduce. And it probably is.
However, rational persona always defames love. Simply because it confuses them. And it scrambles everything they rely on; logic, calm and calculated manners, the distance they keep, the poker-face they always carry proudly, the prideful needlessness of any kind of interaction, etc...
The same reason causing rational persona to defame love, is the exact same reason for unrational persona to deify it. They love it, because they like the sensations of it. The letting loose, loss of control, the unnecessariness of having solid reasons. It can even become an excuse for some behaviour they show.
Just like adrenaline junkies, there are people who chase this state too. Just like chasing a high, they chase love, and after sometime when they're finally sane and back to normal again, they become unhappy and move on to another one. They consume relationships, feelings, secrets, intimacy, personality, everything. They consume and they move on.
I won't criticize them for I can empathize them. There's nothing wrong with it, it's just a choice.
However, theoretically, I do know a more precious form of love. The platonic love.
You can't consume it, you can't touch it, you can't do anything apart from feeling it. It can be painful, even maybe too painful to endure. But, then again, theoretically, I think it's the ultimate form love.
Personally I find it impossible to keep such strong feelings hidden for long periods of time, therefore I think it takes more than everything to be able to wilfully forbidding yourself of such thing. And I do think the only way to deal with it, regardless of who you are, is to find a proper way to consume it.
...well, it's a comparative concept.
Scientifically, it's nothing but chemicals in your brain going crazy along with the hormones in your body. But, there must be a reason for this to occur. After all nothing happens without a rhyme or reason.
First of all, what is love? (Not related: ' Haddaway - What is Love')
It's a relapsing and recurring phenomenon. Most of us had a taste of it, some of us regretted it, some of us loved it.
I said "nothing happens without rhyme or reason" and that is completely true, but I believe the reasons for this particular phenomenon are hidden really really deep inside of us. And even if we were to see those reasons, we'd probably never accept them. Love may be a strong signal for us to reproduce. And it probably is.
However, rational persona always defames love. Simply because it confuses them. And it scrambles everything they rely on; logic, calm and calculated manners, the distance they keep, the poker-face they always carry proudly, the prideful needlessness of any kind of interaction, etc...
The same reason causing rational persona to defame love, is the exact same reason for unrational persona to deify it. They love it, because they like the sensations of it. The letting loose, loss of control, the unnecessariness of having solid reasons. It can even become an excuse for some behaviour they show.
Just like adrenaline junkies, there are people who chase this state too. Just like chasing a high, they chase love, and after sometime when they're finally sane and back to normal again, they become unhappy and move on to another one. They consume relationships, feelings, secrets, intimacy, personality, everything. They consume and they move on.
I won't criticize them for I can empathize them. There's nothing wrong with it, it's just a choice.
However, theoretically, I do know a more precious form of love. The platonic love.
You can't consume it, you can't touch it, you can't do anything apart from feeling it. It can be painful, even maybe too painful to endure. But, then again, theoretically, I think it's the ultimate form love.
Personally I find it impossible to keep such strong feelings hidden for long periods of time, therefore I think it takes more than everything to be able to wilfully forbidding yourself of such thing. And I do think the only way to deal with it, regardless of who you are, is to find a proper way to consume it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)