09/25/06: The Facts About Political Truth
“Yo Epistemology Off!”
What is the truth in politics? The battle over truth claims plague our political arena. Both sides, Democrats and Republicans, assert their truth. Facts elude us. Which truth should we believe?
A brief primer in truth seeking is in order.
The study of knowledge and truth is called epistemology. All the great thinkers dabbled. One who particularly has influenced our time is Danish born Soren Kierkegaard (d.1855).
Kierkegaard wrote: “What is Truth but to live for an idea? It is a question of discovering a truth for me, of finding the idea for which I am willing to live or die.” Elsewhere he wrote: “Here is such a definition of truth: An objective uncertainty held fast in an appropriation-process of the most passionate inwardness is the truth, the highest truth attainable for an existing individual.” His finest on the subject of truth is found in the essay “Concluding Unscientific Postscript”(1846). In it we find Kierkegaard differentiating between objective and subjective truth.
For Kierkegaard “objective” truth is dispassionate and theoretical whereas “subjective” truth is more personal and practical. This “truth that is true for me” is synonymous with conviction. “What good would it do me”, Kierkegaard then asked himself, “if truth stood before me, cold and naked, not caring whether I recognized her or not?” Preferred truth, then, is always subjective.
Does this mean anything goes? Of course not. Kierkegaard believed that it was impossible to objectively approach truth. He wrote: “The truth is a snare: you cannot have it, without being caught. You cannot have the truth in such a way that you catch it, but only in such a way that it catches you.”
The facts about Iraq seem to be dicey at best, or worse consciously fallible. The reality is that Bush feels strongly about what he is doing and an argument can be made that he is doing the right thing. At the same time, George Soros and his gang could not be anymore convinced that such policies are wrong and dangerous.
What is the truth?
The political answer is simple. You will know it when you see it.
posted by CitizenU @ 9:14 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
"The political answer is simple. You will know it when you see it."
The question to this answer is this: Is anyone paying enough attention to see it?
no! if people were paying attention then elections wouldnt be bought how they are today. That's why like thee great Mr.Larson taught today that the majority of the public dont vote. they just dont care anymore and it will come back to bite them in the butt.
its not that they dont care, its that they are ignorant. they dont even have that desire in their brains to care. It all lies in internal efficacy.
The sad thing is that the people who need to see it most dont even know whats going on outside of their little bubble.
its not that they dont care, its that they are ignorant. they dont even have that desire in their brains to care. It all lies in internal efficacy.
The sad thing is that the people who need to see it most dont even know whats going on outside of their little bubble.
Distinguishing between objective and subjective truths is not enough. I think it is just as important to distinguish between 'micro' and 'macro' truths. I may not know whether United States' fiscal policy is good or bad, but I can definitely know that it is good, in my life, to help others. I can give 10% of my income to charity, and not know a thing about national political policy. So, with this in mind, I think Stevenson students and teachers often overestimate the 'crisis of voting' in America. Why is it a bad thing that only one third of Americans are going to vote in the next election? There are plenty of ways to be good without being political (or at least, nationally political).
In fact, on a more practical level, I think a small votership could even be a good thing. Not to say we should limit the franchise - simply to say that we shouldn't sweat bullets about these numbers. In America, we value an equality of opportunity, not an equality of reality; we have the freedom to make money, not the reality of equal wealth. Similarly, we have the opportunity to vote, not the oppression of forced franchise. With less voting we all the people who specialize in national policy (Mr. Larson's "political junkies") to vote on national policy, and let grass roots regular Americans do their thing.
The problem with that, euphorion, is that a small, politically motivated electorate fails the most basic American principle of representative democracy. Statistics show that the majority of Americans are "moderates," while the majority of politicians, left and right, are moving toward the extremes. I find it hard to believe that the majority of the people are represnted properly when the majority of the people fail to know what is in their best interest, or if they do know, they chose not to act on it. A small, politically motivated electorate will serve to expand both the partisan gap in Washington, and, more importantly, the gap between politicians on the extremes and the public in the middle. While voting should not be forced, people in a democracy should want to vote. Before it became a law in Australia, people who didn't vote were ridiculed or regarded as unpatriotic. While we don't want people voting just because they feel they have to, their interests would be better served even in that fashion than by not voting at all.
I think you have a coherent idea of republican democracy, but I don't think that this is the only way republican democracy has to function. Why can't we have a republic of opportunity, rather than a republic of reality?
In some ways, a republic of opportunity better fits the historical legacy of America. The constitution left suffrage requirements to the states - although it was refined by later ammendments, this refinement was only to grant more people the right to vote. There has never been (and never should be) a push beyond opportunity. For what reason should more people vote, rather than an ideology of republicanism (which I think does not exclude republics of opportunity)?
Beyond the ideology, I think practically there is good sense in a lower voter turnout. It is true that most Americans are "moderate". In another sense, I think this may mean 'politically detached'. Rather than getting stuck around one party, the average American realizes politics may be too complex for a developed personal position. Thus, a micro ethic. Now, this may very well lead to representation that is further to the left or further to the right - is this either bad or unrepublican? I think it is certainly not unrepublican, because any moderate disatisfied with this leftist or rightist shift still has the opportunity to vote; if moderate America truly rejected this shift from center, moderate America would change it.
I'll leave the argument that this left/right shift has some practical evil to you. Even if it does, will greater voter turnout solve the problem?
truth does not exist...unless you believe otherwise, in which case you carry the burden of proof...which would be difficult.
Personally, I believe truth exists.
I'm going to go completely off topic, because the topic I'm about to discuss has come up a few times amongst my friends at U of I, as well as at other schools. Larsen and Conneen: I remember you telling us in class that the reason that 18-25 year olds don't vote as often as people who are older than them is because we aren't as experienced at it. I would like to refute that argument, specifically for college kids in that age bracket. Do you know how difficult it is to find information on getting an absentee ballot? Even the local party websites don't have info about it. I think my mom either looked up the phone number in the local phone book to call about the ballot in the or actually went to Vernon Township to find out info, seeing as I had searched on Google many times and couldn't find anything. As I am all the way down in Champaign-Urbana, the North Shore local phone book does not exist down here, and Vernon Township is about 3 hours away. As it is difficult for a politically involved citizen to figure out how to get an absentee ballot, imagine what it's like for someone who would vote only in the presidential election.
Our government makes it so difficult for Americans to react to the political truth (i.e. voting for/against the officials/issues in power/possible law when we find out the truth) by creating all of these obstacles to voting. It would seem that politicians don't want us to react to the truth, even if we were able to find it. And they do a pretty good job. After all, how many incumbents are voted out of office?
(Haha, I related it :). But I'm going to go on a bigger tangent. For all of you seniors who are applying to college and are not wanting to come to U of I because you want to get away from the SHS crowd, consider this: I saw Olivia Snarski for the first time today since we both moved in. Yea, and Olivia's someone I'd actually like to see. So really, don't worry about the SHS crowd at U of I: if you don't want to see someone from SHS, you don't have to. And that's the truth.)
a major point in this cartoon if u dont get so blinded is that " the inconvinent truth" also refers to Al Gore's movie about global warming, which is something that people should care about since it's destroying our world and killing us off eventually. People know it's true yet believe it wont occur until our later generations. America is the #1 country burning fossil fuels and yet we continue to crave more. Since we wont run out or be majorly affected by it for years, they dont care. They would like to sit like mona said "in their own bubble" and ignore it.
Post a Comment
<< Home