|
The
Philosophic Foundation for Politics
by SARTRE
At the risk of disturbing the slumber of the
lethargic, the case in favor of politics needs to
be made. With the distraction that passes for
understanding, few have a grasp on the nature of
social relations. Politics is normally defined as
the activities or affairs of government. But it
really is the art of human relations, applied to
the organization of society. The basis for
government grows out of the perceived need to
establish order. Rules are the results of a desire
to construct a road map for society to function.
The confusion that litters the highways rests upon
a false understanding of how those arteries are
constructed and where they are going. The
philosophy of politics can supply the answer, if
only you have ears to hear.
In an insightful article, Allah
attacks Aristotle: The philosophical roots of
September 11, penned by George F. Smith, the
application of the nature of government is
explored. Aristotle has been accepted as the source
thinker for what is generally known as Western
Civilization. For over two millenniums institutions
have been struggling with his core principles that
reflect a comprehension in the rational nature of
man. For the tutor of Alexander the Great, truth is
the absolute end and is reached through the process
of rationality. When applied to the social realm
the end purpose is the 'good' of the community,
that takes shape in his notion of the 'good
state'.
The justification for government flows out of
the legitimate need to rule, in order to achieve
the 'good' for the community. For the ruler or a
government to be lawful, it must receive outside of
itself, an acknowledgment that confers legitimacy.
Aristotle concludes that man's rationality is
sufficient to accomplish this task. The 'good' of
the community is achievable when the 'good state'
reflects its purpose, as the fulfillment of this
end.
Thomas Aquinas departs from Aristotle not with
their shared end for the truth, but in the means
upon which that truth can be understood. This
distinction is the central issue that has separated
most cultures and has shaped governments to follow
very different paths. For Aquinas, the creator
reveals Himself as GOD, originator of the universe.
The reason of man is His gift to man, and only
through a fusion of rational thought, and 'Faith'
in the prime mover, can 'Truth' be understood.
Now before you conclude which cosmology is
correct, based upon your own beliefs, consider
using your rational intellect to investigate the
consequence of your decision. If Aquinas is
correct, man cannot achieve the 'good' of the
community or the 'good state' in the form of a
government, alone. By contrast, the 'perfect city'
for Aquinas has the same goal in the 'good' for the
whole community, but must include openness to
divine influence, as a requirement to achieve that
purpose. Upon this indispensable element the
imperfect rational capacity of man will be guided
to avoid error.
When applied to politics, there is an axiomatic
conflict in the forms of government that flow from
your acceptance of faith and reason or reason
alone. Attempts to bridge this gap have been made
by the likes of Ayn Rand, but the ultimate question
in politics is the same as in philosophy. The
'good' for both Aristotle and Aquinas requires
moral and ethical conduct to achieve the goal. When
the Objectivists relies on a man-centered argument
for moral behavior, they slip into the error of
accepting that their own abilities are sufficient
to know the 'good'. The record of all of human
history, is replete with the failure to achieve the
'Good State'. So why is it irrational to consider
attempting to seek the 'Perfect City'?
The question of authority is that sticky wicket
that most want to avoid. Remember that prerequisite
to have legitimacy to rule? Virtually every
government in history has supplied the pretense of
being lawful and justified to act in accordance
with the best interests of the State. Note that
innumerable examples of the State have ruled
without even lip service of the 'good state', but
each claim to be legitimate. Their power to rule is
always based upon the use of force, while they
confuse just where the right to use the force they
command, originates. If reason is adequate to
achieve the 'good state', why is it always
necessary to impose coercion to compel
obedience?
It seems that the empirical evidence speaks
loudly that not every person shares the same level
of rationality as the ruler; or that they have a
different version of the 'good state'. Might the
prevailing intellect just happen to be the
authority with the biggest stick? Within this
method of rational selection, the result is always
the decision of man. There is no higher authority
to guide or lead towards a greater understanding of
the 'good'.
Now consider the marked difference when the
process of faith and reason is used to achieve the
'perfect city'. At the outset you must be willing
to subjugate your own reason to the authority of a
higher power. Since your own intellect is
incomplete, as is that of all others, why is it so
difficult to accept this conclusion? If you are
willing to admit your own limitations, then you are
capable of affirming that faith is not irrational.
Preeminence of our own intellect have not been
achieved by anyone, so we are all flawed. This can
be difficult for the most talented because man is
consumed with the hubris of self importance, and
often the smartest has the greatest amount of
conceit.
The 'Perfect City' accepts the possibility of
knowing the unknown, from a source other then your
own intellect. Mysticism is often decried by those
who's faith is solely in their own rationality.
Usually they reject the plausibility of revealed
knowledge, not because it's probability is
minuscule, but because they are unwilling to yield
to an authority outside themselves. When applying
faith in the supremacy of God, to the political
equation, one can readily see where that legitimacy
really resides. Governments wish to be immune to
restraints from a power, greater than that which
they construct. So it comes as no surprise when the
secular mores of State preservation supplants
worship to the rightful authority.
Since Aristotle is adhered to by most
governments, ask them why the 'good state' has not
been realized under their stewardship? Governments
have never tried to rule by the precepts of the
'perfect city' because they are devoted to the
false trust they place in their own
rationalization, of their own abilities. Aquinas is
right, not because it can be demonstrated with
proof, but because faith is the missing ingredient
in all the social problems, that government claims
to be the solution.
The words of my college professor ring loud and
clear when he says: " The great
philosopher-theologian, Thomas Aquinas, after
having written so profoundly on the truths of
faith, put down his pen a year before he died,
exclaiming that everything he had written (some 36
volumes in translation) were as nothing in
comparison to what was revealed to him through
contemplative prayer."
We have tried the method of Aristotle. Why not
strive to give Aquinas' way a chance? If faith
insults your reason, maybe you are not praying
enough.
SARTRE
Archive
SARTRE (aka James Hall) is a reformed, former
political operative. This pundit's formal
instruction in History, Philosophy and Political
Science served as training for activism, on the
staff of several politicians and in many campaigns.
"Populism" best describes the approach to SARTRE's
perspective on Politics. Reforms will require an
Existential approach. "Ideas Move the World," and
SARTRE'S intent is to stir the conscience of those
who desire to bring back a common sense, moral and
traditional value culture for America. Visit
SARTRE's website: BREAKING
ALL THE RULES. Contact SARTRE by e-mail:
BATR@sartre.info.
SARTRE's Blogs: Existentialism
Philosophy Blog , and Old
Right - BATR Reflections. Also BATR
News.
Enrich
your life with a book about politics and current
events...
Enrich
your political & social life with a politics or
news magazine...
|