Can We Continue to Care About Winning?
Indeed, the fight is always about one over the other. And we do entertain both. But it may well be that neither constitute an ‘option’, that is, they both reside in reality but not upon a reduced ‘truth’; the truth is that they do not reduce. Perhaps the want to find the either/or truth is the problem itself.
As social justice and racial equity circles will tell you: We need become comfortable in uncertainty. Personally, I think this is the heart of wisdom. A part of this wisdom, then, is to realize that most people are not and will never be wise.
I suspect that Badiou’s move of radical politics might be based in this: The radical move is to withdraw from party politics. It is no ideal to find ones activity involved in what is already occurring through those who see things through reductive truth. There is no danger of withdrawing from party politics, to say that the world will fall apart or system will deteriorate if we take such a radical move, because most people don’t understand what the hell that means and they will not ever understand by the simple fact that they simply will be unable to withdraw from party politics in the sense of being comfortable with uncertainty. The overwhelming predominance of people who also often feel they are intelligent want perfect comfort and demand it from everyone else around them. It is not wise but it is the reason for democracy and it is very real.
This platform for democracy is what becomes ideal and out of it is the entrance to discuss communism in the Badiou sense of direct phenomenal reality. Badiou’s communism appears to me to arise out of the linkage that we commonly understand as western democracies close association with capitalism. This is so much the case that we get such expressions such as Zizek that it is almost impossible to imagine outside of capitalism. So we have people trying to imagine what it would look like in a post-capitalist world or communist world or some site of those kind of utopias or grand ideas.
Democracy seems the only sensible and why’s way to cope with the real world because itself is an Idealist reduction of what is apparent of reality. This is to say that humanity manifest itself in so many unexpected, unwieldy and generally non-intelligent an irrational manners, that’s the best way to deal with it is to have a simple idea that people get along without beating on each other killing each other are raping each other. These then become the basis of democracy because they are simple ideas that transcend all the sort of irrational ideas about what should be true and false the common’ people, for everyone. Every other reason of democracy is based in a kind of religious debate.
Nevertheless, This is a system that attains a right to an active violence upon other systems for the purpose (in the sense of the leviathan that already exists despite what choices we make) of one day alleviating religious offenses and promoting the idea that, hey, we just think that you should stop beating on each other and stop raping one another. The contradiction involved to say that this democratic ethic should not impose itself upon other people is often used to prevent Its intensional expansion. But it seems (Or I want to see) inevitable that people will eventually incorporate the democratic idea into their individual belief systems that want to conflate reality with idealistic notions of religious truths. Most people do not want to harm one another, but they’re disembodied state overrides what would be their regular FX for the purpose of giving them a substance to their ideality. Democracy acts then, in such cases, as a sort of “first cause God” by being a sort of system which then transcends argument about what is good and bad or true or real or ideal: it becomes a real-ideal based in the fact that we think that humans have a right to exist and that we should not beat and rape one another. Democracy is able to step outside of the religious debate by virtue of coming back to the basic ethics that people do not want to hurt each other.
Once this basic real involvement of human activity and thoughts are realized, then democracy as an institution removes itself from the religious debate. Borders and boundaries become economical manners of human beings interacting, instead of ideal walls of religious-national righteousness.
It’s an uphill battle because human beings are religious creatures and pretty much think in every sense and in every way into religious manner –even atheism is a religion in that sense.
K I’m done.
Benjamin’s got some cool things to say for sure. Thx man.
Psyc ! No I’m not ..
I feel the basic philosophical issues between idealism and realism is if we can allow a predominance of human beings to interact upon a basic ethic of not beating upon one another, while still enacting a guiding force that does not involve the aggregate inability to place the idea of ‘do no harm’ outside of religious context?
The issue philosophically is can we uphold these distinctions that do not further reduce into another unitive reality wear one must impose upon the other in a segregation of bureaucratic statehood? The unity that would be involved is often called communism, So the question is whether or not to reduce to another exclusive unity. Personally I think the idea of communism is a another self contradictory real-idealism.
Can I exist as a whole being in an ideal sense while being engaged in reality that does not demand my subjugation to it, nor it’s subjugation to me?
Can I be comfortable in uncertainty?
Due to the fact that most people will never enter this kind of critical reflection, am I able or am I allowed to occur inherently and integrally in that aggregate without demanding that they are wrong?
Can I redefine justice without demand?