The statements above lack rational justification:
1. "This is why trying to invest emotionally and practically in politics is a pointless endeavor."
COUNTERPOINT:
There is a difference between an endeavor which has a guaranteed result of zero, and one which merely has a low probability of good results. Therefore political involvement is not pointless.
a.) God has put must of us into democratic republics, where we are allowed to vote on many things, and we can thereby have at least some degree of effect on society.
b.) Even if we seldom get the outcome we desire through voting, we at least have some "possibility" of an outcome we desire.
c.) If we have ZERO political involvement, then we have a ZERO possibility of outcomes we desire.
d.) Furthermore, if we have delegated responsibility to a representative, and experience shows they are often corrupt, we can not logically conclude: that the next representative will also be corrupt, that all representatives will be corrupt to the same degree, or even that some of them may not accomplish good in spite of being corrupt.
CONCLUSION:
a.) Investing in politics, in whatever way, is not pointless:
it still gives us some possibility of a good result, and we never know if a representative will be better than others and do some good... which is still better than the antithesis.
b.) Political involvement has a better probability of good results than no political involvement: zero political involvement gives us a guaranteed input of zero, and political involvement gives us at least some possibility of input.
c.) Feeling Futile:
Even if political involvement feels futile, political involvement still gives us some possibility of positive change, and zero political involvement gives us a guaranteed change of zero.
d.) Political involvement is better than no political involvement... thus it is not pointless.
2. "It's usually the mass-consciousness of a place which keeps the place running, until a politician ruins the rules, norms and way of life for that place. Usually things run by themselves unless again a politician screws up badly."
COUNTERPOINT:
This is a wild claim: it is antithetical to all known human history, and it doesn't hold up to even the lightest scrutiny. It is a claim that politicians mess up a thing that doesn't exist.
a.) Places do seem to have a kind of generalized "mass consciousness", a kind of "general ethos"... something we would normally just refer to as "culture", or a part of their culture.
So I agree that places have culture.
b.) Does a mere culture, a set of general ideas, ever run an entire country, by itself, all by itself, just the ideas themselves... until a politician messes them up?
Has this ever happened in history?
c.) First of all, ideas themselves, data, are causally effete, impotent... they have no causal power to do anything until a human agent puts them into action
d.) So Eli seems to be describing a scenario where ideas permeate the culture, and everyone, like a hive mind, a collective, and the collective ideas permeate the collective society with a perfect harmony, and the society ORDERS ITSELF without any kind of leadership.
We're talking about a society that orders itself, as a collective, a hive-mind, without any kind of leadership.
Has this every occurred in history?
e.) I don't think we'll find any nation, at any time in history, than ran itself, as some kind of "hive mind" or "collective", WITHOUT LEADERSHIP.
Even small tribes of native americans had leaders, and required these leaders in order to function.
f.) All large entities, especially nations, simply require leadership, and hierarchies, to function.
g.) These necessary systems of leadership, and hierarchies, can take different forms... but nations cannot function without them. A nation cannot function, and has never functioned, without some system of leadership.
CONCLUSION:
a.) There has never been, in all of human history, a single nation that operated by "mass consciousness" without the need for leadership.
a.) What Eli describes has simply never happened in all of human history.
b.) Therefore, Eli cannot claim a politician has messed up something WHICH HAS NEVER EXISTED.
.
1. "This is why trying to invest emotionally and practically in politics is a pointless endeavor."
COUNTERPOINT:
There is a difference between an endeavor which has a guaranteed result of zero, and one which merely has a low probability of good results. Therefore political involvement is not pointless.
a.) God has put must of us into democratic republics, where we are allowed to vote on many things, and we can thereby have at least some degree of effect on society.
b.) Even if we seldom get the outcome we desire through voting, we at least have some "possibility" of an outcome we desire.
c.) If we have ZERO political involvement, then we have a ZERO possibility of outcomes we desire.
d.) Furthermore, if we have delegated responsibility to a representative, and experience shows they are often corrupt, we can not logically conclude: that the next representative will also be corrupt, that all representatives will be corrupt to the same degree, or even that some of them may not accomplish good in spite of being corrupt.
CONCLUSION:
a.) Investing in politics, in whatever way, is not pointless:
it still gives us some possibility of a good result, and we never know if a representative will be better than others and do some good... which is still better than the antithesis.
b.) Political involvement has a better probability of good results than no political involvement: zero political involvement gives us a guaranteed input of zero, and political involvement gives us at least some possibility of input.
c.) Feeling Futile:
Even if political involvement feels futile, political involvement still gives us some possibility of positive change, and zero political involvement gives us a guaranteed change of zero.
d.) Political involvement is better than no political involvement... thus it is not pointless.
2. "It's usually the mass-consciousness of a place which keeps the place running, until a politician ruins the rules, norms and way of life for that place. Usually things run by themselves unless again a politician screws up badly."
COUNTERPOINT:
This is a wild claim: it is antithetical to all known human history, and it doesn't hold up to even the lightest scrutiny. It is a claim that politicians mess up a thing that doesn't exist.
a.) Places do seem to have a kind of generalized "mass consciousness", a kind of "general ethos"... something we would normally just refer to as "culture", or a part of their culture.
So I agree that places have culture.
b.) Does a mere culture, a set of general ideas, ever run an entire country, by itself, all by itself, just the ideas themselves... until a politician messes them up?
Has this ever happened in history?
c.) First of all, ideas themselves, data, are causally effete, impotent... they have no causal power to do anything until a human agent puts them into action
d.) So Eli seems to be describing a scenario where ideas permeate the culture, and everyone, like a hive mind, a collective, and the collective ideas permeate the collective society with a perfect harmony, and the society ORDERS ITSELF without any kind of leadership.
We're talking about a society that orders itself, as a collective, a hive-mind, without any kind of leadership.
Has this every occurred in history?
e.) I don't think we'll find any nation, at any time in history, than ran itself, as some kind of "hive mind" or "collective", WITHOUT LEADERSHIP.
Even small tribes of native americans had leaders, and required these leaders in order to function.
f.) All large entities, especially nations, simply require leadership, and hierarchies, to function.
g.) These necessary systems of leadership, and hierarchies, can take different forms... but nations cannot function without them. A nation cannot function, and has never functioned, without some system of leadership.
CONCLUSION:
a.) There has never been, in all of human history, a single nation that operated by "mass consciousness" without the need for leadership.
a.) What Eli describes has simply never happened in all of human history.
b.) Therefore, Eli cannot claim a politician has messed up something WHICH HAS NEVER EXISTED.
.
-
1
- Show all
