I've decided that the only political thinkers and speakers that I'll give any credibility to are physicists and mathematicians. Carroll Quigley, author of "Tragedy and Hope" and "The Evolution of Civilizations," my 2 favorite history books of all time, was a very strong physics student before he decided to become a history professor. Bertrand Russell is a favorite social commentator and, not coincidentally, one of the founding fathers of mathematical logic. Chomsky is also a favorite of mine, and he's super-mathematically inclined himself. These are some of the few political commentators that I can trust to have any sort of intellectual rigor, and they're all really mathematically inclined. I don't agree with EVERYTHING these people say, but they're the only people who say anything that I can agree with.
I've often argued that the people who should lead, if leadership is necessary, are people well-versed in the sciences of leadership. We expect in every other field that people have been educated & trained in them, yet what are the requirements for being a politician? As far as I know, there are no calls for being an expert for someone having such a large influence on everyone else's lives.
That's at least what it is like around here; any joe of the street can sign up for a political platform and only requirement is that he or she gets enough votes to get a seat on the parliament. No calls for competence other than the sway of the public voter is required. Wouldn't you want law-makers to be educated in law-making?
But who would you trust to be able to decide who is and who is not allowed to become a politician?
The thing about a person's politics is that they identify with with an ideology that reflects their values. People are always going to have different values, so there can never be a one-size-fits-all political ideology. Your politics are literally a matter of taste. In a democracy, being a successful politician depends on getting a majority of people to think you're more to their taste than the other guy. In an autocracy, being a successful politician depends getting the autocrat to think you're more to his or her taste than the competition.
Yeah, but mathematicians and physicists tend to be less pushy and are capable of actually QUESTIONING things once in a while, at least more so than the average plebeian.
Just because someone is intelligent in one field does not make them intelligent in the other. You should trust people who have intelligent views, not people in a certain field.
QuoteJust because someone is intelligent in one field does not make them intelligent in the other. You should trust people who have intelligent views, not people in a certain field.
Derp. But the thing is, logic is something that doesn't come naturally to people, and even people who are trained in "philosophical" logic lack the kind of rigor demanded by mathematics and physics. It's very rare for people to be both broad and precise without some kind of training in those fields. And that's the only kind of commentary I can accept.
Quote from: "Plu"But who would you trust to be able to decide who is and who is not allowed to become a politician?
Educators, psychologists and ultimately at the voting booth.
Kill the lawyers, who by the way are usually pretty well educated in the.....uhmm..law. :-$
Question all authority, including physicist, mathematicians, as well as all scientists! There are many of them that support religious nonsense and are biased by it. As to experts in a field. I don't care how much a religious leader knows about religion and degrees they have in any subject, they are still idiots if they believe in Scripture as being factual. And when they are talking about any other field a logician or a person that is a genius will still be more reliable to what the truth is. An intelligent person out side his field of expertize will still be more likely correct than an expert, even in their field, when there are more than one hypothesis or theory. If you disagree, explain how Einstein or Bertrand Russell disagreed theologians that were experts in their field, and they were not but correct. Correct thinking and logic don't always give the correct answer to ethical and value judgment questions either. Should the United States and the Christian Right destroy all their real enemies or weaker primitive tribes to protect themselves and resources when it is logical if they think they are more valuable,for example. :popcorn: Solitary
Science is neither good nor bad. It depends on who has access to it to determine how it's to be used or not. The same holds true of technology or even 'faith' for that matter. Oh yes, faith is a commodity to be manipulated as well as science. I know of people with great math skills perfectly content with stealing every penny you have. :-?
Quote from: "zarus tathra"I've decided that the only political thinkers and speakers that I'll give any credibility to are physicists and mathematicians.
Politics would do well to incorporate science into its process. But it doesn't. That's what makes it politics. Science is about discovery. Politics is about bullshit. It has hardly anything to do with science. Politicians don't make decisions based on science. They decide what bullshit people want, and then make up more bullshit. Sometimes they consider economics, but they turn it into bullshit.
We need politics. It is absolutely essential to our lives. Science is nice and everything, but it doesn't lend itself to carefully organizing bullshit, which makes it mostly unusable in politics.
I'm not saying that scientists are "good" people. I'm saying that scientists generally don't use terms if they don't have fairly precise, hardened definitions for them. You seem to have no idea how rare and invaluable this is in politics.
Politicians for the most part are lawyers and lawyers us precise language as well. Go get arrested and go to court someday and find out just how precise the language can be. It can be so precise it can be fatal.
This notion that scientists are all just wonderful people without nefarious agendas is nonsense. Science can be every bit as horrid as it can be great. Science is where we get all these wonderful tools of warfare and chemicals that burn through almost anything.
Science kills as many people as it helps.. The same can be said of lawyers too. Go get your sorry ass arrested and tell the police you're not talking till you have your scientist present. :-k
This notion that all politicians are selfish, evil, and stupid is ridiculous. Generalization of a group as disparate as politicians is bound to be inaccurate. Being smart isn't the only thing that is important to government. You also need to be a leader, and bring disparaging groups together. That often takes more than simple books smarts.
QuoteI'm not saying that scientists are "good" people. I'm saying that scientists generally don't use terms if they don't have fairly precise, hardened definitions for them. You seem to have no idea how rare and invaluable this is in politics.
Lets see---Who are those in power? The rich! The Church and churches bring people together, Hitler brought people together, and Bush and his cronies brought people together, the military brings people together, all based on lies and faulty logic and self serving agendas. Like Nietzsche said: "In individuals insanity is rare, in groups it is the norm." Politicians are mostly lawyers that argue to win, not to find the truth. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Sometimes generalize statements are true for the most part. Diogenes is still looking for an honest man with his lantern. :shock: :wink: Solitary
Quoteall based on lies and faulty logic and self serving agendas
You forgot to mention bribes and the prospect of being able to kill people without any fear of repercussions. That last part is why zombie and superhero movies are popular, by the way.
Gandhi and King also brought people together. I can reference historical figures too. Politicians are all people, with their own agendas and desires. Generalizing them is illogical and ridiculous.
Also, there have been plenty of political leaders who have been fairly poor or unsuccessful in their financial lives. Lincoln, and his vice president Andrew Johnson, are both examples of poor people who became politicians. They were also almost polar opposites when it came to the morality of racism, which shows that immorality and selfishness is not specific to the rich.
QuoteLincoln
Lincoln was actually a really high-paid corporate lawyer for a large railroad company.
Let's see: Jesus? And Gandhi and King got themselves and a lot of their followers killed too based on lies and their agenda. Were Gandhi and King lawyers? :roll: What's your point? Most people in power are rich not poor. There are acceptations to every rule, that doesn't mean generalizing is always illogical or ridiculous. Solitary
QuoteWere Gandhi and King lawyers?
Ummm Gandhi actually was one.
As a side note, when I was working at State Farm, there were two pictures juxtaposed next to each other. One was of MLK giving his speech with a wide-view that showed the thousands camped out on the grass, the other was of 4 white children working on a car engine. At first I was like "cool" but then I realized in that instant that those kids were accomplishing more by looking over the car engine than all those people on the lawn were by taking part in a "historic moment."
QuoteAt first I was like "cool" but then I realized in that instant that those kids were accomplishing more by looking over the car engine than all those people on the lawn were by taking part in a "historic moment."
10/10, would get trolled again.
Well, they were.