| Everyone has an opinion. Mostly uninformed emotionalism. Not that there is anything wrong with that. It was Karl Marx who said that everyone should be involved and have an opinion. He might have had the time, seeing as he didn't have a job, and been smart enough. But that doesn't apply to everyone. Most people can give your their opinion on virtually anything. Because most people are aware of the world they live in. What most people do, however, when they run across a "professional" -- or some one who works in a given area, say nursing, or architecture, is to defer their opinions -- or lessen their stridency in regards to those opinions. But when it comes to "politics" there is not only no abatement in their ferocity, there is often a great increase in their exclamations about this or that aspect of a subject. But if you're going to have an opinion on the federal budget shouldn't you have at least read some of it? Most people will tell you their favorite parts of the budget to dislike -- and it usually boils down social programs, "welfare," from one side, and the military for the other side. Yet when you ask the person -- "well what is the military budget" -- not only can't you get an answer or educated guess -- but the percentage given is usually so far out of whack as to make the opinion worthless. I have heard many a person say "the military budget is too high." And it might well be when examined. But what is the military budget you ask them. "it's half the budget -- it takes all the money." And that is just not the case. And so with opinions we must carefully delineate what is based on fact and what is raw emotion. Those opinions on emotion are not valid. Particularly when it comes time for voting. And that's why it's ok for 1/2 the people to not vote in the United States -- they are simply uninformed and they couldn't "vote" seriously on the issue if they tried. And there's nothing wrong with that. |
Philosophies are expressions by one
person to explain some underlying hidden principle
about the way the world works. The general
problem with the whole subject is that the person
expressing the thoughts doesn't have all the
information that is necessary. Often he is clouded
by other ideas. The philosopher is often so into his
subject that he must invent words, or create new
meanings, and spend so much time defining what
the words mean before he uses them that the vast
majority of people are wholly confused.
Not that they aren't smart enough, but that becuase
of the necessity of work and survival, even in our
modern world, they don't have the time to delve
deeply.
Philosophies generally only trickle down from the
thinker to professors to the graduate assistants to
the students and finally out there to the regular
people.
There are really only two sorts of philosophies --
those that by attempting to explain everything
usually require their beliefs to be forced onto the
unbelievers. Or those that are general in nature and
thus can apply to all people whether they realize
they believe it or not.
Like law -- there is a limitation version of philosophy
-- and this covers most religions, and most
self-proclaimed political philosophies like Marx and
Hegel. They allow for the slaughter of anyone not
believing in the philosophy, because they have the
one true way.
The other type of philosophy is cooperative, or
natural. It basicaly says, "it's all too complex to
decide, but there seem to be some general ideas,
and anyone can hold one or more or less of them,
and still get through the day."
Most philosophies are political in nature, but they
differ from mere political theory in that philosophy is
about why people do things, or should do things and
political theory is about how you should do things the
leaders way. The political leader always, whether he
realizes it or not, follows one of the two types of
philosophies.
For most of history leaders have followed the limiting
form of philosophy. The cooperative form is a
growing trend, but it is in fact very new in the minds
of mankind.
Perhaps not just 400 years old.
person to explain some underlying hidden principle
about the way the world works. The general
problem with the whole subject is that the person
expressing the thoughts doesn't have all the
information that is necessary. Often he is clouded
by other ideas. The philosopher is often so into his
subject that he must invent words, or create new
meanings, and spend so much time defining what
the words mean before he uses them that the vast
majority of people are wholly confused.
Not that they aren't smart enough, but that becuase
of the necessity of work and survival, even in our
modern world, they don't have the time to delve
deeply.
Philosophies generally only trickle down from the
thinker to professors to the graduate assistants to
the students and finally out there to the regular
people.
There are really only two sorts of philosophies --
those that by attempting to explain everything
usually require their beliefs to be forced onto the
unbelievers. Or those that are general in nature and
thus can apply to all people whether they realize
they believe it or not.
Like law -- there is a limitation version of philosophy
-- and this covers most religions, and most
self-proclaimed political philosophies like Marx and
Hegel. They allow for the slaughter of anyone not
believing in the philosophy, because they have the
one true way.
The other type of philosophy is cooperative, or
natural. It basicaly says, "it's all too complex to
decide, but there seem to be some general ideas,
and anyone can hold one or more or less of them,
and still get through the day."
Most philosophies are political in nature, but they
differ from mere political theory in that philosophy is
about why people do things, or should do things and
political theory is about how you should do things the
leaders way. The political leader always, whether he
realizes it or not, follows one of the two types of
philosophies.
For most of history leaders have followed the limiting
form of philosophy. The cooperative form is a
growing trend, but it is in fact very new in the minds
of mankind.
Perhaps not just 400 years old.
| Practicalist |
Jim Hlavac |
| Someone had to make a simplified explanation of the way the world works. |