Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

41758Re: [existlist] My views Re: politics

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    Jul 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      "To me they are like part one and two in a Hegelian dialectical triad. You
      despair of philosophy, of its active presence in our society. Our democracy is
      our part three in this dialectical situation. The synthetic fact must assert
      its truth above the thesis and the antithesis. We need separation of church and
      state, and separation of science and state, for the truth of our American
      proposition to hold sway; because in our participation in this constitutional
      democracy we are actually all philosophers." Trinidad

      Hey Trin, gettin' all dialectical. I like it.

      WS

      In a message dated 7/2/07 5:18:30 PM, TriniCruz@... writes:


      >
      > I'd like to tone this down, but I keep coming across arguments from
      > you that seem not entirely rational to me, and find them surprising,
      > at least as surprising as you find mine. I really don't relish playing
      > the role in this discourse of citizen, but that is what seems to have
      > happened. Perhaps you can explain for me how my certainty about an
      > opinion I hold is threatening to you in any way - if I am a law
      > abiding US citizen? Your arguments seem to indicate that you are less
      > likely to be involved in any participation in the system than I. I
      > wonder how then I can be characterized as in the wrong here? Certainly
      > not as a citizen. Just for having an opinion I doubt will likely ever
      > change? I take it as a responsibility of my citizenship in this
      > country to be involved with the system, at least enough to pursue some
      > fundamental reforms through my vote whether they come to pass or not.
      > I will not surrender so lightly to an inactive cynicism concerning
      > something as important as a constitutional democracy. I could not face
      > my own children and say I allowed their future to be sold away without
      > even voting, let alone voicing any dissent. Why allow yourself to be
      > disenfranchised without a fight? This thing, this American experiment,
      > is not so easy these days, but it is also not so easy to dismiss as
      > worthless by not participating.
      >
      > You don't agree with me. So be it. It is within the framework of our
      > laws here that we can safely disagree without slaughter. Debate is
      > neither about games nor winning and losing. It is about informing of
      > an opinion. Sometimes one side or the other gives in, but there are no
      > rules here other than remaining law abiding. Democratic government is
      > not a mystical process in any form. It is simply a group of opinions,
      > and a consensus of laws. If that consensus is now being purchased away
      > from general opinion by a minute faction of opinion we have a problem.
      > We cannot make wealth a criteria of opinion without an equal
      > consideration of the criteria of opinion of poverty. The rhetoric of
      > opinion in this case does not matter, nor does any agreement, or
      > disagreement; only the fact that wealth is actually in such a
      > privileged position in the debate over consensus in our franchise. We
      > need financial reforms in our political process to restore the
      > efficaciousness of debate over consensus. Such reform need not be the
      > denial of access to corporate money to public servants, only clear and
      > immediate public disclosure.
      >
      > Religion will continue to remain a robust factor in our society. Grass
      > roots change in opinion on such matters is a slow process. Monotheism
      > and science have developed side by side for thousands of years. They
      > must fall into the position in our democracy where they belong -
      > opinion. The debate will go on, and most on either side will never
      > change their opinion in their lifetime. To me they are like part one
      > and two in a Hegelian dialectical triad. You despair of philosophy, of
      > its active presence in our society. Our democracy is our part three in
      > this dialectical situation. The synthetic fact must assert its truth
      > above the thesis and the antithesis. We need separation of church and
      > state, and separation of science and state, for the truth of our
      > American proposition to hold sway; because in our participation in
      > this constitutional democracy we are actually all philosophers.
      >
      > Trinidad
      >
      >
      >




      **************************************
      See what's free at http://www.aol.com


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic