Podcast #23: Speaking of Politics

ITEM!!
While speaking of human nature is a maybe a good starting point, I think it is more nuanced then that. For instance, someone who believes strongly in the depravity of the human nature might be a conservative, liberal, communist, socialist, or anarchist. Or probably any number of other things. While certainly one’s view of human nature is not negligible in shaping one’s political ideology, I think it’s only one component among a multitude.

To further illustrate. One may trust that people are untrustworthy and seek to use that untrustworthiness (in the form of their greed) to manipulate society such that people look after others’ interests in the interest that their interests will be looked after in turn (a la some form of Pay It Forward/the Golden Rule). Such a person may become a liberal capitalist, seeking free market responsibility and civil liberty. Another person may recognize the corruptibility of man and recognize that access to power may likely increase the negative impact of the corrupt use of that power. Such a person may seek either communist governance (trusting a power structure that strictly limits the ability of people to perform the corrupt actions they naturally tend toward and being in turned governed by the people it governs) or some form of anarchy (in which power structures are eliminated, thereby reducing the scope of the corrupt actions that will naturally come about).

So yeah, while
____________________________

ITEM!!
Because I adore myself, I am now linking to two articles relevant to this line of discussion:

ImNotListeningToYou!ImNotListeningToYou!
and
Spectator Sports & Gardening vs. the Awesome Might that is Power Chompsky
____________________________

ITEM!!
Dude. Soberminded busting in on Ben at the break creeped me out. Seriously.
____________________________

ITEM!!
Creeped is not in Firefox’s dictionary—and so, registers as a misspelling.

I think it might be helpful for you to distinguish between justice and righteousness. Rich (I believe) said that we should strive for a “just” nation rather than a “righteous” nation. To me, it’s not altogether clear what the difference is between the two.

Also, if we should protect the sanctity of human life, then why shouldn’t we protect the sanctity of other things – like the Sabbath, for example?

Finally, I would just like to point out that “human nature” entails more than whether or not we have original sin. This might be obvious, but it’s often overlooked in discussions like this. Being human is about more than morality and moral compulsions. I think noting such features as our aesthetic, social, intellectual, and liturgical habits would have significant bearing on how we go about constructing cities.

Well, to reply somewhat briefly, I’d point out that Adam’s primary vocation was priestly, the garden of Eden being a temple of sorts.

As for the aesthetic, if you’ll allow me to count Adam’s erotic desire for Eve, I think you’ll see that this is at least one sort of aesthetic aspect of human nature, though I do believe there are other examples I could give you.

Yes, I’m using aesthetic in a broad sense here, broad enough to mean merely “the capacity for delight.” Erotic desire would fall within that bracket, methinks. So while your curiosities might be interesting, I think under my broader use of the term, it’s fairly easy to say that children are human with a fully human nature.

What do you think about my liturgical point, btw?

Of course, let’s not stray too far from the topic. All I mean to say is if you want to say that human nature is only one aspect of political theory, you have to at least admit that it’s a pretty multi-faceted aspect of it and so it probably has a lot to contribute to political discussion, much more than just “are we inherently sinful?” ‘Cause, like you said, tons of people accept that, from communists to constitutionalists.