Political opinion is sometimes rendered by the public. And, namesakeingly almost (ie it can almost pass as "analytical" in the modernist way), the public often have a dumb view, a shallow train of thought. But it has other good sides. One thing it has going for is it however sometimes or always produces an answer that is different in composition than an individual thought process on the matter. That answer can sometimes look to be a positive in the form of a wiser decision, as numerous experiments of social psychology demonstrate where one actor gets the right answer as it becomes crystallized by one person in the group who found the "good" answer. Society get more coherence as the amount of good answers they can agree upon increases. Still, we could often argue that public opinion often lays upon an idea that is simply and blatantly sub less than optimal/desirable/rational. Sometimes, the coming together of so many different point of view, and the depth of misunderstandings and division that appears between the two parties, can produce the worst results. This is of course what opponents of the forum-preponderant type of polity have been saying for a long time.
But the discourse must perhaps pass by that and consider more mature consequences and meaning of choosing a political system. Churchill recently said that liberal democracy is the best of worst choices, as he was witnessing the change from constitutional monarchy to a modern western democratic state.
Defn
- Absolute monarcy decayed over the 19th century and died in ww1. Absolute monarchy was still rule based tho; the monarch could not do anything. He was ruled by palace style relationships where personal relationships entertained by ruling family members over their own different kingdom-state.
- Despot. A ruler who can do anything and everything - and has the ability to remain in place for any significant amount of time, I call a despot.
- State (long): that's the name we seem to give to western style democratic states as subsequently described in the last 500 year or so treaties and by the evolution of european political organization both internally and externally between them, and that has since conquered almost the entire land of the globe. (Note: sometimes the state system doesn't take well everythere. Today, there are problem areas that suffer terribly by this new statedom. As is the case of
nations suddenly seperated by frontiers. Sedentarism goes in hand with secularism. There are conceptual (analytical) similarities between the two which are non obvious. That's on the conceptual side. Conceptual side means the meaning world and it's absraction from the moving, living world. So one can ask what does this conceptual similarities between the word secularism and sedentarism tell us about the living, historical world? Certainly something but that is not Those are analytical quesitons. Questions of philosohpy are analytical in nature. There can be done by sitting on a chair and deducing different logical truths according to our situation in the world (in some cases in any situation ie "in all possible worlds")
Hence, similarly, the conceptual similarities between secularism and sedentarism must have been somehow expressed in the historical world, or a better word could be translated. In this case, the living occurences comes in the form best described with a darwinian approach, where contest, sustainability are important in subsequent iterations [iterations allowing modification], but also with variable strenght historical accidents.
