Sabtu, 18 Mei 2013

Politics and Its Danger

نحمده ونصلي على رسوله الكريم
   بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
وعلى عبده المسيح الموعود

Politics and Its Danger


Politics. A casual word consisting of, indeed, only eight words. However, in its inner, it comprehends great significations, embodying every aspect of human daily life. Just as fishes are captured in the toil of a fisher, likewise humans, laymen be they or bureaucrats, are caught in the political toil of their own desire and appetite. Politics is like a very sexy woman. It lures and entices, then straightforwardly harasses and heckles. As a seducer, it perceives itself as a provider of pleasure, just as bees that gather pollen from some flowers and deliver it to others. Its resistance, sometimes, is a way of saying, “Please seduce me.” The seducer knows that the possibility of pleasure will make a person yield to be her follower, and this experience will make someone vulnerable, weak against any touch. Afterwards, when he is glued on the highest podium of pleasure, she is ready to tackle, to hackle, because his entity has transformed into a slave of that seducer, driven by his own appetite to reach the false pleasure.

Virtually, what is politics? In a letter of March 28th, 1605 addressed to Herwart of Hohenburg, Kepler conceived the universal nature of gravitational forces and called gravity a “passivity” rather than an activity1. Newton, in Principia, formulated his first law that:
“Everybody perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed.2
A question may occur in the minds of the readers that what is the relationship between the concept of force and politics? Both statements of the two greatest classical scientists are actually a hint for us, to fathom further into the reality of politics. For, if we ponder over the law of nature, willy-nilly, we have to admit that there is a tender and suave relationship between each of them. Whatever is firmly uprooted in the humans’ state of consciousness, belonging to their natural, moral and spiritual side, it results, in essence, from the influences of the physical universe. Humans, as microcosms, are inside the circle of the physical universe, i.e. the macrocosm, which is indefinite and infinite. Thus, everything manifested in the physical universe, is visible in our consciousness, either we are aware or not.3

In accordance with that, we should consider politics in its connection with state. State is the highest form of community and aims at satisfying all the needs of humans. Humans build a state in order to secure their bare subsistence, being the highest level of good life as its ultimate goal.4 Everything constantly works in serenity and tranquility, and it is this constant situation that is termed “passivity”. Nevertheless, it is a law of nature that humans can not be separated from their nature. As Homo homini lupus, humans always obsess to posses others’ properties and to confess. Therefore, the state is no longer a secure and safe place. On the contrary, it becomes a manifestation field of the flaming appetite to posses communities’ properties, whereas communities are assemblied to be one society under its authority. To reach the goal, it exploits politics as a power. Politics is identical to power, on the top of that, politics is the power itself. I have mentioned an analogy that politics is like a toil. Indeed, it is the toil which is occupied by the state, to impose order on society that resembles the arrested fishes inside the toil of a fisher. Politics belongs to the state, its boss, that exploits it, merely for the fondling of the boss’ blazing and flaming appetite. This is the juridico-discursive conception which Foucoult strongly opposed and negated.5

Humans denote themselves as beings who measure values and who value measures, as the “assessing” animal par excellence6. In relation to this, in the capacity of الحيوان الناطق or the rationally speaking animal, encouraged by their consciousness, they always essay to maximize the benefit they receive from anything. Yet, just as soul is developed inside the body and nurtured in the womb, and since the beginning its essence has been present in the sperm7, the evil nature of humans is, too, developed in their consciousness and nurtured along with the escalation of their awareness towards the environment, while its essence has been there in their unconsciousness since the very outset. In the beginning, it was hidden and imperceptible and later it is made manifest. They even accentuate their evil and make it prevail over their rationality and healthy mind. Subsequently, that evil synthesizes the flaming appetite, stimulating the rationality to be irrationality, and the healthy mind to be unhealthy. Their consciousness dissolves in drunkenness and intoxication. Eventually, their entity degrades to be the lowest of the slaves.

As I have already described that power, i.e. politics, is the one whose influences are huge. It does not govern, yet is the minister of the evil. It is like a poniard, unsheathed to slaughter the evil’s enemies, and to demolish. Sooner or later, it will exactly murder the slaughterer himself, because of his transformation into the lowest slave of the evil, and a slave never wins over his boss. Summarily, this is the schematic of the relation from the evil to the lowest slave.


In biological life, we recognize that a very important factor in the progress of organic evolution is supplied by the principle of cooperation between different organic unites8. Differentiation and division of labor are the results of progressive evolution, and the same time the means by which further progress is effected. Likewise in social life, social evolution can not advance without the mixture of every individual, the participation of every individual is indeed the key to unlock the prosperous prosperity. Differentiation and division of labor play here prominent roles. The proliferation of every individual in his own field causes him to be more specialized, as a way of dealing with the complexity of the environment. This differentiation is the principal feature of modern society, while division of labor is its derivative. When every individual in a society has found his own equilibrium point, then the social life begins with division of labor which suits to his own profession. The variation of professions between individuals, if that is being integrated and harmonized, then the society in which those are integrated and harmonized, will achieve prosperous opulence. Both of these principles are well-known among them who have an eye for the social life.

The relation between both those principles and politics is, as long as the flaming appetite is mastered and the obsession is controlled, the bad impact of politics will never happen. This is caused by that humans’ specific humanity and sociality are inextricably intertwined. Humans, as Homo sapiens, are in the same measure, Homo socius9. Humans as Homo socius can live within a society, unlike animals which are clustered. The consequence of the social life is, humans have to organize contact and communication among each others, not only as formality, yet also as a needed need. When humans animate the true designation of being Homo socius, inspirit and ensoul too, the integration and the harmony will come about, which usher on the voyage to the prosperous prosperity. In the fulfillment of the social rules, the nature of humans as Homo sociologicus enacts a vital role. As Homo sociologicus, humans are prone to social life, they are neither egoistic nor hoggish, nay they prelude others instead of pursuing selfish interests10.

Occasionally, again, as the nature of humans, there is even the greatest and highest pleasure to take possession of things. They assuredly struggle hammer and tongs to their ardor, let alone every ardor is something beautiful, attractive and appealing. Aristotle stated:
“Again, how immeasurably greater is the pleasure, when a man feels a thing to be his own; for surely the love of self is a feeling implanted by nature and not given in vain, although selfishness is rightly censured. This, however, is not there love of self, but the love self in excess, like the miser’s love of money; for all, or almost all, men love money and other such objects in a measure. And further, there is the greatest pleasure in doing a kindness or service to friends or guests or companions, which can only be rendered when a man has private property”.11
In a bird’s eye view, that Aristotle’s statement may contradict what we have already discussed above whatsoever. Yet, on the contrary, it does not at all contradict nor conflict, because Aristotle spoke of humans, in his book, as Homo politicus. In its nature as Homo politicus, humans always strive to maximize social welfare12. Politicus itself is the masculine noun of the Greek πολιτικός i.e. politikos, which denotes as ‘prudent and ‘judicious13. It originally comes from πτόλις i.e. polis, and it means ‘city’14 Then, etymologically, Homo politicus designates:
“The prudent and judicious one who always associates himself with his society, therefore, it is a necessity for him to prelude and predate his society’s welfare and to maximize”.
Now, to clear the matter up, we are going to the origin of politics. Virtually, politicus and politics come from one origin, which I have explained above. Yet, why did I elaborate politics as a horrible thing? Everything in this universe has two sides, as it is not cryptic for the sane one, videlicet good side and bad side. From its origin, politics denotes dandy denotation15. Yet, when there is the act of politicization, let alone the politicization of state, it becomes a reason for many miseries. Of being smothered by the ardent and flaming appetite, and that flaming appetite holds the reins over it, it flashily converts to be as if a very lissome equineracer which shatters and wrecks whatsoever is before.

In relation to this convert and transformation, we recognize the nature of humans as Homo economicus. The essence of Homo economicus, as Aristotle expressed, is to be a possessor of things. It rises from the love of self, which afterwards, transforms to the stage of selfishness. All this process, as he expressed, is by nature, neither illusorily nor fictitiously. Nay, it is in excess like the love of a misser for money. He amasses money and wealth, and counts them both over and over. Perhaps, he presumes that the amount of money and wealth will render him immortal. This is a certainty, whenever humans see something attractive and appealing, they desire to dominate. Only because the power of their nature as Homo politicus, they are naturally prevented.

Yet, at the moment when that nature is conquered by their desire and the flaming appetite, which arouse the obsession to confess, it has instantaneously taken the form of the nature as Homo economicus, who always maximizes and augments benefit and welfare for his own self. And the designation of politicus is no longer as pure as its essence, yet the flaming appetite changes it to be politics, which is exploited to satisfy its flaming appetite and its blazing zest, also to satiate.

Homo economicus is similar to Homo homini lupus. The difference is, Homo economicus prefers to posses and confess materials he obsesses, such as money and health. Whereas the object of Homo homini lupus is humans, either as one individual or one society. It is due to his sentiment of insecurity and his impulsiveness of discomfort, as he surmises that the possession of materials is not good enough, people around him probably always solicit chances to loot and plunder. Through hitting the road here, he begins to strike and bombard. Sometimes it is obvious, at the other time is cunning. He commits all of those to comply solely his ambiguous feeling.

Hence, we can deduce that the dawn of the nature of humans is being Homo politicus. Being Homo politicus is the humans’ first stage which is still pristine from any wickedness, as the designation “prudent” and “judicious”.  The thing we must properly grasp is that the stage of Homo politicus, because it is still pristine and genuine, is still in the station of unconsciousness too. When he bestirs himself with the deliberation of goodness and the chic intention towards the society around, Homo politicus turns into Homo sociologicus and Homo socius. Homo sociologicus is the manifestation of the prudence. He bridles his flaming appetite and reins it back, merely for the welfare of the society, as though there were a contracting nuclear fission inside. As in another way, he becomes a sacrificing one in sacrifice. Whereas Homo socius is the face of the judiciousness.  He is fused to the society, and from this fusion, the major energy and the high vigor are excogitated, captaining to the prosperous opulence. In other words, he changes to be a devotional devout in devotion.

Yet, as I have explained above, because Homo politicus is still in the station of unconsciousness, the evil is hole-and-corner comprised within. Behind being ‘prudent’ and ‘judicious’, Homo politicus is silently ‘imprudent’ and ‘injudicious’ too at a time. When this imprudence and injudiciousness start taking the aboriginal forms, under the order of the evil, Homo politicus is no longer exist, nay he quickly turns into Homo economicus and Homo homini lupus. Homo economicus is the reflection of imprudence. He always selfishly accentuates his own welfare, he does not like anyone to even wield a thing he likes. As though he is such a depiction of the gravitational collapse of a black hole and its high-energy collisions. Then he paces the stage of avarice as an avariciously avaricious. And when the influence of the evil goes more severe, he develops to be Homo homini lupus. Homo homini lupus is not only to frighten, moreover to assassinate, because he is really an assassinating man who is governed by the flaming and blazing appetite, under the authority of the evil. His occupation is to prey others, whether they are right or not, like the growth and evaporation of a black hole. Below is the schematic of the relation of each the nature of humans.

____________________________________________________________________________

Footnotes

1. Max Jammer, Concepts of Force: A Study in The Foundations of Dynamics (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press Cambridge, 1957), p. 82.

2. Sir Isaac Newton, Newton’s Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (New York: Daniel Adee, 1846), p. 83.

3. This subject actually needs a long enough elaboration. In short, the idea was developed by the neoplatonists, and subsequently explained in a great detail by Muslims divines and philosophers.

4. Aristotle, Aristotle’s Politics (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1908), p. 7.

5. It has not been filled because I forget the book which I quoted from.

6. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals (New York: Dover Publications, 2003), p. 45

7. Ḥaḍrat Mirza Ghulam AhmadasThe Philosophy of The Teachings of Islam (Surrey: Islam International Publications, 2010), p. 14.

8. Arthur Dendy, D.Sc. F.R.S., Outlines of Evolutionary Biology (New York: Dr. Appleton & Company, 1912), p. 39-40.

9. Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in The Sociology of Knowledge (New York: Anchor Books, 1967), p. 5.

10. Sharon Zukin and Paul Di Maggio, Structures of Capital: The Social Organization of The Economy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 44.

11. Aristotle, Aristotle’s Politics (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1908), p. 62-63.

12. Nyborg K. 2000. Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: Interpretation and Aggregation of Enviromental Values. J Econ Behav Organ. 42(3):305-322.

13. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/politicus#Latin; http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=politic&allowed_in_frame=0.

14. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/polis.

15. As I have committed to paper that the tenor of politics is “prudent” and “judicious”, Walter W. Skeat included in A Concise Etymological of The English Language literally means “civil”, “decent”, and “courteous” as the other meanings of politics and police. See: Walter W. Skeat LiTT.D. L.L.D C.L Ph.D F.B.A, A Concise Etymological of The English Language (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1911), p. 400.

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar