• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

UAE Israel, Bahrain and UAE reach historic peace deal

Jo

Administrator
Master Penguin
  • بومبيو: الرئيس ترامب أدرك أن إيران هي التهديد في المنطقة ولذلك أقنعنا دولا بالخليج بالعمل مع إسرائيل لضمان أمنها
 

Jo

Administrator
Master Penguin
الرئيس الإيراني:
-الولايات المتحدة تقترب من "هزيمة مؤكّدة" في تحركها لإعادة فرض العقوبات
-مستعدون للعودة إلى التزاماتنا بالاتفاق النووي إذا التزمت به الدول الموقعة على الاتفاق
-واشنطن ستُواجه ردنا القوي في حال ارتكبت عملاً ضد إيران
 

SoFP1

The Chosen One
Orange Room Supporter
  • بومبيو: الرئيس ترامب أدرك أن إيران هي التهديد في المنطقة ولذلك أقنعنا دولا بالخليج بالعمل مع إسرائيل لضمان أمنها
 

proIsrael-nonIsraeli

Legendary Member
الرئيس الإيراني:
-الولايات المتحدة تقترب من "هزيمة مؤكّدة" في تحركها لإعادة فرض العقوبات
-مستعدون للعودة إلى التزاماتنا بالاتفاق النووي إذا التزمت به الدول الموقعة على الاتفاق
-واشنطن ستُواجه ردنا القوي في حال ارتكبت عملاً ضد إيران

OK
 

SeaAb

Legendary Member
Staff member
Super Penguin
Nshallah bifoot 3al janneh. :cigar:
 

Nevermore

New Member
You are still committing the same categorical mistakes.

If you define politics as that which includes 'activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals', or simply 'the capacity of an individual to influence the actions, beliefs, or conduct (behavior) of oneself and others', then politics is categorically necessarily part of, and rooted in and conditioned by, culture and worldview or basic philosophy. For a worldview - which is that from, by and upon which politics emerges, stands and proceeds, and is that by which politics is conditioned, informed or influenced - necessarily includes 'natural philosophy and basic beliefs; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates, rationalizations or justifications, themes, values, ethics, morality,' i.e. all that which informs, influences or conditions the human behavior and decisions of any sort. Politics by nature or definition is thus necessarily a function of culture which is in turn a function of worldview which is 'the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge and point of view'.

Any decision, be it defined as political or otherwise, an agreement of sorts or a disagreement, between any one same or two+ individual(s) or parties, is thus necessarily traceable to, and accounted for by, implicitly if not explicitly, the category of culture or worldview.

To return to your statement and rectify it accordingly; civilizations do and don't clash based on cultural similarities and differences which in themselves may or may not enable an (political/...) agreement 'based on monetary interests in common or whatever'.

No, you are confusing the nature of politics with policy. This is part of the problem with claiming objectivity and understanding things through a prescriptive lens. Where did you get your definition from, Ben Shafiro’s Idiot’s Guide to Politics? It’s apparent you didn’t pull your definition from a single credible source. It’s not a definition even the professor of a Philosophy 101 class, the basic level of philosophy you espouse, would provide. Not a single credible definition includes the term worldview or indicates any form of culture in the definition of politics. Nor can it be implied directly unless one is to use mental gymnastics that even Simone Biles would hesitate to undertake. Why waste the energy to research something I don’t know when I could just make it up and fool unsuspecting readers, you may have thought prior to posting? Possibly in a moment of concealed manipulation or intentional obfuscation, you pulled the definition exclusively from your imagination, or other parts that take as much or, for some, as little, effort to reach. Not even the cloak of the audacious feigning of intellectual superiority can cover the display of ignorance represented in the disingenuity of your post.

To rectify your misunderstanding of the basic nature of politics. If we were to take the universally accepted handbook on politics, Machiavelli’s The Prince, we would find the author encouraging leaders to achieve political ends by any means necessary. That is, politics as the encompassing practice of decision-making in power relations is adequate as a definition, with the necessary addendum of “in pursuit of personal (personal as relating to the individual unit, which can be a state or an individual) gain”. The pursuit of power is inherently the pursuit of interest. Interest, material or otherwise, rather than worldview, is the key element here. Therefore, if politics is to be undertaken by individuals, some use of critical faculties and rational thought is required to ensure the maximizing interests and gains. The question then becomes, are decisions made on the basis of one’s “worldview”, supposedly derived from cultural background, or based on a rational assessment of choices that a decision-maker has to consider? Referring back to Machiavelli, and including Hobbes (and all scholars on the matter, except for yourself, apparently), the point remains that when a decision-maker needs to make a decision, they will consider the rational interest of the entity they rule first and foremost. The rational interest is purely psychological, i.e. using critical faculties. It has not yet been proven that this changes across cultures. Indeed, philosophy, scholars, and the actors involved in politics, besides yourself, are all in agreement on this point. Thus, your framework is set up to fail at explaining any political decision-making. Devising policy is a different story than the engagement in power struggle.

Now, the historical difference is that we’ve organized groups of people around political entities known as sovereign states from the mid 17th century (Westphalia) onward. Not nebulous cultural entities acting on the basis of a civilizational model. That is not politics, that has very little to do with power. The problem has become, in the modern era (20th century and beyond) that certain leaderships have sought to shape the world according to a liberal (read: classical and neoclassical liberalism, which includes both Republicans and Democrats in the world’s greatest power) ideology that is not only a complete and utter failure and disaster, but is a wild derivation from state practice throughout history. It is understandable, therefore, that those without the requisite knowledge on the issue become fooled by its affects. Of course, you’ll retort, “well, what about Islam?” The same rules apply, when a state is dominant and possesses the tools/capabilities for hegemony, they will act differently than when not and they will attempt to shape the globe to their liking, requiring the rest of the world’s awareness. As the scholarship has shown, not a single person or entity, except for you, apparently, can perfectly know another person or entity’s intentions, only their capabilities, which makes it impossible, even foolish, puerile, and imprudent to be prescriptive or think that one can prescribe while describing. However, as the case in this thread shows, states with defined borders may come from different cultures but have common interests. Imagine yourself playing a chess game and thinking about the opponent’s “worldview” and culture. Though politics is not as symmetrical, it is a sufficient analogy for sophists and the hard of learning.
 

SoFP1

The Chosen One
Orange Room Supporter
It seems none of this was prepared years ahead. It's all spur of the moment. :cigar:
 

Thoma

New Member
No, you are confusing the nature of politics with policy. This is part of the problem with claiming objectivity and understanding things through a prescriptive lens. Where did you get your definition from, Ben Shafiro’s Idiot’s Guide to Politics? It’s apparent you didn’t pull your definition from a single credible source. It’s not a definition even the professor of a Philosophy 101 class, the basic level of philosophy you espouse, would provide. Not a single credible definition includes the term worldview or indicates any form of culture in the definition of politics. Nor can it be implied directly unless one is to use mental gymnastics that even Simone Biles would hesitate to undertake. Why waste the energy to research something I don’t know when I could just make it up and fool unsuspecting readers, you may have thought prior to posting? Possibly in a moment of concealed manipulation or intentional obfuscation, you pulled the definition exclusively from your imagination, or other parts that take as much or, for some, as little, effort to reach. Not even the cloak of the audacious feigning of intellectual superiority can cover the display of ignorance represented in the disingenuity of your post.

To rectify your misunderstanding of the basic nature of politics. If we were to take the universally accepted handbook on politics, Machiavelli’s The Prince, we would find the author encouraging leaders to achieve political ends by any means necessary. That is, politics as the encompassing practice of decision-making in power relations is adequate as a definition, with the necessary addendum of “in pursuit of personal (personal as relating to the individual unit, which can be a state or an individual) gain”. The pursuit of power is inherently the pursuit of interest. Interest, material or otherwise, rather than worldview, is the key element here. Therefore, if politics is to be undertaken by individuals, some use of critical faculties and rational thought is required to ensure the maximizing interests and gains. The question then becomes, are decisions made on the basis of one’s “worldview”, supposedly derived from cultural background, or based on a rational assessment of choices that a decision-maker has to consider? Referring back to Machiavelli, and including Hobbes (and all scholars on the matter, except for yourself, apparently), the point remains that when a decision-maker needs to make a decision, they will consider the rational interest of the entity they rule first and foremost. The rational interest is purely psychological, i.e. using critical faculties. It has not yet been proven that this changes across cultures. Indeed, philosophy, scholars, and the actors involved in politics, besides yourself, are all in agreement on this point. Thus, your framework is set up to fail at explaining any political decision-making. Devising policy is a different story than the engagement in power struggle.

Now, the historical difference is that we’ve organized groups of people around political entities known as sovereign states from the mid 17th century (Westphalia) onward. Not nebulous cultural entities acting on the basis of a civilizational model. That is not politics, that has very little to do with power. The problem has become, in the modern era (20th century and beyond) that certain leaderships have sought to shape the world according to a liberal (read: classical and neoclassical liberalism, which includes both Republicans and Democrats in the world’s greatest power) ideology that is not only a complete and utter failure and disaster, but is a wild derivation from state practice throughout history. It is understandable, therefore, that those without the requisite knowledge on the issue become fooled by its affects. Of course, you’ll retort, “well, what about Islam?” The same rules apply, when a state is dominant and possesses the tools/capabilities for hegemony, they will act differently than when not and they will attempt to shape the globe to their liking, requiring the rest of the world’s awareness. As the scholarship has shown, not a single person or entity, except for you, apparently, can perfectly know another person or entity’s intentions, only their capabilities, which makes it impossible, even foolish, puerile, and imprudent to be prescriptive or think that one can prescribe while describing. However, as the case in this thread shows, states with defined borders may come from different cultures but have common interests. Imagine yourself playing a chess game and thinking about the opponent’s “worldview” and culture. Though politics is not as symmetrical, it is a sufficient analogy for sophists and the hard of learning.


Categorical errors still permeate your thinking. Your recent one manifests itself in your confusion of a particular political system or a particular political school of thought (which you apparently are fond of for maybe believing it to be 'politics in itself', when in reality it is merely a brand or a type of politics that was articulated most explicitly by Machiavelli in his instructional book and who most probably intended it to be a satirical piece rather than the dangerous farce it turned out to be, to be picked up by every evil person ever since putting some social credence with it into their evil thoughts/decisions/acts that otherwise were shunned upon in society, a political stripe that is best summed up by 'achieving political ends by any means necessary, with the end justifying the means' and 'politics should be the art of the possible rather than also of the good or acceptable') with politics per se or politics in general or in principle or the foundation. And then in also holding this confused definition as a stand-alone definition, detached from or not rooted in any foundation whatsoever. Your unwillingness to acknowledge something that obvious speaks more of wickedness than mere ignorance.

The foundational and universal (unqualified or non-branded) definition of politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities'), or that without which no other developed or qualified or branded definition of politics is valid, would be as follows; 'activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status, where by power it is meant the capacity of an individual or community to influence the actions, beliefs, or conduct (behavior) of others (with the term authority being often used for power that is perceived as legitimate by the social structure)', matching and fulfilling hereby the anthropological/historical dimension of the definition; the history of political thought is traced back to early antiquity, with seminal works such as Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics, Chanakya's Arthashastra and Chanakya Niti (3rd century BC), as well as the works of Confucius. Starting in approximately 700/600 BC, humans began to consider questions of how to organize societies, as part of their more broad considerations of ethics and how to live the good life. In his first book on this topic, Aristotle discusses the city (polis) or "political community" (koinōnia politikē) as opposed to other types of communities and partnerships such as the household (oikos) and village. The highest form of community is the polis (Aristotle comes to this conclusion because he believes the public life is far more virtuous than the private and because men are "political animals").

Thus, since politics is basically 'activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status, where by power it is meant the capacity of an individual or community to influence the actions, beliefs, or conduct (behavior) of others', it therefore is in fact a type of social behavior, and as such it falls within the category of social behavior. Enter culture/worldview.

Culture/worldview is an umbrella term which encompasses the social behavior and norms found in human societies and reflects the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of the individuals in these groups. A cultural norm for instance codifies acceptable conduct in society; it serves as a guideline for behavior, dress, language, and demeanor in a situation, which serves as a template for expectations in a social group.

More broadly or more basically, culture/worldview is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge and point of view. culture/worldview consists, at its most basic level, of natural philosophy and human self-reflection; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; themes, values, emotions, and ethics; beliefs and justifications; all that which influences the individual and by extension the social behavior.

Politics, therefore, in what it is, as defined here-above, is necessarily part of and an expression of culture/worldview (an expression of that upon which it stands and by which it is conditioned/margined and according to which it operates). In a more developed or pronounced manner, worldview/culture/ideology is a set of beliefs and values that a person or group has for normative reasons, the term ideology is especially used to describe systems of ideas and ideals which form the basis of economic or political theories and resultant policies. Particular or distinct politics, or different political school of thoughts (including corresponding political decisions and acts), therefore necessarily belong to corresponding (enabling) worldviews/cultures/ideologies, respectively. This is without precluding the existence of common or converging essential elements between or among different worldviews/cultures/ideologies/politics, just as there are different/opposing elements as well. Certain particular politics and its motion or development (e.g. certain particular social behavior/act/agreement/decision/policy) is enabled or allowed for or manifests in a society, in as much as the corresponding foundation_culture/worldview/ideology allows for or support or is being adhered to. Politics by nature or definition is thus necessarily a function of culture/worldview/ideology. By a rough illustration; politics would be some of the sub-branches that handle the fruits along with some of the leaves that get sunlight into the tree, the worldview/culture/ideology would be the 'main branches with their leaves, the trunk and the roots'.

Thus, any decision or social behavior, be it defined as political or otherwise, an agreement of sorts or a disagreement, between any one same or two+ individual(s) or group(s), is thus necessarily traceable to, and accounted for by, implicitly if not explicitly, the category of culture or worldview. We can only reasonably expect say Hassan Nasarallah and Nataniaho to play chess together with a kes arak in the coming month or in the next 100 years in as much as the ideological/cultural disputation between the two subjects allows for without self-contradiction on either side or a 'compromise/lack in following or adhering to held/proclaimed ideology'.


---

Later on inshaallah I may address the other and deeper defects in your framework.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems none of this was prepared years ahead. It's all spur of the moment. :cigar:
Seriously I am happy for the UAE and Israelis.
We treated the Emiratis as Camel riders and I was one of them. Today I just need to admit that the Emiratis are polite, modern, open and not racists. Hats off people and may Bless you from my heart.

You are doing what is good for your country and for your people with tolerance and respect.
 
Top