|
| Thread: What is your definition of a political opinion? | |
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
posted October 28, 2014 04:05 AM |
|
Edited by kayna at 04:08, 28 Oct 2014.
|
What is your definition of a political opinion?
To me, a political opinion is the result of someone trying to guess-deduce-observe what was right and what was wrong, which lies we were fed by our politicians-media and which were true. It is also trying to find a solution that is beneficial to everyone and discern those "solutions" that benefits but a few or one side only.
When I meet someone that is 100 % ( or close to ) one one side or the other, the red or the blue, the right or the left, one political party only, I do not consider their political opinion to be an opinion. I consider them to be something else, like a political tradition ( having the same political opinion than your family-neighbors ), a political delusion ( we're all brainwashed by the media, some more than others ), a political sell-out ( taking one side for your own benefits only, usually the right, siding with the strong for security or the left for increased welfare-like benefits ), a political belief ( fancy word for lack of proof, for people with politics in their lives like it was a religion), etc...
What is your definition of a political opinion?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 28, 2014 04:29 AM |
|
|
My favorite definition of politics is "the art of the possible," so, a political opinion to me (which can be different from your ideological optimum at times), is your support for the best solution that deals with an issue compared to the other possible solutions. This does not mean short-term solutions are always preferable to principles that can cause difficulty or inconvenience in practicality, it means every aspect of an issue short-term/long-term, the sociological, economical reality of things surrounding it as well as your ethical position should be taken into account.
Of course, there is a broader meaning of political which can be associated with a long range and variety of subjects including the metaphorical choices in Lord of the Rings or why nuclear families significantly replaced bigger ones in the last century or whatever... Politics is in everything, it's not just about governing a state. But the significant thing about a political opinion, the thing that separates it from a philosophical thought, is that it's usually about what can be/should be changed or conserved in practicality.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted October 28, 2014 01:51 PM |
|
|
I'd say that politics is the process by which a society puts several other (more theoretical) fields into practice to make decisions for and/or as that society as a whole. Society not being a very strict part of the definition.
What these other fields are varies a bit, but if we assume that the politician has the good of the public as a goal, I think that it's important to have a philosophical backing, simply because one must know what "good" is before one can do good. One must also have an analysis and theoretical understanding of the world that one wants to change (society, and society being a result of the people within it one must understand people and the system alike), and these two come together as a an ideology. That should then be backed up by empirical evidence and arguments, because (as history has shown) humans are pretty good at being wrong, even when they think they're right.
After that comes actually putting the changes one has in mind into practice, and how that is done would vary wildly depending on whatever is allowed in the ethical and moral systems that the politician has and their theoretical understanding of the world (their ideology) and then compromising that through the intricacies of the system they're working within (or somewhat outside of) and trying to change. This is where politics could come down to media manipulation or debating to "win", but I think that's more a result of political things, rather than part of what defines politics.
A political opinion would then be an opinion held on any of these levels of politics, if it is applied. It could be a stance held about an ideology or even a philosophical concept, if it's in the context of changing a society, or an opinion on a very specific change in the local town. It is somewhat different from a personal opinion, in that one can hold a political opinion even if one personally doesn't like (for example thinking a specific change should be made in the belief that it would improve the life of many, even if it would affect oneself negatively on a personal level) or from a generic stance in that one can hold opinions that are exceptions to generic principles in given contexts.
Quote:
When I meet someone that is 100 % ( or close to ) one one side or the other, the red or the blue, the right or the left, one political party only, I do not consider their political opinion to be an opinion. I consider them to be something else, like a political tradition ( having the same political opinion than your family-neighbors ), a political delusion ( we're all brainwashed by the media, some more than others ), a political sell-out ( taking one side for your own benefits only, usually the right, siding with the strong for security or the left for increased welfare-like benefits ), a political belief ( fancy word for lack of proof, for people with politics in their lives like it was a religion), etc...
Actually, I often see consistency as a result of insight and thorough inspection of ideological principles. An ideology is meant to offer understanding and backing to any ideas. If someone is 100% tied to one ideology, that is often a result of thorough inspection and understanding of that ideology. That, of course, would require them to be able to answer questions as to why they hold their opinions. Reasons beyond simple ones such as "because X thinks so". It'd also require the person to be able adapt their ideology when they encounter situations where their ideology does not offer a complete or consistent explanation. My point simply being that having an ideology that is widely, consistently and accurately applicable to explain situations is a merit to that ideology. I don't see an inherent point in trying to compromise between many ideologies in different areas, simply because one ideology is sometimes lacking. I'd see that as a sign that the ideology is lacking and incomplete, which would suggest that one should find or develop a better one.
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 28, 2014 06:48 PM |
|
Edited by kayna at 18:50, 28 Oct 2014.
|
An ideology is a code of sorts. It doesn't exist in the physical realm. I'm not saying they're wrong all the time, most ideologies are good, but it a form of devotion ; you stick to your ideology when you decide to, and the problems that you face after choosing your ideology might not necessarily be solved by that said idea you adopted.
Every problem has specific details and will require a different solution from time to time, due to those varied details. To me they fall in my own category of "political beliefs", in the sense that idealists will apply their set of ideas thinking it will work 100 % of the time, when the rate of success isn't as high. It is best to analyze a problem first, then find a solution than having a way to solve problems before even knowing what the problem will be.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 28, 2014 09:44 PM |
|
|
kayna said:
To me they fall in my own category of "political beliefs", in the sense that idealists will apply their set of ideas thinking it will work 100 % of the time, when the rate of success isn't as high. It is best to analyze a problem first, then find a solution than having a way to solve problems before even knowing what the problem will be.
Ideology is part of what determines what it means for a policy to work. It's possible for two people to agree about the consequences of a policy and still disagree about whether it's desirable, and the difference is because one person's ideology holds that the consequences are good and/or that the policy is moral or justified according to the standard they believe to be correct, and the other person's ideology holds the opposite. This is why it's impossible to truly say "I'm not ideological, I just want what works" - because deciding what "what works" means is itself inherently ideological.
Of course, some differences really are derived from different beliefs about the effects of policies, stemming from differences in knowledge about political science, economics, criminology, the current state of the world in general, etc. Most disagreements are from a combination of the two - there's disagreement about both empirics and different views of the good, and the two are entangled with each other. The empirical differences can be settled through scientific methods (at least in theory), but disagreements about what outcomes are desirable can't be resolved that way. That's not to say that they can't be resolved at all, but that requires reasoning through political philosophy, ethics, etc, and involves more than just determining what results policies have.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
