“Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.”
That this describes probably 90% of most popular (and many less popular) political theorists' basic premise I think is really worth more attention and thought. I had noticed that trend, but honestly it hadn't occurred to me that it was a pattern of thought more at home with psychopaths. (Possibly also high school students.) In retrospect, considering how many political theorists are or were apologists for the existing order that makes some sense, but even many who weren't also posit that claim so that's notable. It seems possible that a belief that most humans are really awful is a strong predictor for becoming interested in politics, one way or the other. Which makes sense, because if you thought people were pretty ok they way they are, you probably would not think too much about how to fix them but just get on with your life. The only thing that might get you interested in politics with a rosy view of humans would be if your experience with governments was bad, and you decided you needed to fix that... which conveniently describes most of the political theorists who don't seem to think human nature is super bad.
Interesting thoughts, Doc. I hope we can get into some of these issues in more depth as I post more from Logocracy. In my final part of this review, I'll have a bit more to say on this idea, but it will require much more attention and thought, as you say!
🗨 The only thing that might get you interested in politics with a rosy view of humans
How about another, perfect is the enemy of good? 🤔 Many a naïve highschooler with zer heart bleeding fits this mould in my view. Given the modern tendency to not ever grow up into mature adult... You shame bad apples off top shelves, tweak here & there—and hey presto! Thy Kingdom comes! Shouldn't be so hard, totally doable. Anywhoo, sure more fun than cramming stale dead pale male stuff 😇
Just a completely irrelevant observation: bad apples make drunk hedgehogs. Go look under an apple tree in the fall and there’s going to be a Las Vegas worthy convention of hungover hedgehogs and hedgehogettes.
Let me tell you about the time a hedgehog got into the leftovers of a strawberry punch. Three days! Poor little fella going oi oi oi my head in the August heat. We had to build him a sunroof. Shave off and measure out aspirin to fit a 1 pound critter.
I think Glazov would do well to read Iain McGilchrist and Louis Sass on the broader psychopathology of western culture (albeit focused on the schizophrenic nature of our post-modern existence) and then see how the psychopath can so easily thrive where perceptions and judgments of the left hemisphere gives him an opportunistic stage from which to act.
Hard to tell. I'm going to guess mostly the third option, with some of the first, with with a good chunk of what Stegiel mentioned: ideology. As we'll see in part 3, he seems to be saying: Trump is evil, ponerology can't explain Trump, therefore ... the only true anti-fascism is communism? Not sure about that last bit because it's not explicit, though.
The flavor of defending communists comes through really strongly for me, but then I might be overly sensitive to it. It really seems to me that he is starting from “L is anti soviet, therefore L is badwrong.” Even seemingly basic, neutral facts are labeled as crazy and emotionally nuts. L isn’t just wrong or mistaken, but a crazy Nazi fascist, etc.
“Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.”
That this describes probably 90% of most popular (and many less popular) political theorists' basic premise I think is really worth more attention and thought. I had noticed that trend, but honestly it hadn't occurred to me that it was a pattern of thought more at home with psychopaths. (Possibly also high school students.) In retrospect, considering how many political theorists are or were apologists for the existing order that makes some sense, but even many who weren't also posit that claim so that's notable. It seems possible that a belief that most humans are really awful is a strong predictor for becoming interested in politics, one way or the other. Which makes sense, because if you thought people were pretty ok they way they are, you probably would not think too much about how to fix them but just get on with your life. The only thing that might get you interested in politics with a rosy view of humans would be if your experience with governments was bad, and you decided you needed to fix that... which conveniently describes most of the political theorists who don't seem to think human nature is super bad.
Hmm....
Interesting thoughts, Doc. I hope we can get into some of these issues in more depth as I post more from Logocracy. In my final part of this review, I'll have a bit more to say on this idea, but it will require much more attention and thought, as you say!
🗨 The only thing that might get you interested in politics with a rosy view of humans
How about another, perfect is the enemy of good? 🤔 Many a naïve highschooler with zer heart bleeding fits this mould in my view. Given the modern tendency to not ever grow up into mature adult... You shame bad apples off top shelves, tweak here & there—and hey presto! Thy Kingdom comes! Shouldn't be so hard, totally doable. Anywhoo, sure more fun than cramming stale dead pale male stuff 😇
I think there is a lot truth in what you say here
“ euthanize bad apples”
Just a completely irrelevant observation: bad apples make drunk hedgehogs. Go look under an apple tree in the fall and there’s going to be a Las Vegas worthy convention of hungover hedgehogs and hedgehogettes.
😄
Just perfect autumnal aesthetics! 🤩 Immeasurably more relevant than Glazov’s tortured (evil? 😏) bastardisation of Łobaczewski.
~~
PS Still smiling broadly, long minutes after overheard myself chuckling 🤭
Let me tell you about the time a hedgehog got into the leftovers of a strawberry punch. Three days! Poor little fella going oi oi oi my head in the August heat. We had to build him a sunroof. Shave off and measure out aspirin to fit a 1 pound critter.
You made me spend entire two tears: one out of pity for poor critter, ‘nother way bigger from overflowing heart warmth upon seeing human tenderness 🥹
I think Glazov would do well to read Iain McGilchrist and Louis Sass on the broader psychopathology of western culture (albeit focused on the schizophrenic nature of our post-modern existence) and then see how the psychopath can so easily thrive where perceptions and judgments of the left hemisphere gives him an opportunistic stage from which to act.
Ideology drives Glazov.
I laughed out loud at the three point summary of L's thesis. Put in such direct terms it's pretty much impossible to refute, indeed it's self evident.
Hard to tell. I'm going to guess mostly the third option, with some of the first, with with a good chunk of what Stegiel mentioned: ideology. As we'll see in part 3, he seems to be saying: Trump is evil, ponerology can't explain Trump, therefore ... the only true anti-fascism is communism? Not sure about that last bit because it's not explicit, though.
The flavor of defending communists comes through really strongly for me, but then I might be overly sensitive to it. It really seems to me that he is starting from “L is anti soviet, therefore L is badwrong.” Even seemingly basic, neutral facts are labeled as crazy and emotionally nuts. L isn’t just wrong or mistaken, but a crazy Nazi fascist, etc.