It may not qualify as a socially constructed institutional discretionary authority. Yet, it needs no approval of a general consensual level as to its dictation of the "natural workings" of things. Politics and prejudices are but mere human traits that characterise the "humanly" counterpart of nature's prerogative, relinquishing the latter from such value-laden tendencies which restrict it from existing beyond the human culture; the seemingly impossible state of absolute objectivity.
Even in the absence of any cosmic mechanism of check and balance, there is no such thing as an arbritary abuse of power. For nature knows no difference between the scientific beings called humans. It also isn't driven by any particular goal so that a particular means employed may be deviated from to suit any particular perspective that is somehow always justified. Ultimately, what is justifiable is the fact that its decision need not be reviewed because naturally, it is its prerogative.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Mask of Anarchy
Much of society’s secret agenda has yet to be unraveled. Every individual is playing their own game of politics. How does one unearth all of them and bring it to the fore? Then again, the question seems to be: why does it matter? Well, obviously if it affects one’s social well-being, then there seems to be a socially justified reason to interject this flow of political continuity. Doesn’t it?
Consequently, the terms "social well-being" then appears to need a definition. There seems no particular arrangement of words which can succinctly define these terms given its conceptual character. Put in another way, it conversely means one’s own political agenda itself. Thus, everything would be political in the field of politics for there to be an actual social justification that is externally justified in itself. It is only a blame game which inevitably culminates to a deadlock of political morality.
So how do we escape the gravity of this field? To explain ourselves outside this framework of political bickering? Or political involvement? Is that even a possibility? As the functionalists have it, we are all interdependent to preserve the survival of society by means of a social consensus. After all, no one can or should live in vacuum, exiled from the status quo, even if it is somehow politically driven.
At the end of the day, politics is merely a means to an end. Why do we have to institutionalize it?
Is there no other way out? “Out of what?”, one would ask.
Consequently, the terms "social well-being" then appears to need a definition. There seems no particular arrangement of words which can succinctly define these terms given its conceptual character. Put in another way, it conversely means one’s own political agenda itself. Thus, everything would be political in the field of politics for there to be an actual social justification that is externally justified in itself. It is only a blame game which inevitably culminates to a deadlock of political morality.
So how do we escape the gravity of this field? To explain ourselves outside this framework of political bickering? Or political involvement? Is that even a possibility? As the functionalists have it, we are all interdependent to preserve the survival of society by means of a social consensus. After all, no one can or should live in vacuum, exiled from the status quo, even if it is somehow politically driven.
At the end of the day, politics is merely a means to an end. Why do we have to institutionalize it?
Is there no other way out? “Out of what?”, one would ask.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
