/lit/ - Literature

i hold certain metaphysical and epistemological positions concerning the relation of belief, truth, and the world in social contexts which causes me to reject many claims made by many people carte blanche. i can't take 99% of political chatter seriously because of it, but i fear that this has actually just turned me into a retard; like, it's become a thought terminating heuristic that prevents actual thinking, but at the same time i think it's correct. i just don't know anymore. i guess i should just do more reading and bang my head against a wall.

>>14521496
>(P5) that population is composed of intelligent beings (P4, premise)
>(P6) direction is a form of interaction (P4, premise)
>(P7) all actions of politics involve a relation of justice with all its actions affects (P1, P3, P4, P5, P6)
>(P8) all actions of politics involve the fair dealings between all its actions affects (P2, P7)
>(P9) the most important principle of politics is justice (premise)
>(P10) a form of government which considers the fair dealings of all it affects is greater than that which does not, as it includes the most important principle of politics (P8, P9)
>(P11) popular government considers the fair dealings of all it affects (premise)
>(P12) non-popular government does not consider the fair dealings of all it affects (premise)
>(PC) popular government is greater than non-popular government (P10, P11, P12)
i'm not sure if this is either sound or valid, but that's all i can be bothered to come up with. now, if you'll grant that popular government is preferable to non-popular government, and that the betterment of each individual is at least a consideration of justice, then i think we have the "why it should be the aim": because politics is concerned with justice, and popular politics facilitates that aim better than non-popular government. as for why justice a good thing, well... for that, i have no answer.
>But even though in what way? The average "worker" has less dignity he would in serfdom.
dignity relies at least partially on mutual recognition of your worth by your peers. non-popular forms of government are more often than not based upon an idea of a metaphysical superiority of the ruling class over the ruled. this sense of metaphysical superiority entails the belief that the non-ruling class are of lesser worth, and their considerations of lesser to no worth. under feudalism, the serf was the property of the master, to be controlled, bartered, and sold at will, irrespective of their own will or preferences. when your worth is drawn and measured by your instrumental value to your master, you have no more dignity than a tool or beast of burden. Under popular government there is a recognition of each member as a metaphysical and moral equal, which, regardless of the effective freedom of choice that he possess in he choice of work, grants him far more dignity than a serf, in that his will is recognized of equal worth by those around him. the freeman has peers, whereas the serf has only a master. beyond dignity, as popular governments entails the extension of fair dealings to all members of the polity, the average worker, now being a subject of consideration by the government, has his interests represented in government. it has only been popular forms of government which have actively worked towards the betterment of workers, and there is in fact a form of popular government—communism—which explicitly seeks to improve the lot of workers.
i don't really like my posts, but i'm too far in now

>write and polish over 7000 word section of essay
>send it to supervisor
>"this is good stuff anon, but can you condense it into 1000 words?"
haha, sure thing prof