Why Does Political Activity Occur? The Soul/No Soul Distinction and Politics


We hear politicians refer to a “community” of people at times. These references might be in the form of “the public” or, more problematically, “a group of individuals.”

The problem is that it is insufficiently clear what is meant by a community or an individual. Of course, a community is thought to be a group of individuals. But what is an individual?

Is our concept of an individual to be based on the concept of a soul? This certainly has spiritual and philosophical connotations [especially Plato, in some ways]. It suggests a degree or part of the individual is immaterial. If the individual is or contains immateriality, then, it seems, it has an equal chance to lend itself to two facets of human activity: namely, activity on individual desire/volition or activity in the social world [political activity]. The individual which is or has a soul has the true choice of either an action on its desires [eg, pursuing its sexual or professional interests] or an action in the wider social-political field [pursuing matters of social justice and ethics, or altruistic pursuits etc] as, it being immaterial, both these fields are distinct objects to it.  


————->Desire/Volition
Individual [Soul]  
                       ————->Social World



But if the individual is immaterial, with the infinite formless plenitude that implies, why would there be any wholehearted action towards either desires or the social world? There being enough to be the soul forever, how is there a transcendence of the soul and thereafter action on desire or on the social world? Indeed, how can one transcend the eternal for a focus on the finitely historical, for is not the finite historical contained in the eternal?

The conception of individual as soul might be problematic on other counts as well. For some political circles, it is outright problematic for its religious connotation. For them, immaterialism is not a viable idea, for they think it does not reflect reality. For them, whatever is won and lost is in the field of the material. 

Now, these, who think the individual is “no soul,” but is completely and only a material substance, have to have a system of thought regarding what field of action is proximate to the individual and what further because a material substance does not lend itself equally to all things—it has a definite finitude. 

Individual [No Soul]——>Desire/Volition——>Social World

Clearly, as we seem to think, the field of individual desire/volition is proximate to the material individual. Why, then, ought one to act on the social world, which is further off and thereby uncertain, when desire and volition present the field of activity which could be more certain and hence fruitful for that individual? 

 It seems like the idea that the activity in desire/volition is itself finite and quickly exhausted is only an assumption, for an individual can and does act on desire/volition in some form or another for the whole duration of its life. There is no real need to move towards action in the social world because we can imagine a life where we are completely and always acting on our desire. 

In sum, whatever is proximate must be prioritized if the individual is a material substance invested with agency. This seems to mean prioritizing the field of desire/volition, not the social world. But, if the individual is an immaterial soul, then nothing other than itself can and would ever be prioritized. Either way, the status of political activity in the social world seems to be difficult to justify. Why and how, then, does political activity occur?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Everything is the Locus of Ash: A New Concept of the Other and the Illusion of Becoming

     Philosophers and various intellectuals have used the term “the other” in various ways. It seems that most of the time they have some entity distinct from “the self” in mind when they think of something as “the other.” For some, there is a ‘racial other,’ for others there is a ‘sexual other,' both of which are usually other persons, other selves. I use “the other” here in a different, more philosophical way such that those previous usages will come to be seen as denoting what can be called ‘anothers.’      For me, the other is not the distinct entity from the self. To put it generally, ‘that’ is not an other to ‘this.’ Rather, ‘that' is 'another,' if it is to be considered distinct. What I am proposing is a thorough re-thinking of the way we envision inter-entity dynamics, so that we have self, other and an other, and not just self and other. But more importantly, I am proposing that we use the term 'the other' to denote something more proximate to the self
Read more

What is the true nature of society?

Political action is often taken to realize some sort of ultimately ideal social reality. We have values such as universal freedom and universal justice, which pertain to future social realities that have these ideas realized within them. But what is the true nature of society? What, fundamentally, is a society? Might this be the main question for a political project that is not as influenced by values? Let us assume that the truest version of a society is a just or free society. We might think this is what a society truly ought to be like, and that unjust and unfree societies are not just bad from a value-based perspective, but also imperfect from an objective standpoint. Now, it is up to us in our political projects to go towards this society. For this move towards it, a single project is possible, but within that project the following two points are in order:  First, if a completely just or free society is the true nature of society, then it has to be eternally just and fre
Read more

The Role of Innocence in Politics

In life, one ought to choose a framework of action that allows one to revel in the victories therein and also genuinely feel the sting of losses. One ought not to choose a framework of action where one transcends the losses and victories, where all narrative tracks and events are rendered meaningless. This applies also to politics, where people transcend their political duties, roles and actions all too often, and moreover do not feel accountable when they win or lose, despite the wider consequences to society of that.  Now what causes the meaningless transcendence I am thinking of here? The cause is not a particularly intense victory or a particularly stinging defeat. These only compel actors to act even better, even stronger and in even more effective ways towards bringing about future victories. What causes meaningless transcendence is the understanding or foresight of the rules of the game. When this happens, one transcends something that seemed as meaningful as even one’s m
Read more