The primary error in modern democratic politics is that it is viewed in terms of opinion. Political science rarely has any real effect on actual politics. Why?
The Roman architect Vitruvius has some interesting insight for us. “Back in the day,” we may say, no field was considered separate, as its own thing. Vitruvius taught that architects ought to “be educated, skilful with the pencil, instructed in geometry, know much history, have followed the philosophers with attention, understand music, have some knowledge of medicine, know the opinions of the jurists, and be acquainted with astronomy and the theory of the heavens.” A more complete understanding of the world was required, in his view, to be a good architect. It wasn’t good enough to merely study the principles of architecture itself; these were always supplemented by a solid interdisciplinary comprehension. But today, how many architects, structural engineers, etc. are familiar with all these things?
The disciplines have become separated and segregated, thereby neutered and brought down from the high place they used to inhabit. A scientist with no understanding of philosophy does not know how to justify his field. An architect with no understanding of mathematics cannot accurately conceive a building. An artist with no understanding of physics cannot depict an environment properly – or deliberately violate the rules of physics to produce something unusual. And a politician who is unskilled in psychology cannot possibly know the true needs of their people and is therefore destined to make catastrophic mistakes.
Vitruvius wrote:
In all matters, but particularly in architecture, there are these two points:—the thing signified, and that which gives it its significance. That which is signified is the subject of which we may be speaking; and that which gives significance is a demonstration on scientific principles.
According to this, all disciplines have two aspects:
- The thing signified: This refers to the actual subject or object being referred to. In the context of architecture, it could be a building, a room, or even a design element. The thing signified is what we’re directly addressing or describing.
- That which gives significance: This refers to the underlying principles, laws, and scientific concepts that make sense of the subject (thing signified). In architecture, this might involve geometric proportions, materials science, structural integrity, or other technical aspects.
In order, therefore, for any field of study to make sense, we need to not only know the thing we’re addressing (the “what”), but we also need to know its underlying nature and the laws that govern it (the “how” and the “why”), and this may involve interdisciplinary knowledge (i.e. solid knowledge of other fields).
If political science is the study of the nature and laws of politics, then why is it separate from politics itself? Politics is never conducted on a scientific basis. Is that why it fails to address the ills of the world so spectacularly? Politics is a field without significance; it contains only the thing signified. People have differing political beliefs, but there is a science to how these beliefs would affect a country if given free reign. Why is it never mentioned? Why is significance never assigned to these beliefs? Why are the decisions of politicians never subject to the laws of politics?
There could scarcely be a more important discipline than politics – the discipline of government – yet it is never assigned any inherent significance, nor held to any laws or standards. Politicians simply get to implement their policies, with no preliminary studies or research into how it will affect the lives of thousands of people. That’s insane!
This knowledge is the child of practice and theory. Practice is the continuous and regular exercise of employment where manual work is done with any necessary material according to the design of a drawing. Theory, on the other hand, is the ability to demonstrate and explain the productions of dexterity on the principles of proportion.
Vitruvius
The people doing the practice in politics (politicians) are never greatly involved in the theory (political science). Politicians become successful as a result of a popularity contest, not on the basis of their theory. And they are then permitted to make practical decisions, no matter how unscientific or nonsensical they may be. No wonder democratic countries are such failures! By being theory-agnostic, devoid of significance, democracy dooms everyone it governs.
Politics is concerned with the thing signified. It is therefore preoccupied with appearances. To go beyond mere appearance, you need significance – theory and knowledge of the laws and principles that govern something. But democratic politics is a rhetoric war; it’s not a rigorous field of study. If you want real theory (which not many people do because they’re just trying to advance their own political views), you have to go to a completely different area: political science. This theoretical area, by the way, has no practical power.
By detaching theory and practice, politics is rendered inept and stupid, and political science is rendered impotent and abstract. To fix it, we need to unify the two and acknowledge that, while we all have opinions on politics, not all of them are good, correct, or informed opinions – in fact, most of them are absolute nonsense.
No physicist cares what a scientifically illiterate person thinks of gravity or electrons. The opinions of uneducated people do not matter in science. Why should politics be any different? Yes, perhaps people should have input in politics, but by no means should they have a definitive say. Why? Because democracy has proven that can’t work.
Giving uneducated people a say is essentially a guarantee that you’ll get nowhere. And isn’t that what we see with politics? – policies swing back and forth, and no real progress is ever made. If physics entertained every single theory, no matter how ridiculous, and dedicated resources to investigating them all, it would construct absolutely no effective models for comprehending the universe and it would therefore be totally ineffective. To make any progress, you have to choose a direction and keep going in it. Democracy ensures that politics will always keep changing direction and will never get anywhere.
Generalism
But perhaps to the inexperienced it will seem a marvel that human nature can comprehend such a great number of studies and keep them in the memory. Still, the observation that all studies have a common bond of union and intercourse with one another, will lead to the belief that this can easily be realized. … Those, therefore, who from tender years receive instruction in the various forms of learning, recognize the same stamp on all the arts, and an intercourse between all studies, and so they more readily comprehend them all.
Vitruvius
All studies are ultimately related, but this is a world of specialists, not generalists. The kind of universal insight that only a generalist can have is sorely missing. A generalist can make connections between disparate fields and apply concepts and principles from one field to another. It’s easy for the specialist to become stagnant, bogged down in the one field to which they devote all their time. But the generalist can cross-fertilize and never runs out of inspiration.
It appears, then, that Pytheos made a mistake by not observing that the arts are each composed of two things, the actual work and the theory of it. One of these, the doing of the work, is proper to men trained in the individual subject, while the other, the theory, is common to all scholars: for example, to physicians and musicians the rhythmical beat of the pulse and its metrical movement. But if there is a wound to be healed or a sick man to be saved from danger, the musician will not call, for the business will be appropriate to the physician.
Vitruvius
It’s the theory that allows us to make jumps and connections, but generalists have a much greater general knowledge and therefore a better understanding of theory’s universal aspects. They can see how a principle applies to vastly different fields.
Modern politics is insane because it detaches itself from its theoretical aspect. Before a good world can be achieved, it will have to be united with its theory and become a truly scientific discipline.
Trumpism of the Day
“After years of building up foreign countries, we are finally going to build up our Country, defend our borders, and protect our cities. We will not be invaded. We will not be occupied. We will not be conquered. We will be a free and proud nation once again!” – Link
Oh, without a doubt, the US has been invaded, occupied, and conquered countless times, and people are just sick of it. Everyone takes advantage of the US, which is why it’s still one of the most influential nations on the world stage – that always happens to countries that are occupied and defeated. Meanwhile, Israel and Saudi Arabia are doing so well, it’s hard to imagine why anyone wouldn’t want to go live there. In fact, there’s been a mass exodus of Westerners to these countries – people are just flocking to the Middle East because these places are so much more prosperous.
The US doesn’t protect its own cities, and we know this because the US has about the 57th highest murder rate in the world – murder is just everywhere; you can’t escape from it. The US is also one of the only developed countries with an incarceration rate higher than the rest of the world – you can’t keep cities safe by arresting all the criminals.
America is neither free nor proud right now – it’s not sovereign at all, and everyone knows it. It’s the greatest nation in the history of the world, but it’s also an international punching bag. And it’s all because America is too weak to defend itself with the top military in the world, according to globalfirepower.com, Forbes India, and many other sources.
So, yes, the US is definitely invaded, occupied, and conquered, and everyone is tired of it, especially the Americans themselves. Vote Trump if you want these pressing issues to be resolved.