When you say that you don't know what the solution is, does that mean you do not have any recommendations as to what the "fresh alternative" should be?
Personally, I can't believe that you have no suggestions. You are far too creative for that!
I would be interested in hearing what you suggest for a fresh alternative, because we certainly need one. Our current philosophies, ideologies, and even our general concepts are much too archaic. Even if it's a new take on an old way, that would be better than nothing.
Ah, unfortunatly, I don't understand the language on your site.
I have some ideas I'm working on, lots of pipe dreams, half-manifestos. In the meantime, this is as good a place as any to throw them to the wall and see what sticks.
Then throw! I'm ready to see what you have!
Georg Brandes described Nietzsche's philosophy as "aristocratic radicalism." That interesting conjunction is something like what I'm after. A politics or philosophy of the future, in my mind, should contain something of these elements:
1) Recognition of the non-rational nature of man; people need symbols, idols, myths. There should be avenues for creative-destructive tendencies to be channeled rather than suppressed or whitewashed.
2) Analysis of the social construction of consensus reality, not in a view to replace it with nihilist chaos (postmodernists), but to build something better.
3) A willingness to be elitist, to say that the masses are not always right. Not anti-democratic, but critical of democracy's shortcomings.
4) A practical utopianism; the idea of a perfect world is a delusion, but the process of seeking a perfect world gives meaning to our lives. So we need to tap this impulse without utilizing lies like a classless society or a heavenly kingdom.
5) New forms of community. You may have heard of Putnam's study "Bowling Alone." Technological isolation, disconnectedness, school shootings, are signs of the modern times. We need carnivals, guilds, communal expressions that transcend anomie.
6) Syncretism. The left/right divide is unreflective of the basic duality of man in general; we all have conservative sides and liberal sides.
These are some general ideas for an answer to the problems of modernity, at any rate.
this is still the best blog in the blogosphere.
the problem with most of those elements is what you say in #3: the masses, the mob. they are, in effect, always right. most sales, units moved, largest audience. this is what capitalism thrives upon, and why companies like clear channel and bands like nickelback enjoy monopolies and popularity, respectively. for some of this to work, some of the most basic foundations of modern western society would have to radically change.
#6 is just a de facto choice, the way politics has always been. it has to been 1 vs 1, almost, otherwise people dont' recognize it as political. the illusion of a 3 party system as being possible is far outside any reality any human government has ever really embraced or even come close to.
anyway, the part about not treating people with beliefs we know aren't true bit is my favorite excerpt of the ones you posted. that's what i wish we could say to all the bomb bearing muslims and falwellian christians. that we know your beliefs are irrational, and at the least unprovable, if not completely false. but yet, criticizing someones beliefs is asking to be burned at the stake.
forgot to enter mein name
I would say that #6 is, by far, the most promising to me. I think we are capable of recognizing something as political even if it trancends the typical divide. A political solution is a political solution, period.
My own concept of syncretism is very integral in nature - a belief that all "sides" compose the whole truth, that each "side" is only part of the whole truth. I believe this is why paradoxes exist...to show us this way.
Syncretism walks hand-in-hand with freedom and decentralized federalism as a means to achieve actual freedom (my personal preference), which is a concept that is often overlooked because it is not new.
Commenting by HaloScan
