myers (04/17/83)
In the interest of stimulating discussion on what activity should be included beneath the heading "politics", I would like to offer the following definition: "Politics" means conscious action in pursuit of a common social goal. In other words, I am rejecting the notion (implicit in Machiavelli's writings) that "politics" is an autonomous activity with its own principles and laws. All purposefull human activity can be viewed as being political. For more learned expositions on this point of view, read Antonio Gramsci and/or J.P. Sartre. Jeff Myers myers@uwvax
ucbesvax.turner (04/19/83)
#R:uwvax:-82600:ucbesvax:7500007:000:1002
ucbesvax!turner Apr 18 18:34:00 1983
"All purposefull [sic] human activity"? I rather hope not. I tend
towards Macchiavelli's implied definition. In fact, I think the very fact
that Macchiavelli DOESN'T define all of purposeful human activity as
political is itself a good indication that he is right. That he could
be obsessed with politics (as he was) and yet see something apart from it
says something about him as a person.
The world can be comprehended politically. It can also be comprehended
esthetically, or in any of a number of different ways. (Physically,
algorithmically, whatever...) To blanket social reality with political
perception might be to stifle other modes of value.
As a meta-discussion, this topic could plausibly be moved to
net.philosophy. To keep it here, however, is for me an attractive
alternative to the current exchange of rhetorical bazooka-fire with
Tom Craver. We could certainly see some calmer dialogue.
Michael Turner
ucbvax!esvax:turner