The Wasted Vote.

Not surprising. I think we all feel a bit of negativity given what appears to be a general lack of "reason" to be positive; I know I do.



I wasn't addressing you Solace; I don't know you. I spoke to the general wave of apathy that leads to an overall lack of participation - not to you personally. I believe the central statement I was replying to (that participation in government was somehow 'petty' since it was 'just a game') wasn't even yours.



Heartily disagree with you on this one. But I think I can understand the sentiment. I'd be curious to know how more apathy = less wars, but I guess that's better saved for perhaps another thread.



No. Again you're taking this as directed at you. If you'd but examine my post again, I speak to the negativity which leads to a lack of participation; the general feel of "why even try" that makes worse what's already bad. I didn't say "you", your nickname or anything else that identifies you specifically.



I think this is off the deep end. True, the amount and nature of crimes in any given place is an indicator of the general 'health' and tenor. As with my example, this is but one indicator I'd think.

Yea... I'm sad that you take this as a personal affront to you personally and as an individual; there was no allusion to you as a person in my post.

I would maintain that negativity breeds itself and - as a general 'direction' in life - usually doesn't net much positive. For any political system (and I believe that all systems have their down-sides and up-sides) the more rancor, apathy and negativity the citizens are inclined to display, the less likely there's to be any success.

Thanks for replying.

Khethil, your post began with a direct quote from mine. Then you said,



If I am not "the expressee" that you are referring to, then it is confusing that you would begin a post this way, since in my quote from your post I expressed, "Isn't it just a game...". The rest of your post follows up with mocking and belittling anyone who sees it as a game, which I, Solace, the "expressee" had expressed that I do see it that way. That might not have been your intention, but that was certainly how it came across.

I see no reason not to answer it here. If Aristoddler would prefer it be removed I'm sure he'll say so.

My point is that if everyone, including and especially those people in power, would care less about power and wealth, then they'd be less apt to go to war, since a great deal of wars are fought for reasons of power and wealth. Apathy, if applied to those things that we should not care about, can be a good thing, and dare I say, if it spares a few lives, a very good thing.

I think its generally preferable to stay close to the topic (the wasted vote), but I don't see any reason not to indulge in a small diversion as there is a correlate relation.



So, if we could selectively apply apathy only to those negative aspects of human behavior then the good could "come out". Yes; yes I'd think so. Unfortunately, this isn't how apathy works - it's not a selective 'thing' that can be applied to specific attributes of human behavior. I may be 'apathetic' about the price of petrol, or deforestation, or who's running for office; and in this way it's possible that the specific orientation of someone's apathy could be positive. I believe though, that this is a dangerous position and unsupportable in light of apathy's negative effects. I'm not sure I can sufficiently voice a good justification for this, but I'd like to try.

Apathy is a lack of feeling, emotion, interest or concern. When a people are apathetic - in a general sense - they're less likely to act, vote, care, help, speak out, give or really do much of anything else. I fear that in any case, and in any situation where this is prevalent, more is lost than gained. Do you really think that a wave of apathy over a nation's people is a good thing? If they don't care, have no emotion or show no interest for change or any sense of collective good, then why might they act at all? How can this be a 'positive'?

The argument that apathetic people are less likely to 'go to war' is perhaps true, but falls woefully short of being a justification for the element of self determination needed for any improvement in the human condition. In fact, despite the spurious nature of war under any circumstances, there are times when its necessary. In view of the current topic; Participation in Government, I think it's especially destructive to purposefully nurture an apathetic view. If one doesn't like what's happening in their country, any and all means that that system provides for change should be taken. To sit back, proclaim negativity and not act is the fruit of the apathetic view; it fosters malcontent, a general feeling of 'disowning'. It's always been easier to destroy than to create, to turn away than to help and to criticize than to act; and not a one of these nets positive change.

No, I think I see the line of reasoning upon which your argument hangs. But in my humble opinion this pales in comparison to that which is lost with its presence.

I hope this makes sense and thanks for the exchange.

Well, let's not quibble, it gets us nowhere.

You weren't the one who first brought up this notion of it being a game. And yes, I'll happily 'address' any view that fosters what I see to be such a dim, destructive view.

I will; however, extend to you my sincere apology for having offended you. My 'rant' did immediately follow your post, and in this way I too might have been 'miffed'. Given my experiences (and my views), I have an especially-harsh distaste for the negativity that comes from apathy. I realize that within my feelings therein lies an element of hypocrisy and I'll make no attempt to deny it (I think we're all hypocrites at times; in those cases where how we feel and what we think collide with reality). But be this as it may one can only be honest and press on the best they can.

So let's re-engage a bit more productively

Apology accepted, Khethil, and no hard feelings over it. Perhaps I reacted so adversely because I'm not used to reading posts from you that seem to have a negative direction toward others posters. You're someone who strives to keep things civil and polite, which many of us, myself included, don't work hard enough at.

Well, here's the way I see things, political or otherwise. There will always be evil in this world, in the ethical sense I mean, and trying to stop it is vain. I'm not saying that anyone should give up, only that we should focus on those things in our lives that we can do something about, rather than matters that are out of our hands. When I call politics a game, I don't mean to put down politicians or anyone who involves themselves in political affairs. I think, rather, that it's important for those participants to bear in mind that it is a game and it is played by certain rules. And, like any game, one can win or lose.

I don't doubt that most politicians are trying to do their best with what they have to work with, as are most voters. But I cannot now, nor will I ever be able to, trust someone who wants power. And politics is all about power; the power to shape people's lives and the direction of entire countries, even the world. No one can or will be capable or deserving of such responsibility. So I make due with whoever is in power. I will manage either way, for me and mine.

Politics and war and the fate of nations is too stressful a worry for me to indulge. I will never agree with war, but I cannot stop men from killing each other. So I will let the world be as it is. Does my apathy for these things mean that I do not care about my fellow man? No. I still show compassion to those with whom I am involved. If my heart and mind is more concerned for political matters of which I have no control, then it may be less concerned for personal matters to which my participation does matter. This isn't to say that one cannot do both, only to say that I find more and better use to involve my time with personal things than with poltical.

Now as relates to this statement that you bolded,



I completely disagree. I think it's especially destructive to oneself to participate in politics. Because the nature of the game changes the nature of the players. Good people (again, ethically speaking) go into politics all the time. But, as the saying goes, power corrupts. And good people end up bad. To deal with the corrupt on their level, which is the only level at which they will deal with you, means to sink to their level. And once they're down there, so few make it back.

Nice reply.

What I find most interesting about this exchange is that while I don't 'like' the view you've taken; as you describe it, I can empathize to the point where I could almost envision myself feeling that way.

A couple of closing comments on this exchange if I might:[INDENT]Overwhelming Odds: Yes, there will always be evil and any system of government anyone sets up will have its corrupt/despotic elements. But there's something inside me that will not resign itself to 'accepting' what I believe we can collectively change. Indeed, I also feel that a central tenant of philosophy is to make that translation to action to improve the human condition. Now... I have no illusions that I would. My tombstone, too, will crumble along with my memory having made no *big* impact and I'm ok with this. Even so, I can't give up. What's more, I believe that if we all had this outlook (yes, I know this is egotistical) that everything would be a lot better.
[/INDENT][INDENT]Nature of Ambition: You spoke about doubting politicians motives and those people who crave power. I couldn't agree more. I'd go even a step further and say that anyone who works as hard and sacrifices as much as they have to (to get elected) is almost-certainly dysfunctional. Then I think back to when I was active duty in the military. Oh, I went to such lengths to get promoted (and I did!)... I had this idealistic view that the more authority I had, the more good I could do. In retrospect, I was probably just feeding my insecurity. But the point is that - again - I believe that good can come from these arrangements, not matter what their genesis was. Could the latest candidate for 'X' be this idealistic? I guess my answer would be, "I hope".
[/INDENT][INDENT]Worries of the World: There's a part of a prayer I heard long ago (I think it's from Alcoholics Anonymous) that essentially says, 'God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference'. So in this light, your point's well taken - one must choose their battles carefully. I believe; however, that when we apply this wisdom to participatory government more ill than good is likely - which brings us full circle back to our disagreement.
[/INDENT]And that's ok, people with good conscience must necessarily disagree now and again, and it's all good. I think I'd like to let it be known that I see this other side, and the conflict. I've made my stand and now, with conversations like these, I get to re-address it... refreshing ones' own views is a good thing!

Thanks again.