State

[Dioscuri]

"Political man acts in terms of the desire for "recognition." He can be fully satisfied only if he has completely satisfied this desire. This desire is by definition limitless. It is the One Desire of Man. Man wants to be effectively "recognized" by all of those whom he considers capable and hence worthy of "recognizing" him. To the extent that the citizens of some given State, animated by a "spirit of independence," successfully resist the head of this State, this Head of State must necessarily recognize their human worth. He will therefore want to extend his authority over them. And if they do not resist him, it is because they already recognize his authority, if only the way the Slave recognizes his master's authority. So in the final analysis, the head of State will be fully "satisfied" only when his State encompasses the whole of mankind. But he will also want to extend his authority as far as possible within the State itself, by reducing to a minimum the number of those capable of only a servile obedience. In order to make it possible for him to be "satisfied" by their authentic "recognition," he will tend to "emancipate" the slaves, "enfranchise" the women, and reduce the authority of families over children in favor of the State authority, to reduce the number of criminals, of the "disadvantaged," the "unbalanced" of every variety, and to raise the "cultural" level (which clearly depends on the economic level) of all social classes to the highest possible degree.

At all events, he will want to be "recognized" by all those who resist him out of "recognizable" motives, that is to say out of "ideological" or "political" motives properly so called , because their very resistance is the measure of their human worth. He will want to be recognized as soon as such a resistance manifests itself, and he will give up wanting to be recognized by them (and give it up regretfully) only when, for one reason or another, he finds it necessary to kill those "resisting".

In the end, the political man, acting in full self-awareness in terms of the desire for "recognition" (or "glory," "pride," "honor," "country") will be fully satisfied only when he is at the head of a State that is universal but also politically and socially homogeneous (insofar as the Infinite is homogeneous). This is to say that the State is the goal and outcome of the collective "labor" of all and of each. If one grants that this State is the actualization of the supreme political motivation of mankind, then the "satisfaction" of the head of this State may be said to constitute a sufficient "justification" (subjective and objective) of his activity.

If one who truly understood the nature and destiny of political man were to confront this tyrant and explain to him the concept of "universal recognition," and how, starting at the present state of things, one might pursue the concept through his actions of leadership and attain that ideal State, and attain it better and faster than one could by the tyrant's present organization of government, then the tyrant would be perfectly free in drawing the necessary conclusion and acting upon it immediately. Were the tyrant to refuse to make the necessary decision, his refusal would be absolutely "unreasonable," "unjustified," and "wrong," and it would not raise any questions of principle."

[Enki]

Sounds like a bunch of right wing philosophical political messaging.

The sort of stuff incredibly political people will say about their political opponents to make them sound evil for being political.

I disagree with the main thrust, but then again, from the perspective of whoever wrote this, I am the person who it speaks of.

I am the sort of person that the author wants to kill brown people to save civilization from. If he bombs enough brown people, then he will be able to tuck his children into bed at night, knowing that I won't jump out from under it and engage in cunnilingus with his son.

[Mr. Perfect]

Case ya ain't followin' the news these days, the brown dude is killing the brown folk these days. With you largely applauding (Drones!). So not sure what that is about, although I have some ideas.

Maybe this dude above is just trying to occupy government.

[Endovelico]

Sounds like a bunch of right wing philosophical political messaging.

The sort of stuff incredibly political people will say about their political opponents to make them sound evil for being political.

I disagree with the main thrust, but then again, from the perspective of whoever wrote this, I am the person who it speaks of.

I am the sort of person that the author wants to kill brown people to save civilization from. If he bombs enough brown people, then he will be able to tuck his children into bed at night, knowing that I won't jump out from under it and engage in cunnilingus with his son.

Cunnilingus with his SON!!!???...

[Dioscuri]

Sounds like a bunch of right wing philosophical political messaging.

The sort of stuff incredibly political people will say about their political opponents to make them sound evil for being political.

I disagree with the main thrust, but then again, from the perspective of whoever wrote this, I am the person who it speaks of.

How do you know it's not a leftist writing about rightists?

Or someone who is neither a leftist nor a rightist writing about both leftists and rightists?

What "side" would someone who truly understands the nature and destiny of political man belong to?

[Typhoon]

It sounds French . . .

Joking aside, it's a valuable contribution to the Philosophy section, the idea of "political man" and his motivations is important, and deserves to be discussed at higher level than current parochial political perspectives.

[epaminondas]

It seems to me that the standard construction that political acts are undertaken in competition for resources is rather more convincing.

[Mr. Perfect]

I think people who are under that impression don't have any real experience with real politicians. They aren't in it for the resources.

[Simple Minded]

Sounds like a bunch of right wing philosophical political messaging.

The sort of stuff incredibly political people will say about their political opponents to make them sound evil for being political.

I disagree with the main thrust, but then again, from the perspective of whoever wrote this, I am the person who it speaks of.

How do you know it's not a leftist writing about rightists?

Or someone who is neither a leftist nor a rightist writing about both leftists and rightists?

What "side" would someone who truly understands the nature and destiny of political man belong to?

Dioscuri,

Thanks for posting. The author of the original post was kinda long winded in stating the obvious, IMO. Who is the source.

The original post reminded me of Tennyson's warning that "Power corrupts...." or Pascal's warning of "......the desire to live an imaginary life in the minds of other people," or any number of religious or spiritual teaching warning that human vanity inevitably leads to unhappiness simply because we can not control the opinions of others (and probably have less influence than our vanity would lead us to desire).

But to claim that the author is describing a righty or a lefty (whatever the hell those two definitions mean....i don't think I have ever encounter two people who define them similarly)...... hmmm, I don't see it. Seemed to me, the author was describing one of the flawed aspects of human nature.

[Parodite]

Political man is like any man.

[Dioscuri]

If the thesis is true, or "merely obvious," then it follows that the destiny of mankind is to resolve into an undifferentiated and universal State, at which point all historically recognizable "human conflicts" will be resolved, and humanity will have fulfilled itself, transcended itself, and indeed, ended itself.

Even more explicitly, it would mean that Man in the present is not free not to tend towards this universal State. If recognition is the One Desire of Man, then progressing towards the State of Universal Recognition is quite truly the only thing that humans ever do. Even outright and forceful rejection of the idea of this State is only a moment on the path towards it.

It would also follow that every non-universal mode of political/ideological identification, whether partisan, national, or religious, is false except insofar as holding to such an identification constitutes a moment on the path towards the Universal State.

So we may even speak of humanity itself as being the instantiation or the vehicle of the prerogative of recognition, which must be a fundamental property of the universe of which life in general and human life in particular are expressions.

If the initial premise is accepted, then all of the above is irrefutable.

[Endovelico]

People are biologically conditioned to favour those who share their genes. Most people associate commonality of genes through skin colour, language, religion, traditions. Mingling our genes sufficiently to allow for a world state may take thousands of years. Meanwhile let's try and foster tolerance, by reducing economic and social inequality. If we are all equally prosperous (or close to that), there will be no cause for conflict and war. And we will have the time to mingle our genes. But I guess that's too "socialist" for many of you...

[Simple Minded]

If the thesis is true, or "merely obvious," then it follows that the destiny of mankind is to resolve into an undifferentiated and universal State, at which point all historically recognizable "human conflicts" will be resolved, and humanity will have fulfilled itself, transcended itself, and indeed, ended itself.

Even more explicitly, it would mean that Man in the present is not free not to tend towards this universal State. If recognition is the One Desire of Man, then progressing towards the State of Universal Recognition is quite truly the only thing that humans ever do. Even outright and forceful rejection of the idea of this State is only a moment on the path towards it.

It would also follow that every non-universal mode of political/ideological identification, whether partisan, national, or religious, is false except insofar as holding to such an identification constitutes a moment on the path towards the Universal State.

So we may even speak of humanity itself as being the instantiation or the vehicle of the prerogative of recognition, which must be a fundamental property of the universe of which life in general and human life in particular are expressions.

If the initial premise is accepted, then all of the above is irrefutable.

Even though the original post started out as describing “political man,” (who is obviously a totally male chauvinist pig, which means he could be either a righty or a lefty…. ), I think it might be more accurate by substituting “celebrity” for “political man.” Hollywood, Washington, DC, Paris, London, etc... self-destructive personalities for example.

Some social butterflies or busybodies find happiness in companionship and find solitude painful, other people I know are the opposite and are more reclusive. Based on those I know, it seems more genetic, than conditioning.

I find it more satisfying to serve society by making “the trains run on time,” than by seeking to impose my will on others through force of law, regardless of whether I choose to view myself as an evil dictator, a source of superior moral/intellectual standards, or benevolent Robin Hood…….

Regarding “irrefutable,” I think you ran the train off the tracks with this statement:
If recognition is the One Desire of Man, then progressing towards the State of Universal Recognition is quite truly the only thing that humans ever do.

different people seek recognition for different reasons….. but perhaps only truly empty souls seek recognition for its own sake, too obvious to state?

Too many personalities involved to make broad brush statement about where society will be in even 20 years, or the final product of “societal evolution.” Note how well the central planners have done with societal planning in the last 80 years……..

Others have said it better than I regarding the futility of desiring recognition….

We do not content ourselves with the life we have in ourselves and in our own being; we desire to live an imaginary life in the mind of others, and for this purpose we endeavour to shine. We labor unceasingly to adorn and preserve this imaginary existence and neglect the real. A great proof of the nothingness of our being, not to be satisfied with the one without the other, and to renounce so often the one for the other!
Blaise Pascal

The fountain of content must spring up in the mind, and he who has so little knowledge of human nature as to seek happiness by changing anything but his own disposition, will waste his life in fruitless efforts, and multiply the grief he proposes to remove.
Dr. Samuel Johnson

My third maxim was to endeavor always to conquer myself rather than fortune, and change my desires rather than the order of the world, and thus render myself contented.
Rene Descartes

All the various ideas that arise making us believe that we require something external to make us happy are obstructions to that perfection.
Vivekananda

Everything in life must be intentional, and the will constantly taut like a muscle.
Andre’ Gide

A singular strength of mind is required to enable a man to live among others consistently with his own ideas and convictions; to be a master of himself, and not fall into the habits or exhibit the same passions as those with whom he associates.
Baruch Spinoza

Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless.
Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy

Man must cease attributing his problems to his environment, and learn again to exercise his will, his personal responsibility.
Albert Schweitzer

Nothing is so easy as to deceive one’s self; for what we wish, we readily believe.
Demosthenes

No man was ever so much deceived by another, as by himself.
Lord Greville

How lamentable it is that men blame the gods for their troubles, when their own wickedness brings them suffering over and beyond that which Destiny decrees for them.
Zeus in The Odyssey

Everything that happens is just and fair to the Gods, but humans, regard some things as just and others as unjust.
Heraclitus

Sorry if I missed the point…….

[Typhoon]

The modern version:

He [She, They] live rent free in your head.

~ Anon [as far as I know]

[Dioscuri]

Even though the original post started out as describing “political man,” (who is obviously a totally male chauvinist pig, which means he could be either a righty or a lefty…. ), I think it might be more accurate by substituting “celebrity” for “political man.” Hollywood, Washington, DC, Paris, London, etc... self-destructive personalities for example.

No.

Some social butterflies or busybodies find happiness in companionship and find solitude painful, other people I know are the opposite and are more reclusive.

You think recognition isn't happening when you're alone?

Based on those I know, it seems more genetic, than conditioning.

How do you know that "genetic" is what it "seems" like?

I find it more satisfying to serve society by making “the trains run on time,” than by seeking to impose my will on others through force of law, regardless of whether I choose to view myself as an evil dictator, a source of superior moral/intellectual standards, or benevolent Robin Hood…….

"Making" the trains run on time is not the result of the imposition of will?

Regarding “irrefutable,” I think you ran the train off the tracks with this statement:
If recognition is the One Desire of Man, then progressing towards the State of Universal Recognition is quite truly the only thing that humans ever do.

different people seek recognition for different reasons….. but perhaps only truly empty souls seek recognition for its own sake, too obvious to state?

Different people, different reasons, sure sure, but then isn't that precisely the human commonality, that everyone has their reasons? So what then are "reasons"? Answering that would be a matter of, I guess, recognizing something about something...

Too many personalities involved to make broad brush statement about where society will be in even 20 years, or the final product of “societal evolution.” Note how well the central planners have done with societal planning in the last 80 years……..

I don't think you believe this one bit. I think you have some very clear and definite ideas about where society will be in whenever years, and I bet they have a lot to do with what you presume to know about society. And if you know anything about society, then what you know must be knowable, and so it stands to reason that you must have recognized something about that knowability at some point.

Others have said it better than I regarding the futility of desiring recognition….

We do not content ourselves with the life we have in ourselves and in our own being; we desire to live an imaginary life in the mind of others, and for this purpose we endeavour to shine. We labor unceasingly to adorn and preserve this imaginary existence and neglect the real. A great proof of the nothingness of our being, not to be satisfied with the one without the other, and to renounce so often the one for the other!
Blaise Pascal

Indeed!

The fountain of content must spring up in the mind, and he who has so little knowledge of human nature as to seek happiness by changing anything but his own disposition, will waste his life in fruitless efforts, and multiply the grief he proposes to remove.
Dr. Samuel Johnson

One who is "seeking happiness by changing anything" is probably failing at both because, being so worried about his own happiness, he's not actually concentrating on changing anything...

My third maxim was to endeavor always to conquer myself rather than fortune, and change my desires rather than the order of the world, and thus render myself contented.
Rene Descartes

And being different, would this difference not be recognizable?

All the various ideas that arise making us believe that we require something external to make us happy are obstructions to that perfection.
Vivekananda

Who said recognition was external? (Protip: this is not even the case when the recognition comes from "another" person!)

Everything in life must be intentional, and the will constantly taut like a muscle.
Andre’ Gide

Ah oui

and so forth

Sorry if I missed the point…….

You did, but that's ok. We need patient teachers.