The Best Way of Life

 

The Best Way of Life

Peter Schultz

 

                  In his Politics, Aristotle raises the question which is the best way of life and presents two alternatives, the active, political life and the philosophic life which is thought by some to “be divorced from all external things.” And, as has been pointed out, most commentators argue that Aristotle opts for the philosophic way of life as the best.

 

                  In order to peruse this question, I want to recast it in the following terms: Which is the best of life, the active life, a political life that is, or a life of leisure, with Aristotle coming down in favor of the life of leisure.

 

                  An active life, a political life is one that consists of acting, of acting upon society, of exercising power over things and people, of being politically engaged. Now, it would not be unfair to characterize such people as characterized by thumos, by a desire to control things, to order things, even to achieve mastery or dominance. And, characteristically, such people are distinguished by what might be called “spiritedness.” And, often, when their spiritedness is interfered with, they become angry.

 

                  On the other hand, a life of leisure might be best described as one of dwelling within different things, like music, poetry, friendships, or other relationships that embody or reflect beauty. It is a life not about controlling things but a life of enjoying things. In that sense, it is hedonistic. Such a life may be described as “contemplative” insofar as contemplating seems accurately described as a kind of dwelling within phenomena, thinking about things in that sense. Such people may best be described as erotic, as led by their eros to dwell within the beautiful however it might manifest itself in human affairs.

 

                  It should be emphasized that insofar as Aristotle is favorably disposed to the philosophic life, the contemplative life, he does not understand the philosophical life as “divorced from all external things,” as “some” do. Rather, the philosophical life is contemplative in the sense that it dwells within, say, music, friendship, art, and other forms of the beautiful. It is hardly “divorced from all external things;” in fact, it may be said to embrace external things in order to enjoy them.

 

                  Music, which forms a large part of Aristotle’s recommended education for what he calls the best regime, seems to require a dwelling within it. It’s as if music beckons humans to dwell within it, as do some other human phenomena as well. But music seems particularly geared to draw humans into its realm, into its beauty.

 

                  It is even possible enter into, to dwell within politics via “theory” or contemplation, which is what Aristotle seems to be doing in his Politics. And while this might have political implications, such “theorizing” need not result in an endorsement of any particular political agenda or any particular political regime. Such theorizing is not done in the service of any particular political agenda, but it is meant to illuminate “the political” as a universal, a ”natural” human activity, for better and worse. And it might just be that when illuminated via such theorizing, the political has the appearance of comedy or of irony. And, so, it might be best for humans not to take politics too seriously, best for humans to be aware of the limits of politics, best for humans not to affirm the political as capable of transforming by redeeming the human condition. Political reform is the best thing available to humans. New modes and orders or “new world orders” are pipe dreams fraught with the dangers of despotism and a deadly imperialism.

A Supreme Political Irony

 

A Supreme Political Irony

Peter Schultz

 

                  The political is the realm of the ironic. A supreme political irony: watching “rulers” fail while exercising their power(s) against those they “rule,” ala’ the French in Indochina and Algeria, the United States in Vietnam, the USSR in Afghanistan, Israel in Gaza, and Britain in Ireland, India, and Kenya.

Rule: A Central Political Myth

 

Rule: A Central Political Myth

Peter Schultz

 

                  “The Taliban believed Washington had decisive leverage over Karzai, because he could not survive without their aid; the truth was, Karzai had established decisive leverage over the Obama administration, by taking their pledges of Afghani sovereignty at face value….”

 

                  “From the Taliban’s perspective, Karzai was merely an American puppet, one that depended on American support for money and physical survival.” [584, Protectorate S, Stephen Coll]

 

                  What is going on here? That is, how did It happen that Karzai proved to have more leverage vis-à-vis the Obama administration than vice versa? And, by the way, the same phenomenon was visible in Vietnam where Diem had more leverage vis-à-vis the Americans than vice versa, explaining why Diem was eventually overthrown. What is this phenomenon about and what does it teach us about politics?

 

                  To cut to the chase, this phenomenon illustrates that the idea of “rule” is a myth. That is, it is an idea that hides as much as it exposes. What it hides is the extent to which rule depends upon the consent of the ruled. Once Karzai withdrew his consent from American attempts to negotiate with the Taliban to reach a settlement in that war, the US capacity to rule disappeared. The “ruler” cannot “rule” without the consent of “the ruled.” So, viewing Karzai as “a quisling of no legitimacy,” as the Taliban did, was a fundamental error because even “quislings” cannot be ruled successfully without their consent, which is why “Karzai had decisive leverage over the Obama administration.” And which helps explain why politicians, e.g., like Diem in Vietnam, who withhold their consent are often overthrown and replaced by consenting, cooperating politicians.

 

                  So, when the USSR lost the consent of governed in the Soviet Union, that union collapsed. And when some Southern states seceded from the United States, that union also collapsed. Moreover, that union would not be “reconstructed” successfully until the South, after having its demands for an apartheid regime met, consented to rejoin the union. The United States couldn’t be united, genuinely united that is, without the consent of the South, and that consent would only be forthcoming after the North agreed, as it did in the 1876 presidential election, that the South would be allowed to create a social and political order based on white supremacy. And that regime of white supremacy would only be replaced when the South agreed that is should be replaced in the latter part of the 20^th century.

 

                  The importance, the indispensably of consent explains why voting in the United States is treated as an absolutely essential duty, perhaps the only absolutely essential duty of American citizenship. It is a duty that only reprobates fail to honor. Why? Because by voting, regardless of whom they vote for, people are indicating that they consent to established order. They are registering their consent, thereby legitimating the existing political order. Non-voters, withholding their consent, subvert the government, undermine those who are ruling. Elections, if unattended by large numbers of non-voters, would undermine the legitimacy of the “ruling” elites. Hence, the constant drumbeat about the duty, the responsibility of voting.

 

                  Similarly, with the pervasive propaganda programs directed at the American people, programs meant to win their “hearts and minds.” Without the consent of the governed, the government cannot govern. So, while it might appear that the United States, as a superpower, can leverage the likes of Karzai and the Afghanis to do what it wants done, these appearances are deceptive. And, so, the United States finds itself repeatedly forced to turn to war, i.e., violent repression, in pursuit of its goals. And these wars won’t end until, e.g., the Afghanis – or that matter the Taliban – are satisfied. In attempting to impose its will, to rule the Afghanis or the Taliban, the United States guarantees endless wars and, eventually, failure.