Social Epistemology - On Politics and Authority

Utopianism, communism, feminism, totalitarianism…. In which constitution do we wish to unite ourselves, on top of the fundamental law of love between man and brother?

Insofar, we have established social unity as a continuity of union similar in essence to the united self. Two fundamental principles, from the natures of love, give reason and justification to the ethics and value in life. The first principle was for the social affirmation of the individual identity- a union between individuals that harmonizes diversity by individuality. The second principle was that this union brings about a certain qualia to life- a purpose to exist on top of basic self preservation.

Yet we know that social unity based only on love is an over idealized model of thought. While we attempt to conceptualize a utopia (heaven) where all men are equal, and where love can truly be the sole mechanism of social union – we know that in real life, relations between individuals do not merely end on how much they are in union with each other. On hindsight, we see that our model of love as a primary means of social union still does not completely capture the full essence of social unity.

What is missing from our discussion, as we transit from the unified self to social unity, insofar? Love is the sole mechanism of meaning in our lives, bringing about a form of qualia to life- and a justification that our existence is not merely just for the sake of self perseverance. But love itself cannot be the only construct of all social relationships. We do not have to dwell into deep philosophy to find out that not every relationship we share with is purely built on the basis of love. We form alliances with our co-workers, compete against our rivals, are in servitude to our superiors, and manage our subordinates. Such relationships between us then are real, yet we can hardly take the model of metaphysical union and justify that we manage our subordinates because we wish to be in union with them in servitude.

Take very close note that all of the above analogies have three common concepts- these concepts overlap each other and have specific meanings. They are: role playing, responsibility, and authority

So the question of role playing, of responsibility and of authority, comes into the equation. The roles we play with relation (relative) to each other cannot be fully equal on face value (we will disregard metaphysical value for now), since common intuition tells us that there must always be a leader within any group. On a theological note- the qualia of every individual is unique, and from the assumption that there must be a meaning of man within this earth, we see immediately slight discrepancies of qualia (incorrect to state ‘meaning’) between individuals. It is from this relativity true authority is formed and from this phenomenal existence of authority- the question of responsibility and sovereignty.

On a sidetrack, we can use this reason of Goodness to justify the sovereignty of God. Since the qualia of God Himself is infinite (He is the fundamental source of Goodness), henceforth such infinite qualia transcribes to an ultimate sovereignty over all beings of creation. In light of this we then proclaim the words “all power and honor and glory and praise to you Lord”.

Let us focus back to the three concepts of role playing, responsibility and authority. If we were to allow ourselves to play a little further with definition games, we find out that the concepts of roles, responsibility and authority are actual one in nature. This nature, on a human context (we do not include the earlier mention of God) can be succulently summarized into the nature of politics. We will not be using the vigorous definition of politics as politicians utilize today; rather, when we use the term politics, we actually are describing the mechanisms of any form of social behavior that involve the any of the above three concepts. In this respect we will thus unify office politics, clique alliances, and sports competitions, all the way to the big words of communism, totalitarianism or utopianism.

Now, what is the nature of politics? We have just introduced politics as the ‘other’ form of social relation, apart from love, to social unity. From the above sidetrack, we can see how politics as a preclusion to authority, is directly related to meaning, qualia and goodness. Yet we hold that politics itself, and authority cannot hold any meaning, since it cannot convict the individual to meaning. Insofar, the definition of politics is still very muddled and ambiguous. However we will now attempt to define politics on a more methodological basis.

In essence, politics is not the ‘other’ form of social relation apart from love- politics does not account for certain relationships that love itself cannot define, neither does it justify as an alternative method of social unity. Rather, as we recall the fundamentals of the Moderation Doctrine once more, and from the earlier conclusion that love forms the ontological basis of all relationships; we realize that politics ultimately has to form the epistemic basis of relations. As we attempt to break down the essence of our relationship with each other on a logical basis into arguments, the intuitive aspect of love disappears first, since experience itself cannot be further broken down by empirical methods. Consequently, what remains as proof of our ‘relationship’ is no more than scientific concepts and politics, and a mere skeletal structure of epistemic logic.

From the theory of Truth, politics and love come hand in hand to compliment our relationship with each other. The political status (authoritical status) of mother and child, added on to the ontological (true) love between them, leads rise to the full relationship between two individuals. And it is from this political status we differentiate the relationship between an individual from his parents, and from his friends. From the basis of politics we recognize our roles within society, and on the basis of love we see union from diversity. From our social roles we play we express and re-affirm our individuality, and then we come back to the two concepts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. (see project RN (T) for further elaboration)

From the theory of Goodness, politics alone cannot convict the soul, but brings about a logical framework for the many different permutations of convicting love to manifest. While the world emphasizes overtly on politics and lesser on convicting love, we then see the fallacy of materialism, the futility of power struggles, and parody of success for the sake of success as described in our prologue. Yet we cannot disregard the importance of politics within this world- since the relative discrepancy of authority can serve as a means of a community towards objective goodness. From our current disposition such a claim still remains as a very idealistic view, however for now we may at least reconcile the nature of politics with respect to Goodness. We will discuss the validity of this claim in our later posts.

The question of authority still eludes many today, and sadly, our definitions of authority are still rather incorrect on a metaphysical basis. Should our above reasoning hold credit, then authority itself is directly related to goodness, and true authority can only manifest when the proponent is inherently good. In this respect, authority naturally follows the path of invoking respect from the people, through the service of love by the proponent, rather than the current view of invoking subjugation from the people, through the action of enslavement by the proponent. Laws then should liberate the people in ethics, rather than encroaching them in a world of do’s and don’ts- aimed only for the convenience of control by the government.

Moreover, such a theory would correspond with theology once more. Should God hold ultimate sovereignty, then it is true that his ‘kingdom is not one of this world’, where conventional notions of power apply. Rather as we integrate the basic concepts today with that of the bible, it becomes apparent what does that authority that Jesus speaks of truly mean. In truth it means goodness. We may sidetrack from here to discuss in detail the validity of every government and every specific law in comparison to the objective goodness (of God’s Kingdom). However due to constrictions in scope of this project, and our strive not to bring about religious allusions, we will only touch upon the fundamental factors (of politics, goodness and respect) in law, government and society in general.

We cannot do justice to the topic of politics within this project-although much more can be elaborated on the different kinds of constitutions (political movements) and their corresponding qualia. However, in summary we finally get to see the full construct of our social unity. We started our quest from the united self, brought about love as an ontological unity between individuals, seen that love brings about meaning but cannot account for all relationships, and finally complete this social unity with politics as its epistemic counterpart. In the meantime we introspect the natures of love and politics in light of goodness, and see that authority and goodness are directly linked.

In the next post we will wrap up our discussion on social unity. We will see to a complete moderation doctrine for social unity, congruent to the moderation doctrine that builds up the objective personal identity. As we transit from the theory of truth towards the theory of goodness by induction, we may hopefully gain further clues to the nature of goodness, and its implications to us and our lives.