On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:51:57 -0400 "Joe R. Golowka" <joegolowka at earthlink.net> wrote:
> It means that you choose not to participate in the system. If you don't
> like the system - why participate? You gain nothing. It's hypocritical to
> participate in an activity you think is wrong.
Well, which is it:
a) one should hold out for purity (the 'correct' system and not get ones hands dirty) b) one must only participate in politics with a clean conscience (only 'right' systems and not 'wrong' systems) c) one should only participate in system where there is a discernable advantage d) all of the above e) none of the above f) a) and b) but not c) g) b) and c) but not a) h) c) and c) but not b)
a) implies that nonparticpation in politics is a counterpolitics; which we might want to ask, is 1) true, 2) false, 3) neither true nor false
b) implies that reasonable political decisions ought to confrom to a strict logical deduction through which consciousness achieves a solid break outside of any pathological feelings of guilt; to which we can ask, is 1) irresponsible [Kant], 2) responsible [Kant again], 3) neither 1) nor 2), 4) just about right [Sade]
c) reduces politics to utilitarian gain; and we might want to check this against 1) deonological theories of justice, 2) theories of the good life, 3) theories of radical democracy, 4) no theory
For those who just want the answers: d), 2), 4) and 1)
One final point:
a) a good thing b) a bad thing c) a fundamental ontological paradox derived from the dialectics of self-consciousness ground in intersubjective alienation
My apologies in advance if there is offense to be taken, all in bad taste but good humour.
The only politics responsibly practiced are politics engaged in 'bad faith.' Participation is only ethical to the extend that we *risk* something through participation.