Thread by @shrikanth_krish

The word "Politics" is a dirty term in our times.

Even Words derived from Politics (Eg: "politicize", "politicking") carry a negative connotation

There is a tendency to view "Politics" very pejoratively, and to think that the world would be better off without it.

But this was not always the case. Aristotle was one of the first to use the term extensively. The word "Politics" was popularized by his book bearing the same name (authored 4th c BCE)

He famously said that Man is a Political animal. And there was nothing pejorative about it.

Politics in essence boils down to difference in beliefs about moral right and wrong, and how societies ought to function.

There can be no "Politics" in a totalitarian society (be it in a Communist state, or in a theocratic state) where there is little room for moral diversity

While the "law of the land" as epitomized by Constitutions do set out a basic framework for the state's structure and function, it is up to "Politics" to create the space for debate on how to make and execute laws.

So when the Constitution of the land starts directing lawmakers with guidelines on how they "ought" to make laws, then the document enters the "political" realm by taking over the role that is best left to politicians and political parties

Political Parties are central to "Politics" as they represent large cohorts of people united by a certain set of principles and beliefs about human nature and society in general - which, they hope, will guide their public policy stances

The tendency to think of "Political parties" as factions is wrong. Parties are not factions. They represent communities of people held together by a certain view of the world.

In the absence of political parties, there will be no "Politics" but merely bureaucracies

So why is there so much aversion to Politics and Political parties in the world we live in?

The aversion stems from three key features of modernity that are closely related -

a) Fact value distinction
b) Scientism
c) Historicism and the idea of Progress

Let's discuss each of these.

a) Fact value distinction : This is a view in philosophy that emerged during the Enlightenment, and was popularized by the British sceptic David Hume.

His view was - there are "facts" "known to be true" and things that stem from "personal predilections", that he called "values"

Eg : sin^2 (x) + cos^2 (x)=1 is a fact. We should care for it

"People should not wear shorts in public" is a value - This should not bother us as much

Taken to an extreme the Fact value distinction led to a certain glorification of the "scientific mindset" and a certain contempt for subjective "values" that stemmed from beliefs and convictions and moral outlooks.

But Politics is all about "values".

Should we build Ram Mandir in Ayodhya or not?

Should we legalize gay marriage or not?

Should abortion be legal?

Science is helpless here. These are debates over "values".

Someone favorable to Politics would embrace these questions and welcome debates on the same. Political parties exist precisely to debate these questions of value!

There is nothing dirty about it. Politics is all about debating questions such as this.

But Hume's "Fact value" distinction expresses scepticism at the idea of "subjective truth".

The obsession with Facts leads one to develop a distaste for "debate. A distaste for discussing "Values".

It also inevitably leads to a distaste for "religion" even though most ethical questions in life are religious questions that concern values.

The Fact value distinction is closely related to two other features of modernity -

a) Scientism : An obsessive belief that Science is the only source of "positive" truth.

(Contd..)

b) Historicism and Idea of Progress : A belief that we are all products of our times, and that the arc of history leans towards "greater" progress (which is invariably defined in objective terms sans values). Eg : Per-capita income, or Per-capita wealth, or Life expectancy.

These three features of modernity have together conspired to make debates over values unfashionable, and turn "Politics" as well as "Religion" into dirty words.

But we all know deep down that Politics is important. So is religion. Because it is Politics that prevents totalitarianism, and rule by technocrats.

We don't want to live in a technologically governed society bereft of values where a Big Brother watches every move of ours

So how do we defend Politics in the times we live in?

This is where the ideas of a German American Philosopher come in handy.

The man is Leo Strauss.

Leo Strauss was a 20th cen German Jewish philosopher who spent a large part of his professional life in the States.

He is best known for his work as a classicist, but more importantly for his ideological attacks on the "fact value" distinction, historicism as well as Scientism

Strauss's key insight was that what we often regard as a "fact" (especially in Social science) is not a fact at all, but a value.

Though Science impels us to "objectify" our lenses and generate facts, in a lot of these cases "facts" are generated where none exist.

As an example - suppose you walk into a classroom and see 50 kids sitting there.

Here's a fact that you can generate : there are 50 students in the room.

This is a supposed, incontrovertible, "scientific" fact. After all the 50 kids are there in the register

But you can rubbish this "alleged" fact by saying -

"No. There are only 2 students in the classroom".

While 50 of them may have registered, only 2 of them may be "genuine" students. With the remaining 48 merely passing their time

Depending on how you "define" a student (which itself is a value judgment), your answer to the qn - "how many students in classroom" will change

So this alleged fact is not a fact. But a value. The answer will vary from one person to another depending on how he defines "student"

This is an assault on Fact-value distinction. Because it casts a cloud on a number of "facts" that are generated by "Social Scientists".

By turning these facts into values, Straussianism is turning questions of "Social Science" into valid Political questions!

Strauss also was a strong critic of "Historicism" - the idea that all of us are product of our times, and that the arc of history is always "progressive".

For him, historicism was a means to "dodge" tough questions of values by shrugging shoulders and blaming "history" instead

Eg : Let's take the example of the medieval Mughal ruler Aurangazeb, known for his iconoclasm, discrimination against minorities, religious fundamentalism among other things.

Now you can take a historicist view and say - "Oh...dont judge him by 21st cen standards"

Alternatively you can have a genuine debate on Aurangazeb, and either defend or oppose his rule using time-invariant standards of ethics

Maybe he was right. Maybe wrong. But let's have a genuine debate of values. Rather than avoiding debate with the crutch of "historicism"

Historicism is a form of escapism as it reduces history to a mere recounting of facts, and discourages you from passing value judgments on the past

Nothing can be objectively judged. As judgments cause conflicts.

Instead "historical circumstances" end up assuming a large role

Strauss objected to such escapism as it is a denial of the notion of "natural right" and "wrong".

Judgments can indeed be made through debates. And that's the domain of philosophy.

Historicism is a means of "avoiding" philosophy. As the latter is hard.

Strauss was also a critic of the idea of progress and believed in the concept of "Great Books" where certain thinkers of the past retain their relevance across centuries. And they remain worth reading, inspite of the ravages of time.

This is in sharp contrast to Science where the "present" always overwrites the past. Eg : If you want to study Evolution, you are probably better off reading the latest peer reviewed research, as opposed to reading the 200 year old "Origin of Species" by Darwin.

The Humanities are different, as they defy linearity.

Machiavelli does not render Aristotle irrelevant.

Nor does Derek Parfit render Plato irrelevant.

So Strauss's emphasis on "Great Books" meant that every truly great writer transcends his own time, and speaks for "eternity"

So it still pays to study Sankara, or Ramanuja, for the insights they provide us. They are not rendered irrelevant by say Vivekananda or Radhakrishnan!

This was again an attack on the idea of Progress, as it suggests "political questions" are never resolved. They are eternal. And the debates on them are also eternal.

Hence it always pays to study the debates over centuries on the same set of questions

Leo Strauss remains a key thinker of our times, who can help rescue us from the ideological triple tyranny of Scientism, historicism, and the fact-value distinction.

Reading him is to be reminded of the eternal relevance of Politics. And why it can never quite be a dirty word.