Volunteerism
(The following is an abridged version of what I read at a recent forum on volunteerism organized by the UP Kalipunan ng mga Mag-aaral sa Sosyolohiya)
MANILA, Philippines -- The early history of volunteerism bears the mark of institutional interests operating behind the selflessness of the individual volunteer. As long as this was the case, volunteers were viewed with suspicion. The idealism that volunteerism tapped usually vanished with the volunteer’s realization of the sponsoring institution’s hidden agenda.
Many volunteer groups began as adjuncts of church, government and business corporations. But soon, they took a life of their own and gradually weaned themselves from their originating mother institutions.
If one examines the rules by which today’s non-government organizations or NGOs seek to govern themselves, one cannot fail to notice how most of these still revolve around the issue of autonomy—an indication that the process of differentiation from institutional sponsors is far from complete. It is almost axiomatic for voluntary organizations to diversify their funding sources as soon as they can. This is the only way they can draw their own programs, and avoid being captive to externally generated agendas. Volunteer organizations stay away, for the same reason, from politicians and ideological groups. The one single vision to which they commit themselves is community empowerment, the strengthening of the people’s own autonomy and the establishment of conditions for enduring community self-reliance.
This vision translates to a readiness to withdraw at the right time, and a studious avoidance of any attempt to cultivate a new form of clientalism and dependence. Volunteer groups avoid styling themselves as the new patrons, constantly reminding their members that volunteerism is not about the volunteer but about the community being served.
This is not always easy to carry out. The same process that provides volunteers with the psychic rewards that keep them going also entices them to prolong the community’s dependence on their presence.
This brings up the ethical code that distinguishes volunteer work from other spheres of human activity like religion, politics, or business. Volunteer work is not merely unpaid or uncompensated service, for that only distinguishes it from an economic transaction. In its purest form, volunteer work is also not motivated by any wish for religious conversion or political recruitment into a religion, party, or cause. The true volunteer is a self-directing and self-sufficient person. Her cup overflows—this alone is what accounts for her generosity. Her volunteerism is not part of a strategy of self-realization. For she is not in search of personal meaning; she is overflowing with meaning.
In the real world, however, the voluntary sector has to work with a variety of individuals who bring with them all kinds of unrecognized personal motives and needs. This often results in easy burn-out, and the relatively short duration of passionate work. Many dedicated volunteers end up withdrawing from volunteerism in order to pursue more conventional lives, or they graduate to full-time religious or revolutionary careers. This basic instability is what prevents the volunteer sector from fully institutionalizing itself. It is almost as if every attempt to rationally organize itself becomes a reason for its decline. This seems to be the fate of many NGOs that started as small bands of idealistic volunteers and became big and bureaucratized.
There is virtue in smallness, but it too has its attendant problems. How do you extend your reach to more communities if you remain small? How do you shape the spirit of volunteerism into something truly useful if there is no sustained recruitment and training of volunteers? The lesson this seems to teach is not so much the shirking of all attempts at professionalization, but the resolute avoidance of being ensnared by centralization, bureaucratization and organizational survival for its own sake.
In an earlier time, it was thought that the modern nation-state would make volunteerism superfluous. Today everyone assumes that what the State cannot do is better left to the market. Yet millions of poor people fall through the cracks of government and the market. Volunteer work takes up the cudgels for them. Sometimes volunteers realize that their work only results in the perpetuation of unequal structures, because, instead of allowing these unjust structures to collapse beneath the weight of the problems they spawn, volunteerism only serves to blunt the pain of the victims.
It is a paradox that erodes passion and commitment, but which no voluntary organization can resolve for anyone. Every volunteer will just have to figure it out for herself.
In any event, it will not take very long before people begin to realize that volunteer work is not enough, that it cannot take the place of concrete social reform. But the times seem hostile to deep reform. So many unarmed activists have been arbitrarily jailed or summarily killed. It is hard to imagine what may happen when all avenues to social reform are blocked. Will young people continue to take up with fervor the gentle cause of volunteerism? Or will they offer themselves one more time to the other face of volunteerism—revolutionary idealism? I refer, of course, only to those who have not yet given up.
Posted date: April 22, 2007
ps.
sorry for the copy paste of my letters here
actually they are my collections of editorials
i just want to put here the letters i love
so everywhere i go i can reflect on them from time to time
hope you understand
thanks
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Beyond the Passion
Beyond the Passion
Go and find out what is meant by the Scripture that says: “It is
kindness that I want, not animal sacrifices.(Matthew 9:13)
The Christian world goes back 2,000 years and more to recall the
Passion of Christ: the retreat (after a dinner with His disciples to
celebrate the feast of Passover and to institute the Holy Eucharist)
to the Garden of Gethsemane for a night of prayer; the kiss of Judas
leading to His arrest; His (instead of Barabbas) condemnation by a
wishy-washy Pontius Pilate; the taunting, and scourging at the pillar;
the agonizing climb to Calvary with a heavy cross on His back; and,
finally, His crucifixion and death. The spiritual journey...
the Christian world bursts out in triumphant joy with Christ's
Resurrection.
But for now, the hope of Easter is suspended and must yield to mass
spiritual reflection, to a deeper sense of grief and gloom, of
repentance and renewal, of penance and prayerfulness. No Christian
event is ever observed with more devotion and solemnity, and
Christians are supposed to come out of this whole exercise stronger in
faith and, therefore, better persons.
But, then, haven't we been observing Lent and Holy Week for centuries,
year after year without fail? With a predominantly Christian
population, is it a stretch to expect the Philippines emerging from
this season a better nation? So why is it that old plaints remain, and
unchristian practices continue to torment our society?
Social injustice and inequality. The rich getting richer and the poor,
poorer. A privileged few, and marginalized millions; an abusive elite,
and oppressed masses; landless and jobless millions; poorly paid
workers, widespread poverty, human rights violations.
And things seem to be getting worse if not going out of hand. The
extrajudicial killings of political activists continues to rise. The
country now tops the list of the most corrupt in Asia. A record-high
19 percent of Filipinos are in the throes of involuntary hunger. And
government officials continue to deny that the conditions are so, and
insist that the reality of these conditions be debated on the basis of
statistics, and not proven by the hard facts of day-to-day existence
experienced by ordinary Filipinos through their empty pockets, bare
family tables and hungry stomachs.
Is it because, despite our extraordinary Lenten exertions (e.g.,
self-flagellation, days of prayer and fasting), we have lost sight of
the real meaning of Christianity? Or have we come to believe that
carrying social and political crosses on our backs is the ultimate
Christian act, and never mind if they encourage inhumanity? Pain,
sacrifice, are they the fulfillment of Christianity?
Or is it simply because, we Filipinos are exhibiting symptoms similar
to those indicative of the battered wife syndrome (BWS)"a general
feeling of helplessness, low self-esteem, anger, anxiety and lack of
power and choice to craft one's future? Is abject surrender a
Christian act?
Or is it because, we have been overwhelmed by what psychologist Philip
Zimbardo calls the "Lucifer Effect" the tendency to go with the flow,
to conform, to submit, yield, comply, accept, no matter how good our
intentions, things as they are, after being bombarded daily with
stories, if not personal experiences, of government and corporate
malfeasance and corruption, of military and police cruelty or
indifference?
With the coming elections in mind that the Passion of Christ is not
only about suffering, or about human failings and divine forgiveness;
or about repentance and penance and prayer; or about renewing the self.
The Passion of Christ is, as importantly, about facing up to and
overcoming the world's iniquities against man.
To be a follower of Christ is also to be a man for others. This may be
a difficult act. But the Passion did not mean to teach passive
Christianity. The Passion did not spell defeat and surrender,
it made Resurrection possible.
Christ proved the power of self-denial and love for others by
conquering a world driven by an "eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth"
philosophy.
Under our present circumstances,
can we really be proud of our being a Christian nation? Maybe,
we have yet to find out what being a true Christian and kindness mean.
inq7
...The Passion of Christ is, as importantly, about facing up to and
overcoming the world’s iniquities against man...
vote wisely to save our town our country
Go and find out what is meant by the Scripture that says: “It is
kindness that I want, not animal sacrifices.(Matthew 9:13)
The Christian world goes back 2,000 years and more to recall the
Passion of Christ: the retreat (after a dinner with His disciples to
celebrate the feast of Passover and to institute the Holy Eucharist)
to the Garden of Gethsemane for a night of prayer; the kiss of Judas
leading to His arrest; His (instead of Barabbas) condemnation by a
wishy-washy Pontius Pilate; the taunting, and scourging at the pillar;
the agonizing climb to Calvary with a heavy cross on His back; and,
finally, His crucifixion and death. The spiritual journey...
the Christian world bursts out in triumphant joy with Christ's
Resurrection.
But for now, the hope of Easter is suspended and must yield to mass
spiritual reflection, to a deeper sense of grief and gloom, of
repentance and renewal, of penance and prayerfulness. No Christian
event is ever observed with more devotion and solemnity, and
Christians are supposed to come out of this whole exercise stronger in
faith and, therefore, better persons.
But, then, haven't we been observing Lent and Holy Week for centuries,
year after year without fail? With a predominantly Christian
population, is it a stretch to expect the Philippines emerging from
this season a better nation? So why is it that old plaints remain, and
unchristian practices continue to torment our society?
Social injustice and inequality. The rich getting richer and the poor,
poorer. A privileged few, and marginalized millions; an abusive elite,
and oppressed masses; landless and jobless millions; poorly paid
workers, widespread poverty, human rights violations.
And things seem to be getting worse if not going out of hand. The
extrajudicial killings of political activists continues to rise. The
country now tops the list of the most corrupt in Asia. A record-high
19 percent of Filipinos are in the throes of involuntary hunger. And
government officials continue to deny that the conditions are so, and
insist that the reality of these conditions be debated on the basis of
statistics, and not proven by the hard facts of day-to-day existence
experienced by ordinary Filipinos through their empty pockets, bare
family tables and hungry stomachs.
Is it because, despite our extraordinary Lenten exertions (e.g.,
self-flagellation, days of prayer and fasting), we have lost sight of
the real meaning of Christianity? Or have we come to believe that
carrying social and political crosses on our backs is the ultimate
Christian act, and never mind if they encourage inhumanity? Pain,
sacrifice, are they the fulfillment of Christianity?
Or is it simply because, we Filipinos are exhibiting symptoms similar
to those indicative of the battered wife syndrome (BWS)"a general
feeling of helplessness, low self-esteem, anger, anxiety and lack of
power and choice to craft one's future? Is abject surrender a
Christian act?
Or is it because, we have been overwhelmed by what psychologist Philip
Zimbardo calls the "Lucifer Effect" the tendency to go with the flow,
to conform, to submit, yield, comply, accept, no matter how good our
intentions, things as they are, after being bombarded daily with
stories, if not personal experiences, of government and corporate
malfeasance and corruption, of military and police cruelty or
indifference?
With the coming elections in mind that the Passion of Christ is not
only about suffering, or about human failings and divine forgiveness;
or about repentance and penance and prayer; or about renewing the self.
The Passion of Christ is, as importantly, about facing up to and
overcoming the world's iniquities against man.
To be a follower of Christ is also to be a man for others. This may be
a difficult act. But the Passion did not mean to teach passive
Christianity. The Passion did not spell defeat and surrender,
it made Resurrection possible.
Christ proved the power of self-denial and love for others by
conquering a world driven by an "eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth"
philosophy.
Under our present circumstances,
can we really be proud of our being a Christian nation? Maybe,
we have yet to find out what being a true Christian and kindness mean.
inq7
...The Passion of Christ is, as importantly, about facing up to and
overcoming the world’s iniquities against man...
vote wisely to save our town our country
Saturday, April 14, 2007
politics. a moral issue
POLITICS: an ethical question (& MORAL)
A rare few enter the political arena
because they like the feeling of holding in their hands
"a nerve fiber of historically important events."
In our society today, a large number of individuals enter politics not
because they have a vocation for it but only because they have an
advantage they think they must not waste...
Should you run just because you have a good chance of winning?
This is not a political question but an ethical one,
says the great political theorist Max Weber:
"What kind of a man must one be if he is to be
allowed to put his hand on the wheel of history?"
I always ask this question
when someone in the family run for wheel of history!
is politics your vocation...?
Is politics your calling...?
there three traits that are essential to a political vocation:
- passion,
- a feeling of responsibility, and
- a sense of proportion.
Passion is devotion to a cause,
the quest for power being just an unavoidable means to the attainment
of that cause. What that cause may be is purely a matter of faith,
but it must be there. Politics without a cause is worthless.
Devotion to a cause, or "passion," is essential,
but it is not everything.
It has to be accompanied by a feeling of responsibility
- a readiness to "give an account of the foreseeable results of one's
action." The ethic of responsibility demands that those entrusted with
political power always anticipate the possible consequences of their
decisions and be ready to answer for whatever injury they may cause
others. A person who will not assume responsibility for the results of
her/his decisions so long as he/she thinks is right is capable of
reckless behavior and poses a distinct danger to political life.
Finally, passion and responsibility
must be tempered by a sense of proportion.
A good politician, in the positive sense of that word,
must not be deceived by his own propaganda or
seduced by the adulation of his own followers.
He must be capable of looking at himself and at
reality objectively and with calmness and concentration.
This is what distinguishes, the
1. "passionate politician"
being practical,
and being ethical.
In his heart he must know that, try as he may,
he must be able to
do justice to the power that the public is going to entrust to him if
he asks for it. HE knows his limits -
that is wisdom and responsibility...
2. "political dilettante." a person who takes up an activity, or
subject merely for amusement, esp. in a desultory or superficial way.
but Alas,
there are a hundred others who turn to politics out of sheer EGOism.
We do not need a systematic study to know who they are...
But the "realities" in our midst are not the only ones who find
themselves in this situation. There are countless others who are
drafted into electoral politics against their better instincts.
Our society HAS not fully evolved into a differentiated institutional
sphere. This WILL come with modernity and the emergence of a broad
educated middle class. We are getting there, very very very SLOWLY.
The finest proof of that is our deep disaffection with the PAST
started from once upon a time marcus to the present system of the
illusion live happily ever...
Stop complaining about this country going nowhere...!?
because
Voting is not just something you do for a candidate,
it is something you do for yourself. Or to yourself.
you do not just decide the kind of life you want for the nation,
you decide what kind of life you want for yourself.
You can choose either the life of a *lemming and throw yourself off
a cliff because everybody is doing so
or the life of a human being
and act as reason and conviction tell you to...
At the end of the day,
you do not just have to live with the candidate you have inflicted on
the nation, you have to live with yourself and the wound you have
inflicted on yourself.
You can't be true to yourself,
you can't be true to the nation...
so
Politics is the process and method of making decisions for groups.
Although it is generally applied to governments,
politics is also observed in all HUMAN GROUP INTERACTIONS
including corporate, academic, and religious.
Politics then is the study of how humans interact with each other
and cooperate to become self sufficient.
and by-all-means let's change things???!!!...
vote
.....................
POLITICS: an ethical question & MORAL too
A rare few enter the political arena because they like the feeling of
holding in their hands "a nerve fiber of historically important events."
In our society today, a large number of individuals enter politics not
because they have a vocation for it but only because they have an
advantage they think they must not waste...
Should you run just because you have a good chance of winning? This is
not a political question but an ethical one, says the great political
theorist Max Weber: "What kind of a man must one be if he is to be
allowed to put his hand on the wheel of history?" I always ask this
question when someone in the family run for wheel of history!
is politics your vocation...! Is politics your calling?...
there three traits that are essential to a political vocation
- passion,
- a feeling of responsibility, &
- a sense of proportion.
Passion is devotion to a cause,
the quest for power being just an unavoidable means to the attainment
of that cause. What that cause may be is purely a matter of faith,
but it must be there. Politics without a cause is worthless.
Devotion to a cause, or "passion," is essential, but it is not
everything. It has to be accompanied by a feeling of responsibility�
- a readiness to "give an account of the foreseeable results of one's
action." The ethic of responsibility demands that those entrusted with
political power always anticipate the possible consequences of their
decisions and be ready to answer for whatever injury they may cause
others. This is the opposite of a favorite statement - "To do what is
best and leave to God the rest." A person who will not assume
responsibility for the results of her/his decisions so long as he/she
thinks is right is capable of reckless behavior and poses a distinct
danger to political life.
Finally, passion and responsibility must be tempered by a sense of
proportion. A good politician, in the positive sense of that word,
must not be deceived by his own propaganda or seduced by the adulation
of his own followers. He must be capable of looking at himself and at
reality objectively and with calmness and concentration. This is what
distinguishes, Weber says, the
"passionate politician" from the
"political dilettante." = a person who takes up an activity, or
subject merely for amusement, esp. in a desultory or superficial way
"What if I win?" asks the veteran actor Dolphy in reply to those who
nudge him to spin off his long and outstanding film career into a
political one. He is not only being practical;
he is being ethical.
In his heart he must know that, try as he may, he will not be able to
do justice to the power that the public is going to entrust to him if
he asks for it. HE knows his limits -
that is wisdom and responsibility...
Alas, for every Dolphy,
there are a hundred others who turn to politics out of sheer EGOism.
We do not need a systematic study to know who they are. In the
legislative chambers to which they have been unfortunately elected,
they sit still and silent, fearful that speaking would expose the void
in their minds. When compelled to break their silence, they manage to
do so only according to a prepared script. They are not comfortable
where they are, and so they continue to do what they really love to
do: ACT.
But the celebrities in our midst are not the only ones who find
themselves in this situation. There are countless others who are
drafted into electoral politics against their better instincts.
Our society HAS not fully evolved into a differentiated institutional
sphere. This WILL come with modernity and the emergence of a broad
educated middle class. We are getting there, very SLOWLY.
The finest proof of that is our deep disaffection with the PAST
started from marcus to the present system... why?!
the answers lies on moral ethics.
the three traits that are essential to a political vocation
- passion,
- a feeling of responsibility, &
- a sense of proportion.
because they are aware that "a nerve fiber of historically important
events" is in their hands!
Politics is the process and method of making decisions for groups. Although it is generally applied to governments,
politics is also observed in all HUMAN GROUP INTERACTIONS
including corporate, academic, and religious.
There are many debates as to who was the first person to study politics, many credit Socrates with the first study of politics, while others credit Aristotle. One of the first works concerning politics was Plato's [[Republic (book] Republic]].
In Plato's concept, the polis was the way in which man became virtuous.
His student and successor Aristotle went on to right the Politics, where he asserts that the city is by nature and that man by nature is a political animal. Though he does not define it in this manner, Aristotle's assertions point to the natural state of man as being in the city. Only through the city can man become totally self sufficient and thus truly human.
These two positions held supreme until the dawn of Modernity(a reaction to the Classical and Scholastic view of philosophy). Machiavelli was among the first political philosophers of Modernity. His most famous work was the Prince where he discusses the nature of principalities.
The idea of "ends justify the means" came from this book,
along with the idea of harsh politics. Many people misunderstand Machiavelli's most well known work, believing him to be a fan of strong princes with absolute control. In fact, Machiavelli was a well known republican (one who believes in republican government) and praises it in his Discourses on Livy.
Modernity thinkers (Enlightenment thinkers), believed that man by nature was not born into a polis, separating from the classical view of Plato and Aristotle.
The idea of politics changed from
what can the state do for you to what can you do for the state.
It became man's job to perfect nature. In 1651, Thomas Hobbes published his most famous work, Leviathan, in which he proposed a model of early human development to justify the creation of a government.
Hobbes described an ideal state of nature wherein every person had equal right to every resource in nature and was free to use any means to acquire those resources. He claimed that such an arrangement created a “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes). Further, he noted that men would enter into a social contract and would give up absolute rights in exchange for certain protections.
During the latter half of the 1600's and into the 1700's an Englishman named John Locke wrote his first and second Treatises on Government. In the first, Locke argues against the idea of divine right monarchy. He goes to great lengths to prove that
no man is by nature placed over another man.
In the second treatise (much more well known),
Locke asserts that the state of nature consists of every man being equal to every other and all of nature was in common for every one else. Unlike Hobbes, this state of nature did not mean a state of war.
Locke believed that man by nature possesses reason
(which he calls the Law of Nature)
and only when he separates from that reason does he enter a state of war. Man leaves the state of nature, according to Locke, because in nature there are no general laws, no common judge, and no one to enforce the laws.
By the end of the 1700's the Enlightenment was ending and on the cusp of Post-Modernity sat Jean-Jacque Rousseau.
Rousseau asserted that man by nature was utterly free to do what he wished, and is not a social animal. When man leaves the state of nature and enters civil society he becomes sort of a slave to the state.
While each era of political thought changed the state of nature,
man must leave nature and enter into societies...
Politics then is the study of how humans interact with each other
and cooperate to become self sufficient.
(made some researched)
Q.A.
how can a person run in one place to an ethical position if he or she
is not a residence of that place? here is an obvious lies... then
spending millions of money... but at the end people will be charged
by his/her spendings as if the peoples owe him/her their lives...!
is this politics?
:(
just a wake up call
jong
.....................................
I have absolutely concern about the death or after-life.
I am concerned, however, about this present life.
My concern comes from the need to ensure that
I really live it to the full.
All people die, and not everybody lives.
Some people settle for existing; drifting along without enthusiasm,
wonder, or the sheer excitement of living.
They wrap their talents in cloth, and bury them, rather than getting
out there in the market-place and investing all that they are in the
wonderful adventure of life.
Life can be compared to a lit candle in a dark room, which gives all
it has until there's nothing left.
It is in giving that we receive.
If we do not invest, there can be no return.
There is a happy balance to be struck here.
While I keep my destiny in mind, and am always mindful where it's all
leading, I still give the present moment all I've got.
I cannot spend my life sitting around 'waiting for guava to fall'.
The present moment is the sacred moment, and the only time that
exists on God's calendar.
I cannot watch an athlete break a world record, or pick up a gold
medal, without thinking of all that went before.
That medal has been won over the past ten or twelve years, rather
than during a ten-second dash today.
hsi
for politics in the philippines and culion
we just have to be on guard always
because our country is boxed on this principles and laws
we are a democratic country
ruled by politics
and badly by trapos!
my point is
let's have an alternative
let's offer solutions
not only hopelessnes....
for sure there are
good people around
and we can know them
if we'll do our research
if we'll do our job meaningfully
without biases and prejudices
by this we can have them
run our politics
like for example the group of teachers
our children depends on them
virtually our future depends on them
how they teach our children!
we have solutions
we just have to offer it...
there's nothing wrong with politics
there's something wrong
with our trapos and our people and dumb leaders...
me i hate politics too
i feel so helpless too
but what will i do about it
is the biggest question
i have to face
i have to do something about it
especially the lies and the illusions
of some people who are blinded
by despairs and survival instincts
even hopelessness!!!
we have to lit our lights now
before it's too late...
i hate what governor
did to our pantalan
and it's the order of the president
it's the order of survivals
the order of garci
hello
you like it or not
our group
is also a politics
in principles.....
then
define politics?
jong
ps.
are we contradicting something?
A rare few enter the political arena
because they like the feeling of holding in their hands
"a nerve fiber of historically important events."
In our society today, a large number of individuals enter politics not
because they have a vocation for it but only because they have an
advantage they think they must not waste...
Should you run just because you have a good chance of winning?
This is not a political question but an ethical one,
says the great political theorist Max Weber:
"What kind of a man must one be if he is to be
allowed to put his hand on the wheel of history?"
I always ask this question
when someone in the family run for wheel of history!
is politics your vocation...?
Is politics your calling...?
there three traits that are essential to a political vocation:
- passion,
- a feeling of responsibility, and
- a sense of proportion.
Passion is devotion to a cause,
the quest for power being just an unavoidable means to the attainment
of that cause. What that cause may be is purely a matter of faith,
but it must be there. Politics without a cause is worthless.
Devotion to a cause, or "passion," is essential,
but it is not everything.
It has to be accompanied by a feeling of responsibility
- a readiness to "give an account of the foreseeable results of one's
action." The ethic of responsibility demands that those entrusted with
political power always anticipate the possible consequences of their
decisions and be ready to answer for whatever injury they may cause
others. A person who will not assume responsibility for the results of
her/his decisions so long as he/she thinks is right is capable of
reckless behavior and poses a distinct danger to political life.
Finally, passion and responsibility
must be tempered by a sense of proportion.
A good politician, in the positive sense of that word,
must not be deceived by his own propaganda or
seduced by the adulation of his own followers.
He must be capable of looking at himself and at
reality objectively and with calmness and concentration.
This is what distinguishes, the
1. "passionate politician"
being practical,
and being ethical.
In his heart he must know that, try as he may,
he must be able to
do justice to the power that the public is going to entrust to him if
he asks for it. HE knows his limits -
that is wisdom and responsibility...
2. "political dilettante." a person who takes up an activity, or
subject merely for amusement, esp. in a desultory or superficial way.
but Alas,
there are a hundred others who turn to politics out of sheer EGOism.
We do not need a systematic study to know who they are...
But the "realities" in our midst are not the only ones who find
themselves in this situation. There are countless others who are
drafted into electoral politics against their better instincts.
Our society HAS not fully evolved into a differentiated institutional
sphere. This WILL come with modernity and the emergence of a broad
educated middle class. We are getting there, very very very SLOWLY.
The finest proof of that is our deep disaffection with the PAST
started from once upon a time marcus to the present system of the
illusion live happily ever...
Stop complaining about this country going nowhere...!?
because
Voting is not just something you do for a candidate,
it is something you do for yourself. Or to yourself.
you do not just decide the kind of life you want for the nation,
you decide what kind of life you want for yourself.
You can choose either the life of a *lemming and throw yourself off
a cliff because everybody is doing so
or the life of a human being
and act as reason and conviction tell you to...
At the end of the day,
you do not just have to live with the candidate you have inflicted on
the nation, you have to live with yourself and the wound you have
inflicted on yourself.
You can't be true to yourself,
you can't be true to the nation...
so
Politics is the process and method of making decisions for groups.
Although it is generally applied to governments,
politics is also observed in all HUMAN GROUP INTERACTIONS
including corporate, academic, and religious.
Politics then is the study of how humans interact with each other
and cooperate to become self sufficient.
and by-all-means let's change things???!!!...
vote
.....................
POLITICS: an ethical question & MORAL too
A rare few enter the political arena because they like the feeling of
holding in their hands "a nerve fiber of historically important events."
In our society today, a large number of individuals enter politics not
because they have a vocation for it but only because they have an
advantage they think they must not waste...
Should you run just because you have a good chance of winning? This is
not a political question but an ethical one, says the great political
theorist Max Weber: "What kind of a man must one be if he is to be
allowed to put his hand on the wheel of history?" I always ask this
question when someone in the family run for wheel of history!
is politics your vocation...! Is politics your calling?...
there three traits that are essential to a political vocation
- passion,
- a feeling of responsibility, &
- a sense of proportion.
Passion is devotion to a cause,
the quest for power being just an unavoidable means to the attainment
of that cause. What that cause may be is purely a matter of faith,
but it must be there. Politics without a cause is worthless.
Devotion to a cause, or "passion," is essential, but it is not
everything. It has to be accompanied by a feeling of responsibility�
- a readiness to "give an account of the foreseeable results of one's
action." The ethic of responsibility demands that those entrusted with
political power always anticipate the possible consequences of their
decisions and be ready to answer for whatever injury they may cause
others. This is the opposite of a favorite statement - "To do what is
best and leave to God the rest." A person who will not assume
responsibility for the results of her/his decisions so long as he/she
thinks is right is capable of reckless behavior and poses a distinct
danger to political life.
Finally, passion and responsibility must be tempered by a sense of
proportion. A good politician, in the positive sense of that word,
must not be deceived by his own propaganda or seduced by the adulation
of his own followers. He must be capable of looking at himself and at
reality objectively and with calmness and concentration. This is what
distinguishes, Weber says, the
"passionate politician" from the
"political dilettante." = a person who takes up an activity, or
subject merely for amusement, esp. in a desultory or superficial way
"What if I win?" asks the veteran actor Dolphy in reply to those who
nudge him to spin off his long and outstanding film career into a
political one. He is not only being practical;
he is being ethical.
In his heart he must know that, try as he may, he will not be able to
do justice to the power that the public is going to entrust to him if
he asks for it. HE knows his limits -
that is wisdom and responsibility...
Alas, for every Dolphy,
there are a hundred others who turn to politics out of sheer EGOism.
We do not need a systematic study to know who they are. In the
legislative chambers to which they have been unfortunately elected,
they sit still and silent, fearful that speaking would expose the void
in their minds. When compelled to break their silence, they manage to
do so only according to a prepared script. They are not comfortable
where they are, and so they continue to do what they really love to
do: ACT.
But the celebrities in our midst are not the only ones who find
themselves in this situation. There are countless others who are
drafted into electoral politics against their better instincts.
Our society HAS not fully evolved into a differentiated institutional
sphere. This WILL come with modernity and the emergence of a broad
educated middle class. We are getting there, very SLOWLY.
The finest proof of that is our deep disaffection with the PAST
started from marcus to the present system... why?!
the answers lies on moral ethics.
the three traits that are essential to a political vocation
- passion,
- a feeling of responsibility, &
- a sense of proportion.
because they are aware that "a nerve fiber of historically important
events" is in their hands!
Politics is the process and method of making decisions for groups. Although it is generally applied to governments,
politics is also observed in all HUMAN GROUP INTERACTIONS
including corporate, academic, and religious.
There are many debates as to who was the first person to study politics, many credit Socrates with the first study of politics, while others credit Aristotle. One of the first works concerning politics was Plato's [[Republic (book] Republic]].
In Plato's concept, the polis was the way in which man became virtuous.
His student and successor Aristotle went on to right the Politics, where he asserts that the city is by nature and that man by nature is a political animal. Though he does not define it in this manner, Aristotle's assertions point to the natural state of man as being in the city. Only through the city can man become totally self sufficient and thus truly human.
These two positions held supreme until the dawn of Modernity(a reaction to the Classical and Scholastic view of philosophy). Machiavelli was among the first political philosophers of Modernity. His most famous work was the Prince where he discusses the nature of principalities.
The idea of "ends justify the means" came from this book,
along with the idea of harsh politics. Many people misunderstand Machiavelli's most well known work, believing him to be a fan of strong princes with absolute control. In fact, Machiavelli was a well known republican (one who believes in republican government) and praises it in his Discourses on Livy.
Modernity thinkers (Enlightenment thinkers), believed that man by nature was not born into a polis, separating from the classical view of Plato and Aristotle.
The idea of politics changed from
what can the state do for you to what can you do for the state.
It became man's job to perfect nature. In 1651, Thomas Hobbes published his most famous work, Leviathan, in which he proposed a model of early human development to justify the creation of a government.
Hobbes described an ideal state of nature wherein every person had equal right to every resource in nature and was free to use any means to acquire those resources. He claimed that such an arrangement created a “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes). Further, he noted that men would enter into a social contract and would give up absolute rights in exchange for certain protections.
During the latter half of the 1600's and into the 1700's an Englishman named John Locke wrote his first and second Treatises on Government. In the first, Locke argues against the idea of divine right monarchy. He goes to great lengths to prove that
no man is by nature placed over another man.
In the second treatise (much more well known),
Locke asserts that the state of nature consists of every man being equal to every other and all of nature was in common for every one else. Unlike Hobbes, this state of nature did not mean a state of war.
Locke believed that man by nature possesses reason
(which he calls the Law of Nature)
and only when he separates from that reason does he enter a state of war. Man leaves the state of nature, according to Locke, because in nature there are no general laws, no common judge, and no one to enforce the laws.
By the end of the 1700's the Enlightenment was ending and on the cusp of Post-Modernity sat Jean-Jacque Rousseau.
Rousseau asserted that man by nature was utterly free to do what he wished, and is not a social animal. When man leaves the state of nature and enters civil society he becomes sort of a slave to the state.
While each era of political thought changed the state of nature,
man must leave nature and enter into societies...
Politics then is the study of how humans interact with each other
and cooperate to become self sufficient.
(made some researched)
Q.A.
how can a person run in one place to an ethical position if he or she
is not a residence of that place? here is an obvious lies... then
spending millions of money... but at the end people will be charged
by his/her spendings as if the peoples owe him/her their lives...!
is this politics?
:(
just a wake up call
jong
.....................................
I have absolutely concern about the death or after-life.
I am concerned, however, about this present life.
My concern comes from the need to ensure that
I really live it to the full.
All people die, and not everybody lives.
Some people settle for existing; drifting along without enthusiasm,
wonder, or the sheer excitement of living.
They wrap their talents in cloth, and bury them, rather than getting
out there in the market-place and investing all that they are in the
wonderful adventure of life.
Life can be compared to a lit candle in a dark room, which gives all
it has until there's nothing left.
It is in giving that we receive.
If we do not invest, there can be no return.
There is a happy balance to be struck here.
While I keep my destiny in mind, and am always mindful where it's all
leading, I still give the present moment all I've got.
I cannot spend my life sitting around 'waiting for guava to fall'.
The present moment is the sacred moment, and the only time that
exists on God's calendar.
I cannot watch an athlete break a world record, or pick up a gold
medal, without thinking of all that went before.
That medal has been won over the past ten or twelve years, rather
than during a ten-second dash today.
hsi
for politics in the philippines and culion
we just have to be on guard always
because our country is boxed on this principles and laws
we are a democratic country
ruled by politics
and badly by trapos!
my point is
let's have an alternative
let's offer solutions
not only hopelessnes....
for sure there are
good people around
and we can know them
if we'll do our research
if we'll do our job meaningfully
without biases and prejudices
by this we can have them
run our politics
like for example the group of teachers
our children depends on them
virtually our future depends on them
how they teach our children!
we have solutions
we just have to offer it...
there's nothing wrong with politics
there's something wrong
with our trapos and our people and dumb leaders...
me i hate politics too
i feel so helpless too
but what will i do about it
is the biggest question
i have to face
i have to do something about it
especially the lies and the illusions
of some people who are blinded
by despairs and survival instincts
even hopelessness!!!
we have to lit our lights now
before it's too late...
i hate what governor
did to our pantalan
and it's the order of the president
it's the order of survivals
the order of garci
hello
you like it or not
our group
is also a politics
in principles.....
then
define politics?
jong
ps.
are we contradicting something?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
