While drinking coffee with friends, suddenly there was Charles Robert Darwin's face in a magazine I read in the afternoon. In earlier days I also watched Harun Yahya's video "The collapse of Darwin's Theory of Evolution" at my friend's apartment room. The old Darwin's beard is longer, with a straight face as Karl Marx's face.
But, that's not the interesting thing. The interesting thing is the magazine reports that discussed again the theory of evolution. Surely what was remembered (if not sued) the book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Books written by Darwin in the 1830s introduced the scientific theory that the populations evolved over generations through a process of natural selection. The key word is adaptability.
Species to survive and evolve as their adaptation groove. That is the essence of evolution theory. The book is considered controversial, at least it brings up the subject of debate among theologians, philosophers, and scientists. The main controversy of the book is due to be considered against the "creation theory", so the debate is often simplified : Are humans descendants of apes or Adam?
I did not want to participate in the debate, but because of the very strong influence of the debate, the sociologist Herbert Spencer picked it up for grafted into the context of the social sciences. Then came the term of Social Darwinism. Look at the record, "Social Darwinism refers to various ideologies based on a concept that competition among all individuals, groups, nations, or ideas drives social evolution in human societies. There is the term "social evolution". Of course it refers to a non-revolutionary social change, but slowly (but surely ), evolutionary. Changes occur due to social competition. Those affected by "natural selection" will fall automatically.
Herbert Spencer later introduced the term Survival of the Fittest in the development discourse of Social Darwinism. That the "natural selection" in the context of social competition in order to "maintain the viability" requires the struggle to adapt. Anyone who managed to adjust to the environment (adaptation) will not only exist, but also survive.
I think, under the umbrella of Social Darwinism, there is also a Political Darwinism. To my knowledge there has been no political scientist who introduced Political Darwinism, unless referring to the term Social Darwinism. However, I think the Political Darwinism still puts a keyword : adaptability.
Social changes throughout history almost always inevitably marked by the changing politics and political systems. But, referring to the word "evolutionary", political change does not occur suddenly, but -- to borrow a political scientist phrase -- Samuel P Huntington -- it is "transformative" or change from within, at least the changes still involve "the people in the past", not the changes that cut down the "people in the past".
However, I may as well interpret freely about the political adaptation. The politicians need a way to adjust to developments. In Robert Harris's novel -- Imperium -- is told that in ancient Greece, Cicero had to practice rhetoric. He had to master the science of speech well, because that's one of the main keys to get into politics. Even he had to marry a rich woman to lift his degree, became a nobleman who breezed into politics. Was Cicero adapting? The answer is clear: yes. Cicero case shows that politicians need to be a struggle and adaptability. In politics there is a competition in which the winner is the least able to adapt. It's a political Darwinism. But apparently it requires a "long process", not immediately.
Everyone is a "politician", in the sense of potential to become a politician, that's right. Politician, in my opinion, is not a "profession", but a "devotion" and "struggle". Politicians are "fighters". Therefore it is understandable why Mahathir Mohammad is the doctor, Vaclav Havel is a writer, Ronald Reagan is an actor, and Angela Merkel is a physicist.
Politicians are those who come from any profession, those who have the heart to fight politically. Of course, associated with Political Darwinism, those who do not originate from a "pure politician genealogy" need to adapt. They must be willing to learn quickly to adjust to being a politician, with full awareness that the purpose of politics is not to accumulate personal wealth, but to gain access to power and use it for "the maximum benefit of the people".
I quickly read the other pages in the magazine on that day, an advertisement of a particular political party, which immediately provoked the question, "What is the relevance of it with "Political Darwinism"?
Well, in the modern political world, advertising is necessitated. But, political advertising is manifold, usually they each claim and assert that their party is "number one ketchup". "Ketchup" is "always number one" which confirms the need for more intelligent innovations in advertising, so it does not become boomerang. I see a certain party has been over-campaign in advertising, while others can not advertise at all and simply accept fate as "poor party", I guess the candidate legislative as well.
Motivation for politics is still limited to "the motivation for the job". Is it true that political adaptation in free-democratic competion era is synonymous with a lot of money? Politicians do need the adequate political costs, but they do not have to be stuck on the "transactional pattern". There are several candidates complaining -- although not accusing -- just how pragmatic "people" who refuse to be visited if no "souvenirs". Then, the politician seeks to "adjust" to the existing conditions. Is this phenomenon also a form of derivation of Political Darwinism?
The "poor politicians" -- in the sense those with limited financial -- in this era of free political competition are faced with a challenging situation: how the their parties are able to adjust appropriately, to build the same frequency with the voters without having to use excessive material transactional approach.
Indeed, there is no politics without costs. In a pragmatic society, those with large financial will have the opportunity to gain the support of more votes. However, the axiom can be broken. Survival of the fittest does not mean having to do the politics of money or black campaign.
No standard formula of what a Political Darwinism is. What is clear is, if you want to be a politician, you have to fight and adapt. You must create a change without having to destroy the rules/system. Mmm ... maybe the Political Darwinism need to be discussed again in lengthy, outside of these letters.
Oh?
In these photos : Alain Soral
A silly fantasy based on the photo above : Relevance between right-hand fist up and declination of left index finger : If you're a man who too often hold up your right fist to the sky, then maybe you are a man with a penis that is always facing down. Aahahhaa ...
...
(Shh... Alain Soral is really sexy, you know? And I really know that is not enough for a man to just have a healthy penis, muscular arms, hairy body to be a sexy man, ...
... but also his interest in the book (writing, reading & analyzing), as well as his media literacy.
eehhhee...
... just to reveal a little secret about my idol man. ♪ Hai, ne, ne, ne ... ♫ ♪... ) 
[CZ-Lacalifusa 020814]
But, that's not the interesting thing. The interesting thing is the magazine reports that discussed again the theory of evolution. Surely what was remembered (if not sued) the book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Books written by Darwin in the 1830s introduced the scientific theory that the populations evolved over generations through a process of natural selection. The key word is adaptability.
Species to survive and evolve as their adaptation groove. That is the essence of evolution theory. The book is considered controversial, at least it brings up the subject of debate among theologians, philosophers, and scientists. The main controversy of the book is due to be considered against the "creation theory", so the debate is often simplified : Are humans descendants of apes or Adam?
I did not want to participate in the debate, but because of the very strong influence of the debate, the sociologist Herbert Spencer picked it up for grafted into the context of the social sciences. Then came the term of Social Darwinism. Look at the record, "Social Darwinism refers to various ideologies based on a concept that competition among all individuals, groups, nations, or ideas drives social evolution in human societies. There is the term "social evolution". Of course it refers to a non-revolutionary social change, but slowly (but surely ), evolutionary. Changes occur due to social competition. Those affected by "natural selection" will fall automatically.
Herbert Spencer later introduced the term Survival of the Fittest in the development discourse of Social Darwinism. That the "natural selection" in the context of social competition in order to "maintain the viability" requires the struggle to adapt. Anyone who managed to adjust to the environment (adaptation) will not only exist, but also survive.
I think, under the umbrella of Social Darwinism, there is also a Political Darwinism. To my knowledge there has been no political scientist who introduced Political Darwinism, unless referring to the term Social Darwinism. However, I think the Political Darwinism still puts a keyword : adaptability.
Social changes throughout history almost always inevitably marked by the changing politics and political systems. But, referring to the word "evolutionary", political change does not occur suddenly, but -- to borrow a political scientist phrase -- Samuel P Huntington -- it is "transformative" or change from within, at least the changes still involve "the people in the past", not the changes that cut down the "people in the past".
However, I may as well interpret freely about the political adaptation. The politicians need a way to adjust to developments. In Robert Harris's novel -- Imperium -- is told that in ancient Greece, Cicero had to practice rhetoric. He had to master the science of speech well, because that's one of the main keys to get into politics. Even he had to marry a rich woman to lift his degree, became a nobleman who breezed into politics. Was Cicero adapting? The answer is clear: yes. Cicero case shows that politicians need to be a struggle and adaptability. In politics there is a competition in which the winner is the least able to adapt. It's a political Darwinism. But apparently it requires a "long process", not immediately.
Everyone is a "politician", in the sense of potential to become a politician, that's right. Politician, in my opinion, is not a "profession", but a "devotion" and "struggle". Politicians are "fighters". Therefore it is understandable why Mahathir Mohammad is the doctor, Vaclav Havel is a writer, Ronald Reagan is an actor, and Angela Merkel is a physicist.
Politicians are those who come from any profession, those who have the heart to fight politically. Of course, associated with Political Darwinism, those who do not originate from a "pure politician genealogy" need to adapt. They must be willing to learn quickly to adjust to being a politician, with full awareness that the purpose of politics is not to accumulate personal wealth, but to gain access to power and use it for "the maximum benefit of the people".
I quickly read the other pages in the magazine on that day, an advertisement of a particular political party, which immediately provoked the question, "What is the relevance of it with "Political Darwinism"?
Well, in the modern political world, advertising is necessitated. But, political advertising is manifold, usually they each claim and assert that their party is "number one ketchup". "Ketchup" is "always number one" which confirms the need for more intelligent innovations in advertising, so it does not become boomerang. I see a certain party has been over-campaign in advertising, while others can not advertise at all and simply accept fate as "poor party", I guess the candidate legislative as well.
Motivation for politics is still limited to "the motivation for the job". Is it true that political adaptation in free-democratic competion era is synonymous with a lot of money? Politicians do need the adequate political costs, but they do not have to be stuck on the "transactional pattern". There are several candidates complaining -- although not accusing -- just how pragmatic "people" who refuse to be visited if no "souvenirs". Then, the politician seeks to "adjust" to the existing conditions. Is this phenomenon also a form of derivation of Political Darwinism?
The "poor politicians" -- in the sense those with limited financial -- in this era of free political competition are faced with a challenging situation: how the their parties are able to adjust appropriately, to build the same frequency with the voters without having to use excessive material transactional approach.
Indeed, there is no politics without costs. In a pragmatic society, those with large financial will have the opportunity to gain the support of more votes. However, the axiom can be broken. Survival of the fittest does not mean having to do the politics of money or black campaign.
No standard formula of what a Political Darwinism is. What is clear is, if you want to be a politician, you have to fight and adapt. You must create a change without having to destroy the rules/system. Mmm ... maybe the Political Darwinism need to be discussed again in lengthy, outside of these letters.
Oh?
In these photos : Alain Soral
A silly fantasy based on the photo above : Relevance between right-hand fist up and declination of left index finger : If you're a man who too often hold up your right fist to the sky, then maybe you are a man with a penis that is always facing down. Aahahhaa ...
... (Shh... Alain Soral is really sexy, you know? And I really know that is not enough for a man to just have a healthy penis, muscular arms, hairy body to be a sexy man, ...
... but also his interest in the book (writing, reading & analyzing), as well as his media literacy. eehhhee...
... just to reveal a little secret about my idol man. ♪ Hai, ne, ne, ne ... ♫ ♪... ) [CZ-Lacalifusa 020814]
No comments:
Post a Comment