Does it make any sense to discuss and argue about politics if we don't get to the truth almost 100%?
Political processes are driven by thousands of factors.
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
“We are almost 100% not going to get to the truth” –
in so many questions of science and life and politics –
but this is not a reason to give up minimal discussion and consideration of difficult issues.
The benefits of intelligent discussion, argument, and reflection are many-sided – this is a useful cultural development in an important direction.
Of course it's worth it. Life is not a computer game in which you will pass the checkpoint sooner or later. Here you can't achieve 100% of the result in almost anything, but in fact it's not the result that matters, but the movement. That is why it is important not only to get to 100% of the truth, as you put it, but also to understand what is happening and navigate in this life, and not only in the field of politics, but in general.
Sometimes it does. If this policy directly worsens people's lives. For example, getting involved in a war, currency collapse, raising the retirement age, degradation of medicine, education, science, indulging in theft and bribes, etc. The truth here is very obvious. And there can be no excuses.
Everyone has their own truth – there is no universal one…
Moreover, politics and truth are not very compatible things – a politician MUST constantly say what is expected of him… i.e. lie :-))))
Otherwise, he will be a political loser.
Politics isn't about truth, it's about beliefs. For example, some political forces believe that Russia needs a “firm hand” at the head of the state – a national leader, around whom the whole country should rally, rely on his prudence, and he will quickly lead Russia to world leaders by his unquestioned decisions, primarily in terms of military power. Other political forces believe that the historical experience of Russia confirms the impasse of authoritarianism, its inability to build a stable state and a normally functioning society, and that it is necessary to deal primarily with the economy and people's well-being. Some believe that the state should regulate everything and interfere in everything, even in the private lives of citizens, while others believe that the state should be strictly controlled by society and protect human rights and freedoms. Why do many people still believe that the communist model is the best, despite the fact that it went bankrupt and collapsed? Why do many people think that repression is normal? There is no truth here. In politics, the influence of “thousands” of factors on various political, social, economic, and other processes is unimportant. What matters are ideas and beliefs, the ability to achieve your goals, and knowing when to compromise and when not to.