Politics and Its Danger

نحمده ونصلي على رسوله الكريم
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
وعلى عبده المسيح الموعود

Imam Mahdi Lahir di Madinah?

Politics. A casual word consisting of, indeed, only eight words. However, in its inner, it comprehends great significations, embodying every aspect of human daily lives. Just as fishes are captured in the toil of a fisher, likewise humans, laymen be they or bureaucrats, are caught in the political toil of their own desire and appetite. Politics is like a very sexy woman. It lures and entices, then straightforwardly harasses and heckles. As a seducer, it perceives itself as a provider of pleasure, just as bees that gather pollen from some flowers and deliver it to others. Its resistance, sometimes, is a way of saying, “Please seduce me.” The seducer knows that the possibility of pleasure will make a person yield to be her follower, and this experience will make someone vulnerable, weak against any touch. Afterward, when he is glued on the highest podium of pleasure, she is ready to tackle, to hackle, because his entity has transformed into a slave of that seducer, driven by his own appetite to reach the false pleasure.

Virtually, what is politics? In a letter of March 28th, 1605 addressed to Herwart of Hohenburg, Kepler conceived the universal nature of gravitational forces and called gravity a “passivity” rather than an activity.1 Newton, in Principia, formulated his first law that:

“Everybody perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed.2

A question may occur in the minds of the readers that what is the relationship between the concept of force and politics? Both the statements of the two greatest classical scientists are actually a hint for us to fathom further into the reality of politics. For, if we ponder over the law of nature, willy-nilly, we have to admit that there is a tender and suave relationship between each of them. Whatever is firmly uprooted in the humans’ state of consciousness, belonging to their natural, moral and spiritual side, it results, in essence, from the influences of the physical universe. Humans, as microcosms, are inside the circle of the physical universe, i.e. the macrocosm which is indefinite and infinite. Thus, everything manifested in the physical universe is visible in our consciousness, either we are aware or not.3

In accordance with that, we should consider politics in its connection with state. State is the highest form of community and aims at satisfying all the needs of humans. Humans build a state in order to secure their bare subsistence, being the highest level of good life as its ultimate goal.4 Everything constantly works in serenity and tranquility, and it is this constant situation that is termed “passivity”. Nevertheless, it is a law of nature that humans can not be separated from their nature. As Homo homini lupus, humans always obsess to posses others’ properties and to confess. Therefore, the state is no longer a secure and safe place. On the contrary, it becomes a manifestation field of the flaming appetite to posses communities’ properties, whereas communities are assemblied to be one society under its authority. To reach the goal, it exploits politics as a power. Politics is identical to power. On the top of that, politics is the power itself. I just mentioned an analogy that politics is like a toil. Indeed, it is the toil which is occupied by the state to impose order on society that resembles the arrested fishes inside the toil of a fisher. Politics belongs to the state, its boss, that exploits it, merely for the fondling of the boss’ blazing and flaming appetite. This is the juridico-discursive conception which Foucoult strongly opposed and negated.5

Humans denote themselves as beings who measure values and who value measures, viz. the “assessing” animal par excellence.6 In relation to this, in the capacity of الحيوان الناطق or the rationally speaking animal, encouraged by their consciousness, they always essay to maximize the benefit they get from everything. Yet, just as soul is developed inside the body and nurtured in the womb and since the beginning its essence has been present in the sperm,7 the evil nature of humans is, too, developed in their consciousness and nurtured along with the escalation of their awareness towards the environment, while its essence has been there in their unconsciousness since the very outset. In the beginning, it was hidden and imperceptible and later it is made manifest. They even accentuate their evil and make it prevail over their rationality and healthy mind. In subsequence, that evil synthesizes flaming appetite, stimulating the rationality to be irrationality, and the healthy mind to be unhealthy. Their consciousness dissolves in drunkenness and intoxication. Consequently, their entity degrades to be the lowest of the slaves.

I already described that power, i.e. politics, is the one the influences of which are huge. It does not govern, but is the minister of the evil. It is like a poniard, unsheathed to slaughter the evil’s enemies, and to demolish. Sooner or later, it will exactly murder the slaughterer himself because of his transformation into the lowest slave of the evil. A slave never wins over his boss. Summarily, this is the schematic of the transformation process from the evil stage to the that of the lowest slave.

In biological life, we recognize that a very important factor in the progress of organic evolution is supplied by the principle of cooperation between different organic unites.8 Differentiation and division of labor are the results of progressive evolution and, at the same time, the means by which further progress is effected. Likewise in social life, social evolution cannot go advanced without the mixture of every individual within a society. Every individual’s participation is thus the key to unlock prosperous prosperity. Differentiation and division of labor play here prominent roles. The proliferation of every individual in his own field causes him to be more specialized as a way of dealing with the complexity of the environment. This differentiation is the principal feature of modern society, while the division of labor is its derivative. When every individual in a society has found his own equilibrium point, then the social life begins with the division of labor which suits to his own profession. The variation of professions between individuals, if that is being integrated and harmonized, then the society in which those are integrated and harmonized will achieve prosperous opulence. Both of these principles are well-known among them who contemplate social life.

The relationship between the two principles and politics is that, as long as the flaming appetite is mastered and obsession is controlled, the bad impact of politics will never come into existence. This is generated by the fact that humans’ specific humanity and sociality are inextricably intertwined. Humans, as Homo sapiens, are in the same measure, Homo socius.9 Humans as Homo socius can live together in societies, unlike animals that are clustered. The consequence of social life is that humans have to organize contact and communication with each other, not only in a formal fashion, but also as a needed need. When humans animate, inspirit, and also ensoul the true designation of being Homo socius, integration and harmony will therefore emerge, ushering on the voyage to the prosperous prosperity. In the fulfillment of the social rules, human nature as Homo sociologicus enacts a vital role. As such, humans are prone to social life, neither are they egoistic nor selfish and hoggish. Conversely, they give precedence to others over pursuing personal interests.10

The catch is that, corresponding to the other part of their nature, humans feel pleased to take possession of things. They assuredly strive hammer and tongs for corporeal ardor which is beautiful, attractive, and appealing. Aristotle stated:

“Again, how immeasurably greater is the pleasure, when a man feels a thing to be his own; for surely the love of self is a feeling implanted by nature and not given in vain, although selfishness is rightly censured. This, however, is not there love of self, but the love self in excess, like the miser’s love of money; for all, or almost all, men love money and other such objects in a measure. And further, there is the greatest pleasure in doing a kindness or service to friends or guests or companions, which can only be rendered when a man has private property”.11

In a bird’s eye view, the aforesaid statement of Aristotle may contradict what we already discussed above. In actual sense, however, the later does not at all contradict the former because Aristotle spoke of humans, in his book, as Homo politicus. In their nature as Homo politicus, humans always try to maximize social welfare.12 Politicus itself is the masculine noun of the Greek πολιτικός, i.e. politikos, which is denoted ‘prudent’ and ‘judicious’.13 It originally comes from πτόλις, i.e. polis, and it means ‘city’.14  Then, etymologically, Homo politicus is designated as:

“The prudent and judicious one who always associates himself with his society. Thereby, it is a necessity for him to to give precedence to his society’s welfare and try to maximize it”.

Now, to clear the matter up, we are departing for the origin of politics. Virtually, politicus and politics descend from one common ancestor which I just explained above. Yet, why did I elaborate politics to the extent that it seems to be a horrible thing? Everything in this universe has two sides as it is not cryptic for the sane and mindful: good side and bad side. From its origin, politics denotes a dandy denotation.15 Nonetheless, when the act of politicization is at work and more than so the state politicization, it becomes the reason for many miseries. Of being smothered by the ardent and flaming appetite which holds the reins over it, politics flashily converts into a very lissome equine racer that shatters and wrecks whatsoever is before.

In relation to this conversion and transformation, we get informed that, apart from the other nature, humans are also Homo economicus. The essence of Homo economicus, as Aristotle expressed, is to be a possessor of things. It rises from the love of self which, afterward, transforms into the stage of selfishness. All this process, as he expressed, is natural, not illusory or fictitious. Indeed, it is, while in excess, like the love of a misser for money. He amasses money and wealth and counts the two over and over. Perhaps, he presumes that the amount of money and wealth will render him immortal. This is certain that whenever humans see something attractive and appealing, they desire to grab it. Only because the power of their nature as Homo politicus that they are naturally prevented.

But, at the moment when that nature is conquered by their desire and their flaming appetite, arousing obsession to confess, it has instantaneously taken the natural form of Homo economicus who always maximizes and augments benefit and welfare for his own self. Henceforth, the designation of politicus is no longer pure in the like of its essence as the flaming appetite has changed its entity to be politics which is exploited to satiate their flaming appetite and their blazing zest.

Homo economicus is similar to Homo homini lupus. The difference is that Homo economicus prefers to posses and confess materials he obsesses, such as money and health. As for the prey of Homo homini lupus, it is the fellow humans, whether they are individuals or societies. It is due to his sentiment of insecurity and his impulsiveness of discomfort that he surmises the possession of materials is to be not good enough. People around him probably always look for chances to loot and plunder his ownership. Through hitting the road here, he begins to strike and bombard. Sometimes it is obvious and, at another time, is cunning. He commits all of those to comply solely his ambiguous feeling.

Hence, we can deduce that the dawn of the nature of humans is Homo politicus. Being Homo politicus is the first stage which is still pristine from any wickedness, pointed by the designation of “prudent” and “judicious”. The thing we must properly grasp is that the stage of Homo politicus, on account of its genuine condition, is still at the station of unconsciousness. When he bestirs himself with the deliberation of goodness and the chic intention towards the surrounding society, Homo politicus turns into Homo sociologicus and Homo sociusHomo sociologicus is the manifestation of prudence. He bridles his flaming appetite and reins it back merely for the welfare of the society as though therein were a contracting nuclear fission. Literally speaking, he becomes a great sacrificing personality. On the other hand, Homo socius is the face of judiciousness.  He is fused to the society and, from this fusion, the major energy and the high vigor are excogitated, captaining to the prosperous opulence. In other words, he changes to be a devotional devout in devotion.

However, as I explained above, inasmuch as Homo politicus is still at the station of unconsciousness, the evil is hole-and-corner comprised inside it. Behind being ‘prudent’ and ‘judicious’, Homo politicus is silently ‘imprudent’ and ‘injudicious’. When this imprudence and injudiciousness start taking the dominance under the order of the evil, Homo politicus is thus no longer existed. Nay, he quickly turns out to be Homo economicus and Homo homini lupusHomo economicus is the reflection of imprudence. He always selfishly accentuates his own welfare, he does not like anyone to even wield a thing he likes. He is such a depiction of the gravitational collapse of a black hole and its high-energy collisions. Then, he paces the stage of avarice as an avariciously avaricious individual. Afterward, when the influence of the evil goes more severe, he develops to be Homo homini lupusHomo homini lupus is not only here to scare and frighten, moreover to assassinate, because he is truly an assassin who is governed by the flaming and blazing appetite under the authority of the evil. His occupation is preying others, whether they are right or not, in resemblence of the growth and evaporation of a black hole. Below is the schematic of the relation of each the nature of humans.



1 Max Jammer, Concepts of Force: A Study in the Foundations of Dynamics (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press Cambridge, 1957), p. 82.

2 Sir Isaac Newton, Newton’s Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (New York: Daniel Adee, 1846), p. 83.

3 This subject actually needs a long enough elaboration. In short, the idea was developed by the neo-Platonists, and subsequently explained in a great detail by Muslims divines and philosophers.

4 Aristotle, Aristotle’s Politics (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1908), p. 7.

5 It has not been filled because I forget the book which I quoted from.

6 Friedrich Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals (New York: Dover Publications, 2003), p. 45

7 Ḥaḍrat Mirza Ghulam AhmadasThe Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam (Surrey: Islam International Publications, 2010), p. 14.

8 Arthur Dendy, D.Sc. F.R.S., Outlines of Evolutionary Biology (New York: Dr. Appleton & Company, 1912), pp. 39-40.

9 Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (New York: Anchor Books, 1967), p. 5.

10 Sharon Zukin and Paul Di Maggio, Structures of Capital: The Social Organization of the Economy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 44.

11 Aristotle, Aristotle’s Politics (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1908), pp. 62-63.

12 Nyborg K. 2000. Homo economicus and Homo politicus: Interpretation and aggregation of environmental values. J Econ Behav Organ. 42(3):305-322.

13 Derived from: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/politicus#Latin; http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=politic&allowed_in_frame=0.

14 http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/polis.

15 As I have committed to paper that the tenor of politics is “prudent” and “judicious”, Walter W. Skeat inserted “civil”, “decent”, and “courteous” in the other meanings of politics and police. See: Walter W. Skeat LiTT.D. L.L.D C.L Ph.D F.B.A, A Concise Etymological of The English Language (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1911), p. 400.

Posting Komentar

0 Komentar