Litkicks Message Board Archive

A Theory I Am Working On

Posted to Poetry and Politics

Thomas Kuhn wrote a philosophical/scientific treatise called the "Structure of Scientific Revolutions". In it he entailed his beliefs dealing with the idea that scientific revolutions are incomprable to one another because all that changed was a paradigm shift. A paradigm is a certain set of assumptions one makes about the world around him. A scientist will tell you a rock falls because of gravity et al; a pidgin-speaking middle-of-the-forest indian chief may tell you a rock falls because of its guilt in the face of the Ultimate Living Earth (or some such fable) - either way both understand that the rock will fall for a reason. Those are two different paradigms.

Kuhn said it was ridiculous to compare the two paradigms because you'd be arguing apples and shotguns. The only way to truly compare the two is to judge the quality of life and the technology available to people under the two different paradigms. Gravity seems to be winning in the technology sense and since quality of life is such a ridiculously subjective idea it is nearly impossible to judge whether the western world or the archaic world is happier.

Now, in the realm of politics I have come to understand that there too are two different paradigms that have been argued over the past century (and much earlier than that). The contemporary liberal sees man as a mutually protected brotherhood wherein everybody is equal no matter what. The contemporary conservative tends to see humanity as a wide collection of individuals wherein each has essential inherent liberties but only owe anything to themselves.

These two sides argue bitterly, day in and day out, sometimes on this page, but in the end it gets nowhere. It gets nowhere because we're arguing oranges and shotguns.

What I suppose needs to happen is the situation has to be looked at from almost an anthropological/scientific perspective. I have done such an investigation and that is why I have the pro-capitalist tendencies that I purport everyday. I've compared and weighed the two paradigms and discovered that I feel much happier and able to explain an dunderstand the world from the perspective that I am a human whom owes nothing to anyone else besides those people whom I have signed contracts with or those people whom I care deeply enough about to help them without expecting anything in return save appreciation and friendship.

The other paradigm, I'm sure, has its own arguments. What I'm trying to say, though, is that one must view the political spectrum objectively and see what has worked in advancing technology and cultivating quality.

In my case I discovered that laissez fair capitalism is the system I support. The other paradigm may have a philosophical argument against capitalism but I believe the proof is in the evidence. America is one of the world's youngest countries and yet it is the most powerful that ever existed. If anybody can tell me why a liberal/european system is better than ours from the vantage of overall quality of life, technolgy and happiness, I am willing to listen; but the argument will inevitably end in a draw, because the two paradigms are in fundamental conflict with one another.

Therefore, don't argue politics; live politically. Don't espouse your beliefs; cultivate and act on them. Don't say that we should help the weak no matter what; get out there and make it so.

I say, let's evolve, and let the chips fall where they may. I say, let's return America to its ridiculously capitalist roots and allow those that disagree to leave and go to Europe where the liberal is king - then we can see who's in the right.