Philosophy Discussion Forums

In philosophical media is there any stance that is apolitical?

More broadly speaking is there an antonym to “political” that goes further than mere “non-political”?

Depending on your viewpoint you could use unbiased or objective in that context.

Political reporting that attempts to be unbiased is often coloquially referred to as "he said, she said..." reporting. Attempting to simply report the competing narratives' claims factually.

The trouble is, even if we claim to be simply reporting facts, we have to select which facts to report and which to leave out. That selection process can be, and frequently is, itself a political act. So it's then a matter of analysis to decide whether the reporting of facts was "balanced". And then we re-introduce uncertainty and opinion because it's difficult to objectively assess what constitutes "balance", short of reporting everything that everybody in the world has ever said.

A recent example from this forum that springs to mind: In another topic ("How to define antisemitism"), ThomasHobbes said this:

Mass hysteria in this case is a set of lies offered to us by a media which is comprised of right wingers. Many of them Jewish, or in business with Jews.

I criticised this post, and ThomasHobbes' rejoinder was:

What part of my post do you think it unfactual?

I replied:

Saying "Many of them Jewish, or in business with Jews" is true. But the truths we choose to point out and those we choose not to point out are often significant.

My point was that pointing out that someone is "in business with Jews" is no doubt true but the selection is what is significant. I'm sure I myself do business with Jews, as I do with (for example) women, men, black people, white people, Americans, Brits, Turks, etc.

If I said:

"Mass hysteria in this case is a set of lies offered to us by a media which is comprised of right wingers. Many of them black, or in business with blacks."

could that, being factually true, be regarded as a politically neutral statement?

(Note: Even in reporting this conversation I am making a choice as to which posts to quote and which not to quote. Am I being fair?)

BG:
is there an antonym to “political” that goes further than mere “non-political

]You don't look to a thing's nature to determine if it is political or not, lest the conversation turn toward the essence of politics, merely, a conceptual matter, in which case listening to music is clearly not political while stumping for a candidate running for political office is. And this brings the question to, not if there is anything not political, but if there is anything that cannot be politicized, and the answer is no. Many things are not inherently political, but everything can be politicized by simply bringing it into the sphere of political concern. And what is this? We get concerned about things politically when they are part of the issues of a society. Selling sportswear (think Nike) just became politicized, though in their respective natures, they have nothing to do with each other.

I have to apologise. I rushed the OP just before work.

I was asking more along the lines of within the different parts of philosophy “politics” is set apart from things like “ontology” and “aesthetics”. Other philosophical views like “ethics” certainly play a role in “politics”, and “idealism” is kind of opposite to “relativism” ... in THAT respect is there some philosophical field that weighs in against “politics”? All I can think of is “anarchism”, but it is really a subset of “politics”.

Burning ghost wrote: ↑September 9th, 2018, 3:27 pm I have to apologise. I rushed the OP just before work.

I was asking more along the lines of within the different parts of philosophy “politics” is set apart from things like “ontology” and “aesthetics”. Other philosophical views like “ethics” certainly play a role in “politics”, and “idealism” is kind of opposite to “relativism” ... in THAT respect is there some philosophical field that weighs in against “politics”? All I can think of is “anarchism”, but it is really a subset of “politics”.

I sort of got that from your OP. In my mind, political implies manipulation of a set of facts to fit a predetermined political theory/agenda. Hence why, IMO the opposite of political is to consider all opinions or viewpoints on a topic.

Apolitical is a word. It means not interested in politics.

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstand. You mean something like moral, immoral and amoral? I think apolitical and amoral mean the same but are perhaps rarely used the same? As in saying you aren't interested in politics is different than saying you don't possess the capacity to be interested in politics.
But now I'm not sure if you are talking about uninterested in politics or incapable of being interested in politics?

Eduk wrote: ↑September 11th, 2018, 3:58 am Sorry, perhaps I misunderstand. You mean something like moral, immoral and amoral? I think apolitical and amoral mean the same but are perhaps rarely used the same? As in saying you aren't interested in politics is different than saying you don't possess the capacity to be interested in politics.
But now I'm not sure if you are talking about uninterested in politics or incapable of being interested in politics?

I was thinking more along the lines of an philosophical view that takes up a contra-view to political philosophy. I guess it would be some kind of weird solipsistic wholly egocentric regard for aesthetics - or even pure hedonism. I say this because it appears to me that whilst politics obviously deals with people who are subjective and full of opinions its aim is to rationalise rather than be all touchy feely about societal problems.

Of course I am framing “hedonism” here as an absolute pursuit of physical pleasures even though I undestand perfectly well there are differing schools of thought within “hedonism” and I’m glossing over this and misrepresenting it by using the term as understood in common parse.

Then the other counter field to politics could be something like religion, but given that religion is quite obviously embedded within the political sphere I’d be using it specifically in reference to “personal” theological views of existence rather than as an institution.

It was ust one of those rando questions that popped into my head. Maybe there is no contra-philosophical field like there is with idealism and rationalism - or if there is we’re not really nuanced enough with our subjects to make use of it yet.

I don't think politics has a direction to be counter to? It's like philosophy?

You're probably correct. Like I said I was musing about the possibility. I am fascinated by different kinds of antonyms and how items of thought are sometimes set against each other as if oppositional - such as "stoicism and hedonism", but yet again these are idealised views not categories of study.

Maybe "mysticism" fits the bill if anything. After all political philosophy deals with society, and person/s and people/s, rather than with vague language and an appeal toward more irrational approaches to problems based on feeling and free wheeling thought.

Eduk wrote: ↑September 12th, 2018, 3:11 am I don't think politics has a direction to be counter to? It's like philosophy?

You can be apolitical, but I've love to know what anti-political would look like????

I think you can be anti-intellectual, and even anti-philosphical, but anti-political is a political act, as much in fact is.

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 12th, 2018, 6:47 pm

Eduk wrote: ↑September 12th, 2018, 3:11 am I don't think politics has a direction to be counter to? It's like philosophy?

You can be apolitical, but I've love to know what anti-political would look like????

I think you can be anti-intellectual, and even anti-philosphical, but anti-political is a political act, as much in fact is.

Well, it depends on perspective. For example, a supreme dictatorship is a political system, but since there are no competing political interests, the common understanding of the meaning of "political" that is the chauvinistic jockeying between political factions does not exist, officially.

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 13th, 2018, 2:36 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 12th, 2018, 6:47 pm

You can be apolitical, but I've love to know what anti-political would look like????

I think you can be anti-intellectual, and even anti-philosphical, but anti-political is a political act, as much in fact is.

Well, it depends on perspective. For example, a supreme dictatorship is a political system, but since there are no competing political interests, the common understanding of the meaning of "political" that is the chauvinistic jockeying between political factions does not exist, officially.

Any kind of compliance with a dictator is a political act.
I still can't see any example of 'anti-political'.

Not even hermits can avoid politics because out in the wild they would encounter other species with which they'd have to compete for shelter and resources.

Maybe the closest to the apolitical is Zenlike focus and absorption in an activity or study? It's only temporary respite, though, because one still needs to support oneself and that requires competition.