Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OlgamaAlen t1_jdyr4wb wrote

I have realized something: every political party is guaranteed to have flaws. Because in science, there is a path to truth. In spirituality, there is a path to truth. But there is no path to truth in politics because opinions are central to each political ideology rather than fragments of a greater truth. In science, the endpoint at which truth is realized is when a theory is proven, and truth is realized in spirituality upon death or enlightenment, depending on your religion. In this way science and religion are quite similar and a future where the two are synthesized into one field is possible.


ephemerios t1_jdzzt09 wrote

> In science, the endpoint at which truth is realized is when a theory is proven

A whole lot of people would argue against the notion of theories ever being “proven” in science. Meanwhile, a whole lot of people would raise the point that there’s a path to truth in politics—one that’s determined by evaluating historical evidence, making use of rational argument, and proposing policies that are in accordance with whatever latest research the social sciences, whatever latest developments political philosophy and ethics have to offer, and whatever the latest developments in history are. Or something like that.

However, we can easily imagine a political party that makes all the right decisions policy-wise, makes competent use of all the frameworks to analyze complex social phenomena in the right way, and still collapses into a corrupt entity suddenly determined by special interests because rather than opinion being central to politics, it is power structures. But in that sense, politics isn’t all that different from science. It’s just that in politics, there’s usually a whole lot more at stake than in science. So science can afford progressing “one funeral at a time” as Max Planck described:

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

For politics, that’s usually not a desirable option.

Or rather, there’s a political and sociological aspect to science that requires our attention. The works of Kuhn and Feyerabend and I guess “continental” philosophy of science has demonstrated as much.

>In this way science and religion are quite similar and a future where the two are synthesized into one field is possible.

What does that mean concretely? Science and religion (or, I guess, “spirituality”) being thought of as “non-overlapping magisteria” is a rather recent development. Aristotle’s conception of the sciences included theology for example.


OlgamaAlen t1_je02xsf wrote

You prove a valid point. Some kind of political landscape is intrinsic to any society as complex as ours. Without one, there would be chaos. There are too many decisions needed to be made about too many social issues, many of which don't exist in simpler societies (abortion, human rights, etc.). My little paragraph was simply to hint at the theoretical framework of a future society where the complexity in social structure has been reduced to that which is undoubtedly needed to advance intellectually as a species, instead of materialistically.

In terms of the synthesis of science and religion, I meant that there could be a future when the true nature of death and the soul was realized (so a "spiritual science" would be a reality), but that's a road that leads into a lot of unpopular ideas that I wouldn't want to get into.


Edmondg3 t1_je03w5a wrote

Yeah there is no perfect system of rulling over man.
At some point in the next 2000 years mankind will be able to edit themselves and our shit systems to be more in alignment with intelligent action. Even then we will fight over how we should edit ourselves, but that will be the beginning of a more homogenized collaborative society.