James Drogan

I came across the subject line in a e-mail a few days ago and it caused me to wonder about the relationship between thinking and politics.

It seems to that this relationship is extremely strong; unbreakable, in fact.

Thinking, to me, is of little value unless it results in conclusions.  Conclusions would therefore seem to represent a set of views on issues which can be labeled as politics.

Hence, how could thinking be admired, but the conclusion of that thinking (i.e., the politics) not be admired?

Well, perhaps the originator was referring to the process of thinking, not the thinking itself.  For example, he might conclude that his subject was following acceptable rules of critical thinking, but was biased in the selection of issues, data, and analysis.  That would explain the apparent dichotomy.

Or perhaps the originator was thinking that the politics of the subject did not result from the thinking, but rather, perhaps, amounted to the subject avoiding his responsibilities and hewing to a party line.

And what is politics anyway?  Unfortunately, one's politics is often assigned a simple label (e.g., let, right, left of center) that is really a convenience and not the result of real understanding.  Hence, we find ourselves in the partisan politics of the Dims versus the Rips where the objective function is to win in such a way that the other side loses.  Whether the outcome is best for the constituency is a minor point as is understanding.

Hhhhhmmmmm.