Political Dimensions

Introduction
I have continued to think over the foundations of my political philosophy. In my latest formulation, there are 3 principal dimensions of politics: time, space and value. These are the means by which we locate different political theories and societies. As in Einstein's Relativity, they are a metric which every political theory must have, but in themselves do not determine the particular content of politics. While these dimensions allows us to position different political philosophies relative to each other, they do not ascribe truth to any of them. What one takes as a premise is a matter of judgement ...

Introduction

I have continued to think over the foundations of my political philosophy. In my latest formulation, there are 3 principal dimensions of politics: time, space and value. These are the means by which we locate different political theories and societies. As in Einstein's Relativity, they are a metric which every political theory must have, but in themselves do not determine the particular content of politics.

While these dimensions allows us to position different political philosophies relative to each other, they do not ascribe truth to any of them. What one takes as a premise is a matter of judgement ...

Valuation is required to put political principles into practice. It is the act of valuing which connects politics to ethics; i.e., politics necessarily involves the application of ethical principles. Ethical principles are always involved when voluntary choices are made, so political decisions are also moral decisions. On my view, political judgements are seldom or never amoral because they represent extant or intended guidelines of behavior.

Valuation is never derivable from or embedded in time or space, because of Hume's distinction: an 'ought' is logically different from an 'is.' For this reason, we must use value as an independent dimension of political classification.

In political philosophy, time and space are independent dimensions (not conjoined as in Einstein's Relativity). In human affairs, time seems to be simply linear: before, now and after. Time also characterizes political stances (attitudes). There are reactionaries, conservatives, centrists, liberals and utopians in order of their time orientation. Reactionaries look backward, whereas utopians look forward. Centrists are firmly rooted in now, refusing to look back or ahead. Conservatives and liberals look backward or forward, but not as much or consistently as their reactionary or utopian peers. Very often, the more moderate folks are seen as "fellow travellers" by the more radical. This shows that the Moderate-Radical distinction is really based on time, reflecting a distance from a point of origin, such as now.

Space is also a determinant of political philosophy, as political decisions allocate it. Property, for example, whether personal or social, is a division of space. Nationalism is another such division, because it assigns a region to each group. Space includes the objects of ergecology, as it is utlimately about physical things, about making a living. The political spectrum in the space dimension as marked by the individual and communal poles. There are also other poles, such as nature and the inaccessible, both of which are outside the range of political decision and control.

Because time is a dimension of political philosophy, history must be included in it. History combines the dimensions of time and space when it assigns both a time and place to events. History is minimally involved when it merely orders events, as in 'this scenario precedes (follows) that scenario.' We need not make any assumption about the direction of time in histories associated with political philosophies, although particular political systems usually define the direction, content and meaning of history.

Traditional economics operates on the same dimensions of time, space and value. But it is always a subset of politics because it depends on particular choices to operate. My term, Ergecology, is a generalization (superset) of economics because it explicitly acknowledges the manipulation of space (ecology) in operations (erg-) aimed to satisfy human desires (values). Aiming to satsify is a culturally dependent political decision, so politics always precedes economy (thus political-economy).

In order to present a complete, coherent political philosophy, one must have a philosophy of history and a philosophy of ergecology. In addition, there must be a philosophy of value (ethics), because decision making (valuation) is usually considered the central feature of politics. Cultural factors are involved in political decisions, as explained by the historical context. Even if culture itself is the immediate explanation of politics, that cannot be the final theory of politics. I make this remark because most recent reflections on politics closely connect it with culture. For example, there are the liberal and conservative cultures in the United States, and the religious cultures of the Middle East, which seem to determine political philosophy. But that seeming is only a description of the philosophy in play; i.e., the philosophical concepts underlying the various cultures are more universal than their particular applications.

I think the foregoing dimensions of political philosophy are a better starting point than other attempts at classification. Ordering different political views is important in considering the relations among them. In biology, the Linnaean system does not in itself imply evolutionary, genetic relations. The species chart produced from Linnaeus' system is suggestive and productive in discovering many other relations, including an improved Linnaean system.