"System, ideology, and apparat have deprived us—rulers as well as the ruled—of our conscience, of our common sense and natural speech, and thereby, of our actual humanity. States grow ever more machine-like; people are transformed into statistical choruses of voters, producers, consumers, patients, tourists, or soldiers. In politics, good and evil, categories of the natural world and therefore obsolete remnants of the past, lose all absolute meaning; the sole method of politics is quantifiable success."
This quote is from Václav Havel's essay "Politics and Conscience." I think you will like it.
Being moral-conscious in an environment that relegates responsibility and meaning to the private and secondary can be frustrating, but preserving our inner laws can be all that matters.
Nice! Thanks for sharing. I will check out Vaclav’s essay! I read something echoing similar the other day - something to the effect of, we humans want to be in control of nature but we fail to realize that, gradually, we have lost control/ autonomy of ourselves through that process.
Delighted to find another reader of Kishore Mahbunani. I align with his realistic look on politics. To quote Mahbunani, "Geopolitics is a cruel business."
Idealism is nice but it won't save you from being bombed. Realpolitik does. It is definitely not convenient for our ideals, but it is what it is.
Need to get my hands on his latest book. I have read all his books 😆
Wonderful to hear! I have yet to read all of his books. Which books of his were you most profoundly impacted and would recommend? Indeed, the balance of shrewd practical idealism is important and an art in itself. The tug of war now continues to dominate across issues like climate change, AI tech, and we need smart thought leadership from Asia, especially ASEAN!
I enjoyed "Has the West lost it?" because it sort of validated a lot of my quiet thoughts about geopolitics regarding the West. It felt good not to feel a little crazy 🤣.
Interesting to learn about Mahbubani. I'll check him out, thanks!
I am also an idealist, and I would speak up, because truth is the only true thing. Sadly our world does not always reward the truth and the right, but we can hope our endeavors do make a small difference in steering the sail of life. With every generation we are becoming better humans, albeit slowly.
“Great powers will always put their interests ahead of principle in dealing with small states”
This is true but not only of great powers — all states put their interests ahead of principle in dealing with other states. The great power qualification is an unnecessary one.
Though not with the same degree, if all states do indeed put their interests ahead of principles. The breadth of influence from great powers is significant, unlike smaller states generally with more localized rather than outsized impact. So balancing of self interests vs principles by the Great powers needs to be exercised with great care.
What about smaller states that have outsized impacts on their local regions — Singapore, for example? When Singapore maneuvered to monopolize Taylor Swift’s ASEAN-region performances was that not a clear example of a non-great power putting its interests ahead of its principles as an ASEAN member? Just because that episode had an impact only on the ASEAN region, does it not still matter and could it not be indicative of a state’s willingness to engage in such behavior in other arenas? Self-interest is not a pathology reserved only for great powers, and outsized power does not belong only to great powers, either.
I appreciate this exchange! It helps to refine some thoughts. So I re-read the quote in Kishore’s book. He was relating to his experience in Cambodia and also Singapore back then (when it’s still a developing state) when he referenced ‘small states’.
Perhaps it helps here if we define Great Powers as Great Economic Powers (I.e. developed countries like where Singapore is today) and small states as those with weaker economic powers.
And if we take your good example of the Taylor Swift episode, then it make sense that ‘smaller states’ (in terms of economic powers) like Malaysia or Cambodia today won’t be able to accomplish such feat as per Singapore (as a Great Power) did today.
"System, ideology, and apparat have deprived us—rulers as well as the ruled—of our conscience, of our common sense and natural speech, and thereby, of our actual humanity. States grow ever more machine-like; people are transformed into statistical choruses of voters, producers, consumers, patients, tourists, or soldiers. In politics, good and evil, categories of the natural world and therefore obsolete remnants of the past, lose all absolute meaning; the sole method of politics is quantifiable success."
This quote is from Václav Havel's essay "Politics and Conscience." I think you will like it.
Being moral-conscious in an environment that relegates responsibility and meaning to the private and secondary can be frustrating, but preserving our inner laws can be all that matters.
Nice! Thanks for sharing. I will check out Vaclav’s essay! I read something echoing similar the other day - something to the effect of, we humans want to be in control of nature but we fail to realize that, gradually, we have lost control/ autonomy of ourselves through that process.
Very much like trying to control robots or material possessions and ending up being controlled and getting lost.
Delighted to find another reader of Kishore Mahbunani. I align with his realistic look on politics. To quote Mahbunani, "Geopolitics is a cruel business."
Idealism is nice but it won't save you from being bombed. Realpolitik does. It is definitely not convenient for our ideals, but it is what it is.
Need to get my hands on his latest book. I have read all his books 😆
Wonderful to hear! I have yet to read all of his books. Which books of his were you most profoundly impacted and would recommend? Indeed, the balance of shrewd practical idealism is important and an art in itself. The tug of war now continues to dominate across issues like climate change, AI tech, and we need smart thought leadership from Asia, especially ASEAN!
I enjoyed "Has the West lost it?" because it sort of validated a lot of my quiet thoughts about geopolitics regarding the West. It felt good not to feel a little crazy 🤣.
Interesting to learn about Mahbubani. I'll check him out, thanks!
I am also an idealist, and I would speak up, because truth is the only true thing. Sadly our world does not always reward the truth and the right, but we can hope our endeavors do make a small difference in steering the sail of life. With every generation we are becoming better humans, albeit slowly.
Sorry to hear about your episode.
Thanks, Rachel! The art of speaking up lies in the approach. It’s a skill that can be honed and from experience. :)
“Great powers will always put their interests ahead of principle in dealing with small states”
This is true but not only of great powers — all states put their interests ahead of principle in dealing with other states. The great power qualification is an unnecessary one.
Though not with the same degree, if all states do indeed put their interests ahead of principles. The breadth of influence from great powers is significant, unlike smaller states generally with more localized rather than outsized impact. So balancing of self interests vs principles by the Great powers needs to be exercised with great care.
What about smaller states that have outsized impacts on their local regions — Singapore, for example? When Singapore maneuvered to monopolize Taylor Swift’s ASEAN-region performances was that not a clear example of a non-great power putting its interests ahead of its principles as an ASEAN member? Just because that episode had an impact only on the ASEAN region, does it not still matter and could it not be indicative of a state’s willingness to engage in such behavior in other arenas? Self-interest is not a pathology reserved only for great powers, and outsized power does not belong only to great powers, either.
I appreciate this exchange! It helps to refine some thoughts. So I re-read the quote in Kishore’s book. He was relating to his experience in Cambodia and also Singapore back then (when it’s still a developing state) when he referenced ‘small states’.
Perhaps it helps here if we define Great Powers as Great Economic Powers (I.e. developed countries like where Singapore is today) and small states as those with weaker economic powers.
And if we take your good example of the Taylor Swift episode, then it make sense that ‘smaller states’ (in terms of economic powers) like Malaysia or Cambodia today won’t be able to accomplish such feat as per Singapore (as a Great Power) did today.