Hacker News Reader

Comment by basfo | Hacker News Reader

I think you’re confusing “political,” which refers to a particular worldview, with what we might call party politics. History is always political because you can’t document every event that occurred during a given time; you’ll inevitably choose certain events over others. That very selection reflects a political stance, whether you realize it or not. Moreover, the subject itself is inherently political—for example, if you’re writing about music history, why focus on European composers rather than on whatever Chinese music existed at the time?

There isn't anything wrong in that, is just the way we work, we live in a particular culture, in a particular social system, in a particular time, and we are political beings.

An true history without politics would be like raw data of the state of every atom trough history, and even that may be political (why you choose to view the world as data?)

View on HN

You are talking about the potential of political bias.

Actual political history itself can have political biases.

An apolitical history can also have political biases.

The biases aren't what make political history political, but rather its explicit discussion of politics: political events and the people behind them: the when, where, what who.

I am certainly not confused among "study of politics" and "personal politics" and "political bias" and such.

Nope, i'm saying that humans are political beings, as aristoteles defined it, and any human action is by itself political.

History in itself tries (or should try) to be objective and avoid the bias you mention, but that doesn't make it less political by any mean.

> Nope, i'm saying that humans are political beings, as aristoteles defined it, and any human action is by itself political.

Aristotle said politics is the study of how communities can achieve “the good life” through governance and organization. He said we are political animals (zoon politikon) who naturally form communities, such as the polis (city-state), to achieve common goals and virtue.

The idea that any human action is political cannot be attributed to Aristotle. It is also a silly and amateur assertion — to breathe is not political, to think is not political, to eat is not political, etc.

Well, that depends on what you eat. Do you eat meat, or are you vegan?

Breathing is a physical action, so there isn’t much to debate there. However, even some physical actions—like using the bathroom—can have political or cultural dimensions. For instance, why do you use a toilet instead of a bidet, as is common in parts of Europe or South America? That choice is shaped by cultural and economic factors that influence your behavior.

> For instance, why do you use a toilet instead of a bidet,

Because my bathroom is too small to house a bidet.

Also, a bidet and toilet don’t serve the same purpose so your example is a false choice.

> Well, that depends on what you eat. Do you eat meat, or are you vegan?

The choice of what to eat can reflect or engage with political and social systems, but it isn’t a political act. It is a personal act. And “to eat” is also not a political act.

Japan solved the problem under the constraints of no room for a bidet. You can put a Japanese style shower toilet seat on almost any toilet. Mainly the size of the bowl (front-to-back dimension) has to be suitable so that the front loop of the seat sits aligned with the porcelain.

Thank you. I'm well aware of the innovation in bidet and toilet technologies to assist in more hygienic defecation routines and the different environmental impact such as less toilet paper, different energy considerations, plastics, water usage, etc.

is your bathroom too small because you don't make enough money for a larger bathroom? is it because of government regulations regarding habitations? why are you living in that location? what circumstances led you to make that decision? ie, even the size of your bathroom has its own politics in the sense that it contains a history of decision making and power dynamics.

I just farted; is that political?

Note that absolutely nobody is around.

It depends, would you still have farted if someone else were around?

Yes, but very, very quietly. So that would obviously be political.

humans are political beings, as aristoteles defined it, and any human action is by itself political

Do you have a direct quote for that? For me, this seems like more than a mere misunderstanding of Aristoteles' work. In Politics book 1, he already explicitly distinguishes between "oikonomike" (the household) and "politike" (the city state) as being two different spheres of engagement. So the claim that any human action is by itself political is just plain false, as actions can either be political or domestic. I struggle to think of any work where he classified mundane acts such as eating as belonging to either category, it seems out of character to me.

Secondly, in Ethics Aristotle stated that he considered politics as a means to an end, not a goal in and of itself: the goal of man is to lead a morally virtuous life, and the goal of the community is to enable and enhance the moral character of its citizens. Therefore, the virtuous man engages in politics to increase the virtue of his entire community, in order to breed more virtuous men. He was also quite clear that public education was required (Politics, book 8) to mold the young into successful statesmen. Both of these seems at odds with your assertion that "humans are political beings" by default.

>An apolitical history can also have political biases.

seems contradictory. If you lived on earth, there is no "apolitical lens" to look in. You can only try to grab a truly comprehensive view by finding and studying multiple lenses.

>The biases aren't what make political history political

If you lived in a country, or need a public press to post your findings, or are simply hidden in exposure based on some private company with their own biases, I'd say all those are connected to the political.

"Politics permeates everything" just seems to be like overeducated foolery.

What is the test you are using to detect politics, and what is the evidence that it universally detects politics in everything?

And if it detects politics in everything, how do you know the test works? Counterfactuality is lacking. There has to be some calibrating example of something in which the test finds no politics.

> I think you’re confusing “political,” which refers to a particular worldview,

“Political” refers to things related to the governance, policies, or affairs of a country, organization, or group. Usually involves the structure of power, decision-making, and public administration, and debates or actions concerning laws, rights, or societal issues.

Having a worldview is not a political act.

Having a worldview is a political act. In fact, even having a sense of right and wrong is political. My point is that humans are inherently political beings: we don’t live in a vacuum, and our values, life choices, and even our language arise from a particular social system. Everything we do is political.

Your perspective seems limited to the more common or everyday meaning of “political,” and I understand that; however, in social studies, “political” usually has a much broader scope.

> In fact, even having a sense of right and wrong is political.

You’re confusing politics with ethics. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that studies moral principles and values, focusing on what is right, wrong, good, or bad in human behavior.

Ethics focuses on morality, while politics addresses power and governance, though they often overlap in discussions of justice and societal well-being.

> Having a worldview is a political act.

Having a worldview is not inherently a political act, but it can become political when that worldview influences or interacts with societal structures, policies, or governance. A worldview shapes how you see justice, power, and societal organization, which may align with or challenge political systems or ideologies.

Just the fact that you dress up is a political act, you are accepting and reproducing that being naked is wrong, or at least you do it because you can't do it otherwise due to social punishment. Or you go naked, and that's also a political stance. If you live in a society, everything you do is political.

And that's ok, there isn't anything wrong with that.

>Having a worldview is not inherently a political act

yes it is, because that world view doesn't come up to your head in the vaccum, is result of all social interactions you had in your life and every thing you saw etc, and from that you are creating a political posture. You may not take any action and be completely silent about it the rest of your life (doubtful) but even not talking about it is a political act.

> Having a worldview is a political act.

Are you in the USA? This is just something they promulgate in the educational system, along with the idea that there is always room for another opinion that is just as valid, even after domain experts have reached consensus using rational evidence.

So you’re saying that… their worldview is a result of politics.

Yes, the the doctrine that no human thought or action is politics-free, is itself politically motivated, and the worldview which subscribes to it is political. It's a doctrine which suits the narratives of all sorts of political activists. Slogans like "if you're not with us you're against us" belong to this doctrine. Every thought you have is political, and so if you're thinking something that doesn't align with our politics, it must be different politics. Different politics is bad and against us.

The doctrine is just something someone made up. It is not justified by rational evidence of any kind.

Right, right. Meanwhile, your worldview is both rational and objective; not influenced by politics of any sort. Very convenient!

You are mixing up things: I criticized a worldview and a doctrine, but what is wrong with the doctrine isn't that it claims "every worldview is political", but that "all human thought and action is political".

If it were the former, it would be uncontroversial. I don't disagree with the claim that worldviews are political. The concept of a world view is a set of perspectives and opinions which encompass the human sphere of existence, which has a big political content. (The ideas contained in a worldview are not all political; a worldview needs facts, too, like salt being sodium and chloride, which isn't something voted on in a parliament.)

So, yes, while my worldview necessarily encompasses political topics, I also have thoughts that are rational and unrelated to politics. Or possibly even to a worldview.

Not OP but I think you’re confusing “politics” with “bias”.

History is biased, I don’t think anyone would debate that, but bias isn’t necessarily political. There’s lots of reasons for people to think some item or story is worth preserving, and most of them aren’t about politics.

The “everything is political” concept has been a very successful propaganda campaign, particularly in the US.

>The “everything is political” concept has been a very successful propaganda campaign, particularly in the US.

Everyone thinking politics is only about 2 parties and some controversial thinkg to even utter is the successful propaganda.

>the academic study of government and the state.

That's all it is. unless you are truly independent and in the wild, it's hard to say anyone isn't influenced by politics. Hence, biases. Bias in this lens is a byproduct of your environment, managed by politics.

Bias is often just a product of human cognition: i.e. one of the cognitive biases. Your environment is political, so your cognitive biases are tinged with politics.

It's also just as simple as experiences. even if we could remove all bias, we don't know what we don't know. aspects like language barriers don't help either in terms of properly sharing such histories either.

That's just stretching the meaning of the word "political" so broad that it ceases to have meaning at all. For an act to be political, it needs to engage with the environment with an intention to change or entrench it. If you include in your definition actions that are the result of a certain political climate, you have simply nullified the word.

> Everyone thinking politics is only about 2 parties and some controversial thinkg to even utter is the successful propaganda.

You keep making a point that no one is bringing up. Not only I don’t believe that, as a non-US citizen living in Europe I don’t even care about your two parties.

But there’s quite a stretch between “humans are biased” and “what you think about how society should work influences absolutely everything you do”.

As a silly example, I have quite a collection of music. I keep physical copies of the ones I think are more important to me. If a future archeologist were to find them, they’d get a biased picture of what people listen.

But my taste in music has nothing to do with my beliefs about politics. There’s artists there with every type of conviction, from different eras, from different countries,..

“Everything is political” is a great slogan for activists to get people to do what you want them to do, but like all slogans it’s not actually true.

If someone documents a natural disaster like a Volcano engulfing an entire city, that's not political in any way, that's just recording facts that any historian regardless of their political views would record.

There have been N volcano eruptions over the history of mankind, why you are taking focus on one and not the other is the political part.

The choice of which cities they document and what they cite is definitely political. For example, what city do you think of with that description? It's probably Pompeii and not Herculaneum, let alone Cuicuilco, Vestmannaeyjar, or NA 860.

So, what was the political motivation of Pliny the Elder to document the Vesuvian eruption that destroyed Pompeii, as opposed to e.g. the numerous eruptions of Krakatoa?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com