Is it possible for a political theory to be logically coherent in a PURELY-SUBJECTIVE axiology?
Logically! The question is, [where does pure-subjectivity leave us] if there is no objective absolute standard and our beliefs are different regarding the same subject matter?
That is why we have conversations.
Ideally we can persuade each other with logic.
When logic fails, we use enticements (which creates [de facto] mercenaries).
When enticement fails, we use fear-mongering (which creates [de facto] cowards).
When fear-mongering fails, we use credible threats of violence (which creates [de facto] slaves).
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
I don't know. Never will know.
Political theories remain theoretical if they are not embedded in a living philosophical and experiential context. Every form of government has its weaknesses and strengths and there is never the ideal. They are all events in a space-time that can only ever strive for one ideal, but will make the mistakes that arise on the path to achieving that ideal. Since you can never please everyone equally, it is best to admit that you will never please everyone. Since there are always feedback loops from past events which flow into present events, things remain highly unpredictable or uncertain.
Have you tried it with illogicality? Or with confidence in the invisible competence of a person?
My experience with people is that I cannot convince them if they do not want to be convinced. It is like hypnosis. If someone is not open to it, he will not be hypnotized, because it is a voluntary act of devotion. In my work I have had clients asking me for advice on a matter where I advised against their intention. In these cases I noticed that the person still did not want to let go of the intention, although I assumed that it would do them more harm than good. I abandoned all the arguments and I agreed inwardly that they could do what they wanted to do; leaning on this rest of for me momentarily invisible confidence. The clients - dissatisfied with me - went their own ways. Interestingly, some of them came back and told me that they appreciated my advice very much. In fact, I can never say with one hundred percent certainty whether an intended action harms or benefits anyone, only presume.
Paradoxical interventions are also very helpful. If someone tends to argue a lot with his partner and suffers from it, you can give him the homework to argue every night at point seven. To help you remember, stick a piece of paper on the shelf. Whenever you pass this piece of paper, it reminds you of the quarrel date. In this humorous way, the person can become clear and the paradox helps to find other solutions that are less based on arguments, more on the intention to build inner self-confidence. It is the lack of resistance that takes the oxygen out of arguments, as well as arguments that are basically not about a thing, but about a relationship.
If you look behind the nature of arguments it's more often about a hidden relationship agenda than about the matter itself.
That sounds amazing.
Thanks for your insightful reply.
you're welcome :)
Exactly. I totally agree.