Rick Santorum

Re: Rick Santorum. I’ve mentioned that I’m working on a book about reductionism, a philosophical construction that reduces ideas to the sum of their parts-hence the name, which, I’m sure, seems like a very distant idea to most people, and perhaps not relevant to their daily concerns, making such an exploration absurd on its face. Let me use Rick Santorum’s recent comments as an illustrator towards the relevancy critique: a focus of his candidacy has been, if I can be allowed to summarize this campaign (being aware of the generalizations inherent in the method), his “social” concerns and the effect that ideas that differ from his damage the country. This, of course, is very polarizing. I think people know, almost instinctively, whether they agree or disagree with him. It is this instinct I find fascinating. In Romney and Santorum, I find the expression of the two basic theses, viewpoints, on the world: the objective in Romney and the subjective in Santorum. Romney is very Hegelian in his way: he looks at the broad populace, ties the trends of society to the spirit of the individual and adjusts his political viewpoint to that perception. Romney seems to believe, as Hegel did, that society will reflect the values of the individuals in the society; an objective expression of the subjective world. Romney finds fault in the expression, in that the objective world damages the individual. Santorum finds fault in the subjective world, that society is flawed because people don’t believe the “right” things so the society is damaged by the thoughts of individuals. While I’m sure these are carefully constructed platforms designed to be antithetical, they are, in fact, expressions of viewpoints on the world, expressions of perception, and are, in fact, complementary. The antithesis to perception is reality. The too fervid embrace of either the subjective or objective viewpoints prevents the synthesis of the two, which is the point. By denying this synthesis, whether willfully or ignorantly, they both stand as equally irrelevant to reality in being unable to access and reconcile these disparities. Romney appears artificial, a construction made entirely from his circumstances, and lacks spirit, while Santorum appears irrational, a construction made from his psyche, and lacks substance. Obama, whether willfully or ignorantly, is a synthetic thinker and sees himself, and the people around him, as both spirit and substance, simultaneously, which doesn’t satisfy zealots of either stripe. This also makes him the most philosophically consistent both with himself and reality because, wait for it, both he and reality are syntheses of spirit and substance. The most interesting part of this idea is how the mind integrates information and sensation to support the ongoing concept of the spirit of the individual, creating unique life experiences from shared events. We all see the world in our unique ways and those ways largely shape what we see: Romney sees it as logical, objective, Santorum sees it as spiritual, subjective and Obama sees it as philosophical, both, but to neither extreme. (FYI: I see it as poetry, metaphorical, and interconnected. ) As always, elections prove Hegel to be correct, elections carry the spirit of the individuals in the society, and, as always, elections are a referendum on the individual’s relationship with the objective world, as Feuerbach said. This election, to me, will tell whether our society has accepted the reduction of individuals, to spirit OR substance, or whether the synthesis of the two is the proper course for the state. The dynamic between the subjective and the objective, that synthesis, reveals our passion for the full embrace of reality, for the full embrace of our lives, and the acceptance of reduction leads to apathy and despair. But that’s how I see it, I guess, that’s just my instinct. All the Best, TVA

Ps. Please note, at no time did I use the term religion when speaking about spirituality. I realize the general characterizations of the campaigns are broad but the thrust of each of them is evident.

Pps. Welcome back Erin, I missed you.