雪軒齋隨想

用字大概是這樣吧。我認為大學生四年的學習中非常重要的就是能夠訂定目標，並且要求自己易最有效率的方法去執行。高中的時候有著明顯的目標，就是在升大學考試中爭取分數，而且學校常常也都幫學生準備了完整的複習計畫，只要有點進取心的學生都會認真地準備，與self-discipline其實關係不大。
事實上我在高三的時候並不積極參加學校的複習計畫，主要是因為當時我對於班上的讀書態度非常不認同，我選擇去參加資訊能力競賽來認同自己的理念，這個選擇讓我高三的生活比高二豐富了很多，但是在升學考試與競賽間的掙扎也讓我感到很大的壓力，最後的結果也不是我想要的，我以一分之差沒有考上台大物理系而進了我一直抗拒的資工系。
不過高三這一年讓我學到了一件很重要的事─當你放棄一切專心做一件事的時候，你會擁有眾神的力量。再畢業典禮之後的一個月，我每天早上起床就看書，看累了就睡覺，睡飽了繼續看，一直這樣循環，幾乎放棄了所有活動，就這一個月的時間，我的成績從模擬考時班上的倒數變成了指考時排名算頗前面的412分。
從此我擁有了一些自信─只要我目標明確，沒有什麼事我做不成的。問題是，上了大學之後，我的目標一直飄忽不定，常常定了一個目標之後又開始懷疑是否值得未此事放棄一些我喜歡的事。結果一年半下來，做事情常常以失敗告終，而且功虧一簣的例子還不少。
我漸漸了解到，長期的目標可以思考，但是短期的目標一定要認真執行。比如說每天早上五點半起床，不可以因為突然覺得心情不好想玩電動就玩很晚，造成早上爬不起來。小目標一定要認真執行至少一個月，再來評估是否要繼續執行，如果不去試試看，永遠不會知道這個目標的價值。
這時self-discipline就很重要，因為你對於這個目標沒有什麼動力，就不會付出生命來執行它。Self-discipline是一個信念，取代本來應該是更堅強、理想化的信念，幫助你達成小目標。Self-discipline讓你相信，達成這個目標是一個自我的實踐，是一個長久目標的地基。

之前寫到一半，現在不想繼續寫了，就這樣吧

Posted by CeShine at 7:42 AM | Permalink | Comments

Bolivia, named after independence fighter Simon BOLIVAR, broke away from Spanish rule in 1825; much of its subsequent history has consisted of a series of nearly 200 coups and counter-coups. Comparatively democratic civilian rule was established in 1982, but leaders have faced difficult problems of deep-seated poverty, social unrest, and illegal drug production. In December 2005, Bolivians elected Movement Toward Socialism leader Evo MORALES president - by the widest margin of any leader since the restoration of civilian rule in 1982 - after he ran on a promise to change the country's traditional political class and empower the nation's poor majority.

Population: 8,857,870 (July 2005 est.)

Posted by CeShine at 5:31 PM | Permalink | Comments

Posted by CeShine at 6:29 PM | Permalink | Comments

In mathematics, Stirling's approximation (or Stirling's formula) is an approximation for large factorials. It is named in honour of James Stirling.

More formally, Stirling's approximation is

which is often written as

Posted by CeShine at 2:11 PM | Permalink | Comments

許財利是典型的地方土豪，靠著樁腳做事，凡事 都以人情為據，會有這樣的事，一點也不令人意外。自從許財利四年前勝選開始，基隆各公家機關的主管都換了一批，全都是沒有正義觀念，只知道做人情的腐敗官 僚。以我以前讀的銘傳國中為例，去年(2005)人情班(黑箱作業排比較好的師資)已經多到沒有辦法排了，只好全部打散，什麼人情也不給；這全都是銘傳國 中新任校長幹的，他做的壞事還不只如此，數不升數。

這次基隆市竟然又選出了許財利，我真的很失望；之後他又傳出秋後算帳的新聞，真的，我已身為基隆人為恥，竟然選出了這樣的敗類(這個人連話都不會說，金馬獎典禮上他竟然說：「歡迎大家參加基隆"中元祭"」....這已經過了多久了啊....)。

" 民主在美國"這本書雖然主要是宣揚民主政治的，但是對民主政治的缺點列舉也毫不保留，其中有一個是：「民主國家的選民不會選比他們聰明的人當領袖，因為他 們會忌妒；反之他們選出來的是和自己相近的人，這樣他們才有認同感。這樣之下的政府雖然政令不會是最好的，但是人民會認同，因為他們認同自己選出來的人」

基 隆人還有很多有以前的流氓性格，你在基隆街上(不是在廟口，那裡都是外地人)走一走看那些閑閑沒事幹的中年阿伯就知道了；除了這個原因，再加上許財利在地 方經營多年，常在地方走動的人許多早就預測許財利會贏了，只是我不願意接受而已....並不像新聞報導說的那樣...基隆人並沒有很關心那些新聞，弊案我 也是選後才知道的...

---

以下為新聞報導

基隆市長許財利因為購地弊案250萬元交保，引發政壇震撼。其實地方上早就流傳，許財利弊案纏身，最後能夠連任成功，靠的就是馬英九的光環，也因此儘管他選後秋後算帳，不過對於馬英九，他感謝的方法，就是在辦公室掛了一幅馬英九的巨幅照片。

去年12月2日投票前一天，眼看丈夫許財利被林正明的購地弊案指控打得招架無力，選情告急，市長夫人簡甄畇在去年年底選前和夫婿許財利2人抱頭痛哭，以哀兵姿態拉抬選情。

許財利的「幕後黑手現身說」，仍無法有效讓許財利在緊繃的選情中殺出重圍，倒是國民黨主席馬英九以2人為馬利兄弟背書力挺，讓一路選來辛苦的許財利衝出困局，風光連任。只是勝選後一改選前的低姿態，12月7日選後首次的市政會議，就有人質疑他玩起秋後算帳的戲碼。

選前操守問題引發爭議，選後秋後算帳，更讓馬英九一個頭兩個大。基隆地方人士盛傳，許財利的購地弊案，讓他選得辛苦，能夠殺出重圍靠的全是馬英九的光環，對照許財利勝選後辦公室的唯一改變，就是多了一張馬英九的巨幅照片，或許可以為這項地方謠傳，增添幾分可靠性。

Posted by CeShine at 3:17 PM | Permalink | Comments

1. Monteverdi Orfeo: Possente spirto
Orfeo's plea to Charon at "the road to Hades"

2. Lully Alceste: Admete, vous pleurez, Alceste vous mourez
Alceste treats the subject of Alcestis, wife of Admetus, King of Thessaly, who is allowed to replace her husband, when he is about to die, but is brought back from the Underworld by Hercules. Lully's elaborate version, based on the legend, his second tragedy, has Hercules as a disappointed lover of Alcestis, eventually, after her rescue, allowing her to stay with her husband. In the first act Alcestis is abducted by another lover, Lycomedes, King of Scyros, helped by his sister, the sea-nymph Thetis, Aeolus, god of the winds and other supernatural forces. In a battle to rescue Alcestis, Hercules is victorious against Lycomedes, but Admetus is mortally wounded. Apollo now offers Admetus his life, if someone will take his place in death. Alcestis is willing to take her husband’s place and is duly rescued by Hercules. The final act celebrates her triumphant return and the noble gallantry of Hercules in giving up any claim to her. The tragedy is introduced by a prologue in which nymphs long for the victorious return of Louis XIV from battle.

3.Purcell Dido and Aeneas: When I'm laid in earth
The story for Dido and Aeneas was adapted from part of the Aeneid by Virgil. Dido, Queen of Carthage, falls in love with Aeneas, who has landed in Carthage after fleeing from Troy after defeat in the Trojan War. However, some witches living near Carthage, who hate Dido, remind him that he is fated to go and be the founder of the Roman Empire. Aeneas leaves Dido, who is heartbroken and kills herself.
Ground Bass Arias
The two most famous arias from Dido and Aeneas, 'Ah! Belinda' and 'When I am laid in earth' (Dido's Lament), both have ground basses; a bass line which repeats itself over and over, while the other parts change over the top. Pachabel's Canon is another example of a piece of music with a ground bass2. The bass line doesn't change; so it is easy for pieces of music that use ground basses to get repetitive, because the composer has to use the same bass notes the whole time. Purcell keeps the interest going by having the phrases in the vocal line overlap the repeats of the ground bass, and harmonizing the ground bass with different chords from repetition to repetition.


4. Handel Giulio Cesare: da tempeste (Cleopatra)
Cleopatra metaphorically saw the storm as swelling emotions, unstabilizing her heart’s love of Cesare.

5.Handel Xerxes: Ombra mai fu (King Xerxes)
Xerxes is a love story, surrounding the title character who is an ancestor of the Persian King Darius III. (Darius III was, in fact, conquered by Alexander the Great in 331 B.C. This makes the story historically inaccurate specifically because there is hardly any mention of this event.) The story is summarized as follows:
Xerxes banishes his brother Arsamenes from the Kingdom because they are both in love with the same woman, Romilda. Romilda is enamored with Arsamenes, as is her sister, Atalanta. Atalanta wants and tries to convince Romilda to marry Xerxes so that she can marry Arsamenes. This is much to the dismay of Amastris, betrothed of Xerxes, who disguises herself in the army to try and regain favor with him.
"Ombra mai fu", also often referred to as "Largo" from Xerxes, is found immediately after the overture. Xerxes sings light-heartedly to a favorite tree, which has no real relation to any of the remaining plot and story line. Despite its lack of relativity and the fact that the opera itself was not well received, it is one of Handel's most famous compositions.

6.Gluck Orfeo ed Euridice: Che faro senza Euridice (Orfeo)
On the way out of Hades, Euridice is delighted to be returning to earth, but Orfeo, remembering the condition related by Amore in Act I, lets go of her hand and refuses to look at her. Euridice takes this to be a sign that he no longer loves her, and refuses to continue, concluding that death would be preferable. Unable to take any more, Orfeo turns and looks and Euridice; she dies. Orfeo sings of his grief in the famous aria Che faro senza Euridice?

7.Gluck Paride ed Elena: O del mio dolce ardor (Paris)
Paride ed Elena tells the story of history's most consequential seduction: Paris carrying Helen off to Troy. Based on Ovid's intensely erotic retelling of the story, it may be the sexiest opera before Tristan. The score is known today mainly for the haunting aria "O del mio dolce ardor;" which has remained a favorite concert item; the rest of the opera maintains the same sensuous beauty.

8.Gluck Armide: Enfin, il est en ma puissance
The section on which Armide is based tells the story of Armide, a sorceress who falls in love with the Crusader Renaud, her sworn enemy. According to Lully's contemporary Le Cerf de la Viéville, Armide was known as "the ladies' opera," probably because of its emphasis on Armide's internal confli

9.Vivaldi Dorilla in Tempe: Dell'aura al sussurar
Opera version of "Spring" in the "four seasons"

已經google到瘋掉了...Mozart的部份改天補上

Posted by CeShine at 10:37 PM | Permalink | Comments

Gluck's opera reforms - they are not exclusively his own, for several other composers (notably Jommelli and Traetta, both like Gluck French-influenced) had been working along similar lines - are outlined in the preface he wrote, probably with Calzabigi's help, to the published score of Alceste. He aimed to make the music serve the poetry through its expression of the situations of the story, without interrupting it for conventional orchestral ritornellos or, particularly, florid and ornamental singing; to make the overture relevant to the drama and the orchestration apt to the words; to break down the sharp contrast between recitative and aria: 'in short . . . to abolish all the abuses against which good sense and reason have long cried out in vain'. Orfeo exemplifies most of these principles, with its abandonment of simple recitative in favour of a more continuous texture (with orchestral recitative, arioso and aria running into one another) and its broad musical-dramatic spans in which different types of solo singing, dance and choral music are fully integrated. It also has a simple, direct plot, based on straightforward human emotions, which could appeal to an audience as the complicated stories used in contemporary opera seria, with their intrigues, disguises and subplots, could not. He had a limited compositional technique, but one that was sufficient for the aims he set himself. His music can have driving energy, but also a serenity reaching to the sublime. His historical importance rests on his establishment of a new equilibrium between music and drama, and his greatness on the power and clarity with which he projected that vision; he dissolved the drama in music instead of merely illustrating it.

Posted by CeShine at 10:21 PM | Permalink | Comments

General Information

Protestantism is a movement in Western Christianity whose adherents reject the notion that divine authority is channeled through one particular human institution or person such as the Roman Catholic pope. Protestants look elsewhere for the authority of their faith. Most of them stress the Bible - the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament - as the source and the norm of their teaching. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians also stress the authority of the Bible, but they also look to tradition, and, in the case of Catholics, to the pope as a source of authority.

Cultural Impact

The rejection of the Catholic tradition and in some instances a tendency toward iconoclasm militated against the development of a specifically Protestant style in the visual arts, although many great artists have been Protestants. In general the Protestant contribution has been a simplicity, even austerity, of design and decoration. This is particularly true of the Calvinist tradition.

In music and literature the Protestant contribution has been enormous. The vernacular versions of the Bible, such as Luther's and the King James Version, played a formative role in the development of modern German and English literature. Emphasis on preaching and lack of strong centers of doctrinal authority contributed to a diversity of opinion and expression, as reflected, for example, in the work of John Milton. A strong musical tradition developed out of the encouragement of hymn singing and the use of the organ and other instruments, reaching its pinnacle in the work of Johann Sebastian Bach.

Posted by CeShine at 6:37 PM | Permalink | Comments

The term Holocene means "completely recent" This refers to the present geological era. In fact it is hardly even worth defining in geological terms as an epoch, because it is so brief.. The boundary between the Pleistocene and the recent is set at around 8,000 years BCE (10,000 years ago), which represented a marked climatic warming phase and the beginning of the present interstadial (warm period between glaciations). The change is well established in a number of sediments, especially in Scandinavia, and corresponds to the boundary between the European Pollen Zones III/IV, the Younger Dryas/Preborial, and also the Late Glacial/Postglacial.

All other ages, epochs, and eras are represented by natural evolutionary and geological phenomena. The Holocene in contrast is distinguished by being the Age in which human activities have had a marked, and for the most part extremely detrimental, effect on the rest of the biosphere. Yet at the same time this age has witnessed the rise of civilization and the exponential development of the Noosphere. The ten thousand years of its extent are too short to see much in the way of the evolution of species and ecosystems, but they have seen the marked extinction of countless organisms. Natural processes of erosion and sedimentation have been replaced by human activities and geographical impacts; the rise of towns, fields, roads, etc. And there has been an exponential growth in human population and knowledge. If the former continues unabated there will be a terrible ecological collapse (which is already underway and will only accelerate). If the latter continues unabated the result will be the phenomenon known as the Singularity. Both are predicted some time in the 21st century. The beginning of the Singularity could be taken as the starting point for a totally new phase of Gaian evolution, the Technozoic (age of artificial life) or Nooarchic (reign of mind).

The Holocene is too brief to be divided into stratigraphic subdivisions. So I have, with some trepidation, divided it into a number of eras of general human history and development. There is always a danger here of adopting a chauvinistically eurocentric perspective, e.g. the standard sequence of classical-medieval-modern. But conversely it has been Western Civilization that for the last 2,500 years has had an impact out of all proportion upon the rest of the world. Within the last half millennium the European discovery of that astonishing phenomenon known as scientific method has enabled the West to first conquering through technological prowess, then assimilate through cultural imperialism, all other cultures. This has continued to the extent that now there are at present only tow remaining civilizations on this Earth, the Western and the Islamic (and I don't give the latter much hope of surviving long into the 21st century). Having reached its logical culmination, this process is not likely to continue much longer. Come the Singularity it is likely some other form of consciousness or society will take over the rulership of the Earth.

Source: http://www.palaeos.com/Cenozoic/Holocene/Holocene.htm

Posted by CeShine at 6:33 PM | Permalink | Comments

When I say "rule by the people," I really mean rule by the people; the Greek democracies were not representative governments, they were governments run by the free, male citizens of the city-state. All major government decisions and legislation were made by the Assembly; the closest we've come to such a system is "initiative and referendum," in which legislation is popularly petitioned and then voted on directly by the electorate. The Greek democratic states ran their entire government on such a system.

All the members of a city-state were not involved in the government: slaves, foreigners, and women were all disbarred from the democracy. So, in reality, the democratic city-states more closely resembled oligarchies for a minority ruled the state—it was a very large minority, to be sure, but still a minority.

While we say in our history books that the democracies of the Greek city-states were great accomplishments, they, nevertheless, had numerous problems. All the major Greek philosophers thought democracy was the worst form of government. Plato, in his critique of democracy in The Republic , claims that it allows people to follow all their passions and drives without order or control; Aristotle claimed that the competing interests in a democracy makes for chaos rather than purposive and deliberated action. Democracy did not seem to work very democratically at all, in fact. In Athens, the democratic Assembly was usually dominated by a single powerful, charismatic individual; this individual often dominated the Assembly because of his presence or oratorical skill rather than his individual worth. As a result, the democratic governments could make some surprisingly foolish decisions, such as the Athenian decision to attack Sicily without any cause or provocation. This ill-considered war destroyed much of the Athenian fleet and eventually led to the defeat of Athens by Sparta. The position of these charismatic leaders, however, was always very precarious. The democratic Assemblies could change character overnight; they would often eagerly follow a particular leader, and then exile that leader often for no reason (this is Aristotle's central objection to a democracy).

It's vitally important to understand that the major philosophers of Greece, and some important historians, such as Thucydides, disapproved of democracy. For the next major democracy was American democracy, and the founders of that democracy were avid readers of Plato, Aristotle, and the Greek historians, and essentially agreed with them about the nature of democracy. Both Plato and Aristotle believed that the best form of government is "rule by the best," or aristocracy. This word did not mean for them "rule by the ruling class," as it did in early modern and modern Europe; they really believed that only the smartest, most temperate, most mature, most reflective, most educated, and the bravest should be in charge of government—that is, only the best (the Greek word for "best" is aristos ). American government is a fusion of democracy and aristocracy (in Plato's and Aristotle's sense of the word); as a representative democracy, the principle of government is that the people elect (democracy) the individuals that they feel are the best and most qualified to represent them in government (aristocracy). Look closely at American electoral politics and you will see that all politicians shift between these two poles in their political rhetoric. Sometimes being too "democratic" can be either a positive or negative characteristic; sometimes being to "aristocratic" will be presented as a positive or negative characteristic.

Posted by CeShine at 6:18 PM | Permalink | Comments

Like many terms used to describe government structures, aristocracy is impossible to define. Founded on the Greek word, aristos , which means "best," at its heart aristocracy means "rule by the best." Its theoretical foundation begins with the political works of Plato and Aristotle, the two central figures in Greek and European philosophy. Both felt that Greek democrac> had been a disaster; their fundamental problem with democracy was that it put government in the hands of people who were the least capable of making sound decisions. For Plato, the general run of humanity was driven by its selfish passions and desires; this was a poor foundation for deliberate, considered, and selfless decision-making. While Plato and Aristotle were familiar with an infinite variety of possible governments, they believed that government should be in the hands of the most capable members of society. Above all, people in government should be moral and selfless; they should be highly intelligent and educated, as well as brave and temperate. This was "rule by the best."


This is not, however, what we think of when we use the term aristocracy. In early modern Europe and modern Europe, the aristocracy consisted of the nobility or ruling classes of society. Membership in the aristocracy was not through achievement, intelligence, or moral growth, but solely hereditary (sometimes it was given out). How did the Greek idea of "rule by the best" turn into something more closely resembling a hereditary oligarchy or just simply an upper class?


The answer can be found in part in theories of the monarchy in the Middle Ages. In order to legitimate ta hereditary monarchy, the medieval Europeans theorized that the virtues which made a monarch suitable for the job were hereditary . This led to a segregation of virtues: the monarch and his noble bureaucrats were by nature and heredity more moral and civilized than the rest of the population. They were, then, the "best" morally and intellectually. In this way, the notion of "aristocracy," as "rule of the best," eventually translated into a concept of a hereditary aristocracy. So ingrained is this notion in the European world view, that we still assume a hereditary superiority in the upper classes.


The founders of American democracy turned back to the original, philosophical definition of aristocracy when they built American government. Very conscious of Plato's and Aristotle's criticisms of democracy, the founders of American government wanted to avoid putting the government into the hands of the worst members of society. They also, however, wanted to avoid the dangers of a hereditary aristocracy, for European history proven amply that the hereditary aristocracy is many things but it rarely consists of the "best" members of society either in moral or intellectual terms (look at the royal family in England, for instance). So the framers of American government created representative democracy, in which the people collectively decide who the "best" people are to run the government. In this way, a democracy (a limited democracy) is allowed to co-exist seamlessly with a government that is primarily ruled by the most qualified people morally and intellecturally (well, sometimes).

Posted by CeShine at 6:15 PM | Permalink | Comments

Elitism is a belief or attitude that an elite — a selected group of persons whose personal abilities, specialized training or other attributes place them at the top of any field (see below) — are the people whose views on a matter are to be taken most seriously, or who are alone fit to govern. Thus elitism sees an elite as occupying a special position of authority or privilege in a group, set apart from the majority of people who do not match up with their abilities or attributes. Thus this selected elite is treated with favouritism. Members of an inherited elite are aristocrats and naturally tend towards preserving the status quo..

For the converse of "elitism" see "anti-elitism" and "populism".

Attributes that identify an elite vary; personal achievement may not be essential. Attributes of elites include:

* High level of political influence
* Membership in powerful cliques and desirable clubs
* High level of academic qualifications
* High level of experience in a given field (achieved status)
* High intelligence
* High natural abilities such as athletic abilities
* High creativity
* Good taste, since "taste" is defined by the elite
* Claimed innate qualities, abilities, or other ascribed status.

Commonly, large amount of personal wealth, often assessed as the reward of elite qualities by those who are impressed by it, are insufficient on their own, as every nouveau riche can attest.

The term elitism is also used to refer to situations where a group of people who claim to possess high abilities or simple an in-group or cadre conspire to give themselves extra privileges at the expense of all other people. This form of elitism may be described as discrimination.

Less commonly, elitism may also refer to situations where an elite is given both special privileges and special responsibilities, in the hope that this arrangement will benefit all people.

At times elitism is closely related to social class and stratification. People within a higher social class are usually known as the "social elite".

Elite

Élite is taken from the latin, eligere, "to elect". In sociology as in general usage, the élite (the "elect," from French) is a relatively small dominant group within a larger society, which enjoys a privileged status which is upheld by individuals of lower social status within the structure of a group. When applied to an individual, as in the phrase "many élites come to this restaurant," the usage quite economically both refers to an individual within that class and establishes the speaker as non-élite.

An Élite are the result of economic and political forces within a social structure. Upon formation, societies have always had the tendency to stratify due to a combination of politics and ability. The position of an élite at the top of the social strata almost invariably puts it in a position of leadership and often subjects the holders of élite status to pressure to maintain their position as part of the élite. However, in spite of the pressures borne by its members, the existence of the élite as a social strata is usually unchanged.

Class élite

Élite advantages are the usual ones of a dominant social class: easier access to capital and political power, more rigorous education largely free of indoctrination, resulting in cultural influence, and leadership.

Élites may justify their existence based on claims of inherited position; with the rise in authority of science, certain 19th and 20th century élites have embraced pseudoscientific justifications of genetic or racial superiority. In Nazi Germany, genetic superiority was used as the basis of an imagined "Aryan" élite. Élite classes headed by monarchies have traditionally employed religious sanctions for their position.

Meritocracy is a facet of society that tries to promote merit as a route to the élite. Societies such as that of the United States have it in their culture to promote such a facet [see Horatio Alger]. However, while it tends to be imperfect it sheds light as to what many believe to be the "ideal" élite: an élite that is porous and whose members have earnt their position as society's top class.

Aristocracy and oligarchy are social systems which feature an élite as the ruling class. An élite group, ranged round the alpha male, is a distinct feature of other closely-related social primates.

Source: Wikipedia

Posted by CeShine at 6:06 PM | Permalink | Comments

Political legitimacy and 'democratic culture'

All forms of government depend on their political legitimacy, that is, their acceptance by the population. Without that, they are little more than a party in a civil war, since their decisions and policies will be resisted, probably by force. Apart from those with anti-statist objections, such as anarchists and libertarians, most people are prepared to accept that governments (as such) are necessary. Failure of political legitimacy in modern states is usually related to separatism and ethnic or religious conflicts, rather than political differences. However there are historical examples, notably the Spanish Civil War, where the population split along political lines.

In a democracy, a high degree of political legitimacy is necessary, because the electoral process periodically divides the population into 'winners' and 'losers'. A successful democratic political culture implies that the losing parties and their supporters accept the judgment of the voters, and allow for the peaceful transfer of power - the concept of a "loyal opposition". Ideally political competitors may disagree, but acknowledge the other side's legitimate role, and ideally society encourages tolerance and civility in public debate. This form of political legitimacy implies that all sides share common fundamental values. Voters must know that the new government will not introduce policies they find totally abhorrent. Shared values, rather than democracy as such, guarantee that.

Free elections alone are not sufficient for a country to become a true democracy; the culture of the country's political institutions and civil service must also change. This is an especially difficult cultural shift to achieve in nations where transitions of power have historically taken place through violence. There are various examples (i.e., Revolutionary France, modern Uganda and Iran) of countries that were able to sustain democracy only in limited form until wider cultural changes occurred to allow true majority rule.

Posted by CeShine at 5:18 PM | Permalink | Comments

No one sees the world as it is. All of us look at the world through a veil of theories, presuppositions and assumption. In this sense, observation and interpretation are inextricably bound together: when we look at the world we are also engaged in imposing meaning upon it. This has important implication for the study of politics. In particular, it highlights the need to uncover the presuppositions and assumptions that we bring to political enquiry. At their deepest level, these assumptions are rooted in broad political creeds or traditions that are usually termed 'political ideologies'. Each of these 'isms' (Liberalism, socialism, conservatism, feminism, fascism, and so on) constitutes a distinctive intellectual framework or paradigm, and each offers its own account of political reality, its own world view. However, there is deep disagreement both about the nature of ideology and about the role, for good or ill, that it plays in
political life.

Ideology is one of the most controversial concepts encountered in political analysis. Although the term now tends to be used in a neutral sense, to refer to a developed social philosophy or world view, it has in the past had heavily negative or pejorative connotations. During its sometimes tortuous career, the concept of ideology has commonly been used as a political weapon to condemn or criticize rival creeds or doctrines.

For Marx, ideology amounted to the ideas of the 'ruling class', ideas the therefore uphold the class system and perpetuate exploitation. In their early work 'The German Ideology', Marx and Engels wrote the following:
The ideas of the class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling 'material' force in society , is at the same time the ruling 'intellectual' force. The class which has the means of mental production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production. (Mar and Engels, [2956] 1970:64)

Source: Politics, Andrew Heywood

Posted by CeShine at 5:06 PM | Permalink | Comments

The fourth definition of politics is both the broadest and the most radical. Rather than confining politics to a particular sphere (the government, the state or the 'public' realm) this view sees politics at work in all social activities and in every corner of human existence. As Adrian Leftwich proclaimed in 'What is Politics? The Activity and Its Study', 'politics is at the heart of all collective social activity, formal and informal, public and private, in all human groups, institutions and societies'.

At its broadest, politics concerns the production, distribution and use of resources in the course of social existence. Politics is, in essence, power: the ability to achieve a desired outcome, through whatever means. This notion was neatly summed up in the title of Harold Lasswell's book 'Politics: Who Gets What, When, How?'. From this perspective, politics is about diversity and conflict, but the essential ingredient is the existence of scarcity: the simple fact that, while
human needs and desires are infinite, the resources available to satisfy them are always limited. Politics can therefore be seen as a struggle over scarce resources, and power can be seen as the means through which this struggle is conducted.

Views such as these portray politics in largely negative terms. Politics is, quite simply, about oppression and subjugation. Radical feminists hold that society is patriarchal, in that women are systematically subordinated and subjected to male power Marxists traditionally argued that politics in a capitalist society is characterized by the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. On the other hand, these negative implications are balanced against the fact that politics is also seen as the means through which injustice and domination can be challenged. Marx, for instance, predicted that class exploitation would be overthrown by a proletarian reordered though a sexual revolution. However, it is also clear that when politics is portrayed as power and domination it need not be seen as an inevitable feature of social existence. Feminists look to an end of 'sexual politics' achieved through the construction of a nonsexist society, in which people will be valued according to personal worth rather than on the basis of gender. Marxists believe that 'class politics' will end with the establishment of a classless communist society. This, in turn, will eventually lead to the 'withering away' of the state, bringing politics in the conventional sense also to an end.

Source: Politics, Andrew Heywood

Posted by CeShine at 4:54 PM | Permalink | Comments

Man is by nature a political animal - Aristotle "Politics, 1"

Politics is exciting because people disagree. They disagree about how they should live. Who should get what? How should power and other resources be distributed? Should society be based on cooperation or conflict? And so on. They also disagree about how such matters should be resolved. How should collective decisions be made? Who should have a say? How much influence should each person have And so forth. For Aristotle, this made politics the 'master science', that is, nothing less than the activity through which human beings attempt to improve their lives and create the good Society. Politics is, above all, a social activity. It is always a dialogue, and never a monologue. Solitary individuals such as Robinson Crusoe may be able to develop a simple economy, produce art, and so on, but they cannot engage in politics. Politics only emerges with the arrival of a Man (or Woman) Friday. Nevertheless, the disagreement that lies at the heart of politics also extends to the nature of makes social interaction 'political', and
how it should be studied. People disagree about both what it is that makes social interaction 'political', and how political activity can best be analyzed and explained.

Politics, in its broadest sense, is the activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live. Politics is thus inextricably linked to the phenomena of conflict and cooperation.

The heart of politics is often portrayed as a process if conflict resolution. (Hannah Arendt's definition of political power as 'acting in concert). However, politics in this broad sense is better thought of a search for conflict resolution than as its achievement, as not all conflict are, or can be, resolved.

The inescapable presence of diversity and scarcity ensure that politics is an inevitable feature of the human condition.

Any attempt to clarify the meaning of 'politics; must nevertheless address two major problems.
The first is the mass of associations that the word has when used in think of everyday language;
in other words, politics is a 'loaded' term. As long ago as 1775, Samuel Johnson dismissed politics as 'nothing more than a means of rising in the world', while in the nineteenth century the US historian Henry Adams summed up politics as 'the systematic organization of hatreds'.

The second and more intractable difficulty is that even respected authorities cannot agree what the subject is about. Politics is defined in such different ways: as the exercise of power, the exercise of authority, the making of collective decisions,and so on.

From this perspective, politics may be treated as an 'essentially contested' concept, in the sense that the term has a number of acceptable or legitimate meanings.

Source: Politics, Andrew Heywood

Posted by CeShine at 4:46 PM | Permalink | Comments