- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It is difficult to say about “fools”, but in ancient Athens for apolitical people there was a name-iδιωτεσ (idiotes). This word comes from another Greek word, iδιοσ, meaning “own”, “own”, “self”, i.e.�iδιωτεσ-a person who ignores the well-being of society in favor of his personal private interests, not showing civic activity. So the Greeks, of course, would not have called such a person a “fool”, but they would have called him an “idiot”, which, given the etymology, is probably a more justified term.
To be a little more serious, Lenin quite rightly wrote that”it is impossible to live in society and be free from society.” Despite my extremely ambiguous attitude towards this person, Lenin's phrase, in my opinion, captures an important theme: in fact, whether we want it or not, our social action is always more or less political. And if you don't like Lenin, then perhaps Aristotle, who wrote that “man is a political animal,”would be better suited. In this sense, we are doomed to be engaged in politics: even seemingly non-political actions will have a political meaning. For example, turning a blind eye to the criminal regime that has developed in a country is just as much a political action as supporting it or fighting against it. Each of them adds a little bit to one or another political scale.�
To be fair, passivity can be not only a form of conformity, but also a form of political protest, when people, for example, refuse to receive any government awards, participate in government events, etc. For example, the general apoliticization of Soviet citizens and the retreat into private life (marching, kitchen gatherings, and even snoring at official meetings) in the late Soviet period is often considered by historians as a form of Soviet dissidence. This makes a certain sense, because when you are told about geopolitics from every iron, and you are solving crosswords at the same time, this is also a kind of challenge to the system, although not always consciously.
Therefore, if “apolitical” is a conscious choice, then, I think, this is quite normal. But if a person seriously believes that hiding under a cozy blanket can “turn off” himself from politics, then this is really stupid. The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre would probably have called this an attempt to escape the freedom to which man is doomed, and he would have been right. In his essay “Existentialism is Humanism,” Sartre describes a story where a young man in Nazi-occupied France decides whether to stay in France with his sick mother, or flee to England to join the French resistance fighting Hitler. At the same time, Sartre tries to show how this young man is trying to run away from responsibility and that you will never be able to evade the choice, even if you try to shift the responsibility onto the shoulders of another.
“The fact is that when you go for advice, for example, to a priest, it means that you have chosen this priest and, in fact, you have already more or less imagined what he will advise you. In other words, choosing an adviser means again deciding on something yourself. Here is the proof: if you are a Christian, you will say, ” Consult a priest.” But there are collaboration priests, wait-and — see priests, and resistance priests. So who should I choose? And if a young man chooses a Resistance priest or a collaborator priest, then he has already decided what the council will be. Speaking to me, he knew my answer, and I can only say one thing: you are free, choose, that is, invent. No universal morality can tell you what to do; there are no signs in the world. Catholics will argue that there are signs. Let's say so, but even in this case, I decide for myself what their meaning is.”
The same goes for politics. We can choose not to join parties, not to vote in elections, and shift responsibility for political action to someone else. But such an escape from responsibility is nothing more than complacency, and a smart person should be aware of this.
We live in the 21st century, where people consciously and freely recognize themselves as transgender, can believe in the existence of a macaroni monster and wait for the next end of the world or the invasion of reptilians. So what's so wild and stupid about being apolitical? Moreover, the current political situation in the world is quite tense and people have a lot of prejudices and negativity towards other countries/people from other countries. Not everyone likes it. Some people prefer to ignore the influx of information or simply aren't interested in politics in general, but that doesn't make them stupid, in my opinion.