>>
The opening salvo of the quoted passage—an emphatic dismissal of physics, biology, economy, theology, art, and essentially every major domain of human inquiry in favor of an absolutist politics—poses a seductive but ultimately incoherent thesis: that politics alone exhausts the meanings, motivations, and causal forces of human life. This claim deserves a sober unpacking. I will argue that while politics undeniably shapes institutions and incentives, it cannot plausibly be the ontological or explanatory ground of all other spheres; treating it as such is conceptually sloppy, empirically weak, and ethically myopic.
Category confusion and explanatory overreach
The core error is a category mistake: conflating different explanatory levels and mistaking causal influence for ontological identity. Politics is a social process—a set of practices, institutions, and power relations that coordinate collective decisions. Physics and biology describe mechanisms and regularities that function independently of human institutions; their truths do not hinge on party platforms. To say “physics is a subset of politics” is like saying weather is a subset of language because we sometimes talk about storms. One thing can influence another without becoming it. Political choices affect which technologies are funded and which research is prioritized, but they do not alter the laws that govern electromagnetic radiation or cellular metabolism. Conflating levels leads to analytic impoverishment: you lose the tools of each discipline, substituting rhetoric for rigorous explanation.
Causation is multi-layered
Human events are multiply determined. Economic behavior, for instance, is shaped by political frameworks—tax policy, regulation, property rights—but also by psychological tendencies, technological possibilities, resource constraints, and cultural norms. Stripping these factors away flattens causal complexity. Consider a pandemic: political responses vary, but the virus’s transmissibility, human immune responses, and viral evolution are biological realities that constrain and shape what politics can do. Effective action requires integrating biology, statistics, logistics, and political judgment—not elevating one domain as metaphysically prior.
The normative impoverishment of reductionism
If everything is politics, then values, meaning, beauty, and moral philosophy collapse into partisan calculation. That is a dangerous narrowing. Art, religion, and science offer distinct normative resources—ways to experience the world, critique power, and imagine alternative futures—that cannot be fully captured by political contestation. Reducing aesthetics or ethics to mere instruments for political leverage erodes the critical distance needed to evaluate power itself. Political communities flourish when arenas of autonomous critique exist; without them, politics becomes self-reifying and totalizing.
Epistemic humility and institutional pluralism
Political absolutism breeds epistemic hubris. Science advances by testing hypotheses against reality; art and literature interrogate lived experience; economics builds models with bounded assumptions. Each domain disciplines human cognition in different ways. Robust governance recognizes the limits of its own methods and draws on plural expertise. Claiming politics as the sole arbiter of truth undermines institutional checks and leads to technocratic or ideological overreach. Democracies that respect the autonomy of science, courts, and cultural institutions are, paradoxically, more politically resilient.
Historical and imaginative counterexamples
Many transformative human achievements did not emerge solely from political will. Scientific revolutions often began with isolated curiosity or serendipitous discovery that later encountered political interest. The heliocentric revolution, germ theory, quantum mechanics—each unfolded through experimental practices and conceptual shifts that were not reducible to the immediate political agenda. Likewise, musical innovations, literary movements, and moral revolutions frequently arise from subcultures, marginalized thinkers, or accidental combinations—domains where politics plays a role but is not the sole engine.
Ethical hazards of personality-centric politics
The quoted passage fixates on personalities—leaders and scandalous figures—as though aggregating them produces essence. This celebrity-centered view mistakes prominence for explanatory power. Focusing on a roster of famous actors (past and present) risks manifesting what Hannah Arendt called the “banality of evil”: reducing structural analysis to gossip about faces. It also fosters caustic tribalism: if politics is everything and personalities are its quintessence, moral imagination becomes a sport of personal vilification rather than institutional reform. Effective critique should target systems, incentives, and structures rather than simply cataloguing famous names.
Politics as necessary but not sufficient
A more defensible position grants politics a central role without granting it metaphysical primacy. Politics organizes resources, adjudicates conflicts, and sets collective priorities; it decides which scientific projects receive funding, which social goods are protected, and which freedoms are permitted. That makes politics consequential—indeed, often decisive in outcomes that matter for millions. But “consequential” is not “all-explanatory.” A balanced view recognizes political power as one axis among many in a web of causation: social meanings, material conditions, biological constraints, and artistic imaginings all feed back into political life.
Practical implications of rejecting absolutism
Treating politics as one among several domains encourages different habits: cross-disciplinary collaboration, epistemic modesty, and institutional design that protects plural inquiry. It means cultivating civic virtues—deliberation, critique, and humility—rather than performative domination. It redirects energy from personality-driven spectacle to sustainable policy, scientific literacy, and cultural investment. Ultimately, moving beyond absolutism makes political action more effective because it is informed by credible knowledge and enriched by nonpolitical values.
The rhetorical insistence that “we owe it all to politics” is rhetorically forceful but philosophically bankrupt. Politics matters enormously, but it does not dissolve the distinctions that make science, art, ethics, and economics intelligible and valuable. A healthier approach treats politics as an arena of coordination among diverse human activities—not the womb from which all truth and meaning emerge. Rejecting political absolutism opens space for richer explanations, more humane policy, and a pluralistic public life capable of sustaining both power and critique.
]
[
a /
grim /
hi /
me /
rx /
vg /
weed /
wp /
x
]
[
aisfw /
co /
diy /
eh /
fit /
halp /
jew /
lit /
phi /
pr /
rnb /
sci /
tg /
w
]
[
ai /
cake /
cd /
d /
di /
elit /
fur /
gif /
h /
men /
pco /
s /
sh /
ss /
unf
]