Political Philanthropy

How do you tell whether your philanthropy is real or not ? How thoroughly do you question yourself about reality, politics, philanthropy, and yourself? What do you believe you need to know at present, and why?  How reasonable is your authentic self, and how do you know? And how do you attempt to maintain ethical authenticity with adequate consistency? How do you identify possibilities for the improvement of something? How do you assess the usefulness of originality? How do you distinguish between a skill and a talent?  How are you involved in events to prevent suffering and other problems? How do you know when changes in routine and/or the consumption of substances and/or experiences of ill health cause people to behave unreasonably? How do you distinguish between your political philanthropy and your other philanthropy? When, if ever, has your reputation been sullied by other people's ill-informed opinions and outrageous biases? Philanthropic activities always cause resentment.

The highly artistic and suitably scientific twitter account associated with the second Age of Enlightenment is usually locked. Just as the first Age of Enlightenment could only be experienced in parallel to the ordinary world of mortals, at least by suitably qualified contributors, the same applies to the second Age of Enlightenment. How do you usually interpret twitter ?  Most people will never be adequately enlightened.  Indeed, they will do everything in their power to remain ignorant.  They are not even interested in the public interest . How do you know when your perceptions take you into a more enlightened world than the one most people perceive themselves to inhabit? What is your acquaintance with real philanthropy ? What is your acquaintance with enlightenment more generally?

Perhaps you think it is unnecessary, or even unhealthy, to learn about political truth. How do you usually try to educate yourself about pleasantness and unpleasantness? How carefully do you distinguish between philanthropic intentions, business intentions, political intentions and other intentions?   It is always wise to think about important matters carefully, and accurately, before entering important discussions on those matters. That is a basic statement of fact for any good philanthropist, and any good investor, to acknowledge. There is nothing greedy about investing in suitably pleasant certainties in philanthropic ways. Politics, like religion and philosophy, reflects claims about certainty and uncertainty, pleasantness and unpleasantness, and the necessary and unnecessary. Perhaps you regard politics, religion and philosophy as unnecessary. But where do you locate wisdom, particularly about politics? Good manners form the basis of mutually beneficial pleasantness, of course.

Politics is rarely associated with benevolence.  It is rarely associated with enlightenment, either.  It is hardly ever associated with appropriateness.  It is almost never humane.   Perhaps you feel threatened when invited to reflect on questions associated with the justifiable examination of your own beliefs and practices. You may believe that enlightened benevolence is irrelevant to political decision-making.  Yet all decision-making involving more than one person is political.  Even personal decisions are political when those decisions influence the lives of other people and/or other species. Perhaps you regard political philanthropy as an art. You may even regard politics and/or philanthropy as arts. The arts are mainly associated with aesthetics and emotions, even when they attempt to address and/or express ethics, and possibly even share knowledge. Fairness is a subject associated with ethics. Benevolence is intended to be fair though it may also be altruistic. Altruism may or m