The Good and the Ethiopian condition Part I By Teodros Kiros

November 8th, 2011 Print Print Email Email

In a five part series, I will outline my vision of the Good as it applies to the Ethiopian condition as the nation is in silent crises from which it must emerge with a new organizing principle by which Ethiopians must be united as Dr. Aklog Birara is arguing in a series of important articles.

I what follows I would like to join him and seek to contribute towards a resolution of the impending national crisis by initiating a national discourse on the nature of the Good and possibilities of unraveling its content and its relevance to the Ethiopian condition.

The Good is a non-physical organizing principle by which a state coheres as a systematic whole. The Good is a moral organizer of the self, as the self moves towards it because it finds the Good useful, pleasurable, intellectually nourishing and morally rich. While the self is thus attracted to the Good, it does not, however know how to discover it, as the Good tends to hide its geographic location outside of time and space.

Let the Good be A and the self who is attracted to it be B. Generalizing this specific relationship between X and Y, and extending it to the larger relationships among citizens of state Z, we can say, citizens X are intensely attracted to A but do not know the nature of A. They wish to know what A is in-itself, so that they can morally organize themselves as responsible citizens of Z.

A is a non-physical object which is trapped inside the human body, D. A is geographically located outside of space and time and from there it organizes the movement of the body, a physical object, which is planted in time and space for a finite period.

A and D enter into a relationship which they do not fully understand, save for their vague awareness that D is, finite, fragile, unstable and subject to pain and death, whereas D is infinite, strong, stable and deathless. D is consequently dependent on the guidance of A, but A is not detectable, observable and visible.

D is deeply disturbed by the invisibility of A but also profoundly impressed by the power of A.

Teodros Kiros
Professor of Philosophy and English (Liberal Arts)
Berklee College of Music

  1. Anonymous
    | #1

    I read the comment forwarded by ‘Z santirar’ host Sisay Agena and guest Andergachew Tisge. I had watched both parts of the interview. Of course ato Andergachew did not give answers for the questions unequivocally because it is the nature of politician. when it comes to Eritrean case the comment is unfair and naive. First and formost G7 is not a party,but a movement.It has full right to change its strateges and tactics accordingly to achieve its goal. Its main goal had been stated in its guide book. I think mr ‘Z santirar’ did do his homework istead had chosen to comment.Totally he was not focused in his comment he had flip flopped a lot.

  2. T.m
    | #2

    I read the comment had been forwarded by ‘Z santirar’ on ato Andargachew Tsige interview. Yes Ato Andargachew did not answer for the questions asked by Sisaye Agena unequvicocally.Nobody expects politicians to answer all quesions clearly. First and formost G7 is not a party it is a momvement so they can use any strategy and tactics to achieve their goal. Their goal had been stated clearly in their guidance book. So the comment was not constractive, but naive. Also he was not focused on the point he had flip floppe a lot.

Comments are closed.