Philosophical ideologies shape the political landscape where people organise themselves in societal structures. Those ideologies, once rooted in what was believed to be inherent, divinely-given rules of conduct that governed only basic behaviour, evolved into concrete laws regulating the smallest details in every realm of modern societies. The process of selecting behavioural rules can be compared to Charles Darwin’s principles of evolutionary theory, as only societies, back then in the form of clans or tribes, that followed specific behaviours could survive. Therefore, it is natural that these rules are also in a state of constant development and adaptation. Also, the ideologies, as the foundation of people’s awareness, are in an adapting process that could be claimed as an evolutionary process. This analysis is the last part of the trilogy “Towards an Ideal State” which focuses on the philosophical approaches to state structures and the societies within. In the first analysis “The Philosophy” we explored current state structures, the level of influences and the level of philosophical approaches that are affecting state structures. Based on this foundation, we formulated an ideal approach in “The Technique”, aiming for harmony between the fundamental level and the technical level. As this third analysis is based on the previous two, it is imperative to build familiarity with the first two parts of the “Towards an Ideal State” trilogy.
Besides the theoretical foundations and the practical approach, the most crucial part of directing effective and efficient structural changes is the personal level. As one of our conclusions in “The Philosophy” we highlighted that a technical approach will always be a representation of the mental state of a nation. In the following, we analyse why specific characteristics of political leaders, too, are a natural result, as well as the influence of life cycles in state structures and, finally, possibilities to overcome current challenges to effective change into a more valuable political order.
The Personal Level
“All that we know today as reality were once distant ideals, brought to reality by a few, courageous enough to dream them into existence.”
Philosophical ideologies are developing over time, just as approaches for state structures. However, we must keep in mind that these approaches are far from being a consciously planned result but often a natural consequence of specific circumstances. Furthermore, unlike the general consensus, developing and establishing new ideologies on both the fundamental and the technical levels, actions are typically carried out by a small group of people. Their power lay within winning the support of the general public, at least to the extent that they were recognised by the majority of society as a viable management cadre. We will call them visionaries (a concept by Henry Kissinger), which is thoroughly analysed later in the article.
Reflecting on this leads to the thesis that people change for one of two reasons: either when they perceive a clear benefit of changing or when the discomfort of not changing outweighs the energy required for making a change. Underlining this thesis will include two concepts of the previous articles, Essydo’s Hierarchy of Happiness and the importance of the friction (Weakness in Politics: A Physical Approach) that will come up during the process of development. The hierarchy of happiness correlates with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, beginning with the lowest stage of physiological needs and concluding in the stage of self-actualisation. The hierarchy of happiness translates Maslow’s hierarchy into a language capable of explaining a person’s intrinsic motivation to develop. The ultimate purpose of an individual is self-actualisation, as this goes hand in hand with the highest form of happiness, fulfilment. Individuals will, once they reach a stage where they can satisfy their needs, try to develop to reach the next higher level. We long to reach genuine fulfilment as this will bring us closer to the objective truth. It is the form of happiness we experience during the exercise of genuine knowledge production, which is the goal in a devletist state structure. As people are only motivated to change when they can perceive a benefit, striving to reach their full potential and experiencing fulfilment by working towards the objective truth is a logically sufficient reason if such perception is given. Accordingly, developing from a starting point A to a point B will cost energy to overcome the mindset and behaviour one has developed around starting point A. Friction is a result of overcoming weaknesses, or in terms of our hierarchies, of the necessary development to reach a higher stage, including the anticipation of difficulties during this process. Different challenges will require a variety of energy inputs. Therefore, more development is needed, logically resulting in more friction. Now we come to a crucial point: if the friction is significantly higher than staying at the current level, it may seem as though no added value would come from the change. Simply put, it might not be worth it. Changing then becomes a matter of intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, just as reaching a higher stage makes us feel happy (Essydo’s hierarchy) and satisfied, we accordingly also feel dissatisfied and even frustrated if we decline to a lower stage. This could lead to a downward spiral of frustration, decreasing the intrinsic motivation, which is essential to overcome the friction. On the other hand, people change if the discomfort of not changing is higher than the friction of developing. This could be both on a physiological and mental level. For example, the consequence of not developing in order to accomplish the physiological needs could result in critical health issues, while not feeling secure (second stage) could mentally force you to develop.
Finally, we turn to the nature of fulfilment. As highlighted, reaching fulfilment is the main purpose or the highest stage of development that we can reach. The nature of fulfilment, as mentioned above, is the satisfaction of working towards the objective truth. Concluding that until the objective truth has not been discovered, the developmental state of fulfilment is endless. The stages of happiness below fulfilment are exhausted after a certain point due to the marginal diminishing benefit of deepening the satisfaction of needs within that stage, resulting in the following: An individual experiencing the gratification for reaching a higher stage can enter an upward spiral of intrinsic motivation; and second, once a stage is completed, it becomes increasingly difficult to revert fully to that level, as the friction or resistance to falling back grows stronger, creating a higher barrier to regress. At the level of fulfilment, however, gratification is a continuous process without a tangible end. Progress requires energy, and without visible or clearly expected satisfaction, the risk of stagnation increases. Stagnation at this level is equivalent to unmet needs and can lead to a downward spiral. Additionally, the risk of negative consequences is significantly lower at the level of self-actualisation, as harmful outcomes from unmet needs are almost non-existent. Therefore, the friction of not developing is relatively low.
State & Generation Cycles
Before heading to a conclusion for the analysed difficulties, we need to take a step back to understand how these circumstances influence the development of a nation and its state. Therefore, we will introduce the concepts of the state- and the generation cycles as a tool to visualise the potential upward and downward spiral. While the generation cycle supports the findings of the analysis of the development of people during different periods, the cycle of nations illustrates the effect the mental state of a society has on the state structures. Both cycles influence one another, but the foundation of a state lies in its nation and its people. Therefore, one could argue that the nation’s cycle is ultimately a product of the generational cycle, adding that the cycle of a nation may span multiple generational cycles.
Both cycles generally follow a similar rhythm, beginning with a challenging starting point marked by hard times or significant adversity. The friction of remaining in this stage of hard times is significantly higher than the energy demanded for changing. A state could enter this phase due to a war or major economic difficulties. This period transitions into what we describe as a spring phase, where new ideas begin to rise. During this time, innovative approaches and a strong, urgent drive to effect changes are shaping the social structures. While people develop and reach higher stages in the hierarchy of needs, resulting in a mental upward spiral and even euphoria, the consciousness of the hard times is still present and provides a driving factor for continuing development. In the context of state structures, society’s perception is highly emotionally charged. As a natural result, political leaders who embody these emotions emerge from such an atmosphere. In general, these leaders seek to capture the nation’s emotions, promote a path out of hardship and shape the course of change. This can have positive or negative outcomes, as shown in Germany’s case in the first article of this trilogy: “The Philosophy”. We will analyse the concept of the visionary in this context shortly.
Following the spring is the summer phase, which represents the peak of productivity. During this time, the most effective approaches and ideas from the spring are fully realised and start to blossom. The summer is marked by a high level of achievement and success, as efforts are concentrated on maximising the gains from previous innovations. In this phase, people tend to reach higher stages in the hierarchies of needs and happiness. They continue in the upward trend, with the ultimate goal of reaching fulfilment. The state structures are generally still being influenced by the visionaries, fulfilling their purpose of leading a nation into the summer phase.
As the cycle moves into autumn, there is a shift in focus. Instead of reaching for new achievements and fulfilment, societies start to harvest the benefits from the previous progress. The focus is on treasuring and administrating. People start to feel satisfied with accomplishing their needs and begin to reflect on their achievements. The motivation for further development decreases. This is a natural result in current structures, as the friction for further development seems too high compared to the added value it would bring from an already greatly improved standpoint. Furthermore, the shift in society entails a change in political leaders as well. Statesmen, driven, or characterised, by the focus on administration, are the natural outcomes of this society. Following that, no further improvement is guaranteed. As analysed, stagnation, especially in the highest stage of development, is equivalent to unmet needs and, therefore, provides a possible beginning of a downward spiral.
The winter phase follows, characterised by the decline and stagnation that often result from decadency. This period represents the last step of a downward spiral, where the lack of development or saturation from previous periods leads to a decrease in activity and progress. The winter concludes with a negative climax, setting the stage for a new beginning in the next spring.
Visionaries and Statesmen
At this point, we can conclude: The highest purpose for every individual is reaching the state of fulfilment. The development that is required in order to reach this stage, is depending on intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation, in turn, measures the energy a person is willing to exert to overcome the friction. In the current structures, where money and power constitute the foundation, reaching fulfilment is not part of structural goal setting. As a result, people tend to reject further progress when a significant benefit cannot be predicted. Progress is then reserved for those, who live according to a devletist way of life, or for those who are maximising their profit around money and power. Either way, these highly driven people are what we call visionaries.
A visionary is driven by ambitious goals, transformative ideas and strategic plans for shaping the future. Visionaries have a deep desire for fundamental changes and are willing to take risks to create a society based on their ideals. Furthermore, they are very determined in their beliefs, remaining resolute despite external pressures or opposing viewpoints. As analysed above, visionaries primarily arise in the spring and summer phases of state cycles. For this reason, they can be inspiring leaders, able to mobilise people toward a higher cause and spark significant societal transformations. On the other hand, they tend to underestimate the complexity of reality or the need for compromise. Their idealistic views can lead to political instability if they are too ambitious, unrealistic or simply taking advantage of current state structures. Anyway, visionaries must not always emerge at the governmental level; even further, their fulfilment may not even lie in politics at all. Generally, it is more a mixture of their drive and ideals that make an individual a visionary.
A statesman, in contrast, is more pragmatic and focused on stabilising the status quo and protecting the achievements of the state. Their purpose is to maintain wealth and progress, preserving a carefree environment where no further development is required. They primarily arise in the autumn and winter phases and, therefore, operate within a self-corrupting system, whether intentionally or unintentionally, naturally creating a downward spiral. Contrasting the visionary, the statesman embodies the decadency in the current structures. Even further, he is the result of a self-destructing society, as evident in the way the government operates, characterised by excessive bureaucracy, corruption and false objectives that fail to address the needs of society.
The concepts presented are dichotomous, but a clear distinction between them is still important. Political leaders, once a system is established, often exhibit characteristics of both visionaries and statesmen. However, at the end of a cycle, the type of statesman tends to be much more represented. Visionaries, as previously analysed, emerge from intrinsic motivation. In the political sphere, this type dominates, especially in the spring, as it resonates more with the general populace. Even further, a spring phase is often ignited by a small group of visionaries. A prominent example of this is the “Springtime of Nations” in the 1840s when liberal movements started a wave of reforms across Europe. Beyond the political spectrum, visionaries embody the essence of fulfilment. It is crucial here to distinguish from selfish goals, which stem from an underdeveloped self and are a consequence of current structures.
Overcoming Structures
Finally, we come to the most important part of this article, namely, what it takes to break through current structures. The goal here, as a result of our three-part analysis, must be the establishment of a devletist state structure at the fundamental level. A new structure, especially one that contrasts with current systems, requires a slow but steady process of change. What’s interesting, however, is that this process is already implied in the nature of Devletism. The pursuit of fulfilment and a deeper sense of purpose is the highest form of happiness we can achieve. The focus here is on the special traits of each individual, while the perfection of these is synonymous with fulfilment. This is not a new realisation; many philosophers have explored the individual pursuit of fulfilment in the context of the special trait. Hobbes and Rousseau, for instance, highlighted that only the special trait can provide true freedom and fulfilment, but state structures are necessary for regulation. At the same time, they both see a danger in the fact that states can actually corrupt individuals.
Devletism goes a step further than, for example, Rousseau’s social contract. As we noted in our analysis, it is not the state itself that corrupts the people of a nation; it is the constant prioritisation of power and money. Once a state begins to harvest the fruits of its labour, it naturally falls into a state of decadency. Political leaders take on the role of statesmen, seeking to treasure and divide the profits. Rather than the goal of fulfilment, where individuals are naturally rewarded and satisfied by their efforts, political leaders are also tempted to succeed within the current structures. In short, corruption is a logical consequence of a state that is sated. This results in the problem described in “The Technique” regarding the party system. Once a society enters the autumn phase, which provides the foundation for corruption, the powerful parties are exclusively concerned with maintaining their power.
A devletist state builds its structure on the concept of the special trait rather than viewing it as desirable. In this way, fulfilment becomes not just an individual achievement but a collective mental state of the nation. The state, in theory, cannot be corrupted, as its goal is not wealth but progress and fulfilment. This means that even if individuals attempt to satisfy their lower selves, seeking power for egocentric reasons, for example, cannot gain power through wealth but only by providing progress for society. Moreover, we can tie this to the ideal structure mentioned in “The Technique”; the most natural outcomes of a society can only emerge if it is liberal in the classical sense. If every individual pursues the fulfilment of their special trait, the result, without state interference, will be the most ideal. Therefore, there is no need for a controlling state to prevent individuals from pursuing their goals, as these can only lead to productivity.
Two fundamental problems must be addressed structurally. First, the friction that prevents individuals from reaching the highest level, namely fulfilment, or, once there, developing continuity in their pursuit of purpose. Second, the energy that must be expended to overcome this friction. Here, we can equate energy with stimuli. This means that, on the one hand, the barriers to finding one’s special trait and fully developing it to perfection must be reduced, while on the other hand, the development of the special trait must be structurally promoted, and performance must be prioritised over personal possessions in society.
Conclusion
The result of such a society would be a significant increase in the intrinsic motivation (the interplay of energy and friction) of each individual to work towards their purpose and reach the stage of fulfilment, while also continuously maintaining it. By definition, each individual would then become a visionary in their field. A visionary, defined by his drive, can set a direction through his skills and visions in his domain. Since the goal is understanding the objective truth, visionaries with different opinions in a field would not seek to gain dominance over one another but work together, understanding that both approaches are part of the objective truth. Such a society would achieve a constant state of growth in all areas, where, if at all, the autumn and winter phases are not marked by decadence and corruption (a downward trend) but just by a decline in productivity instead of stagnation.
To start the journey of improving existing structures will require visionaries throughout the entire process (up to implementation) who embody the devletist way of life. Unlike other structural disruptions, such as the Spring of Revolutions, the change comes from within, from the heart of society. All it takes is people with enough intrinsic motivation to develop and pursue their special traits, setting the rest of society on a path to follow their example. Individuals with high intrinsic motivation must not waste this drive on lower purposes but instead help support others in following their natural abilities. Only then can a society develop in which Devletism becomes a natural result.
