'The world of politics is basically of the instinctive level. Might is right. The people of politics being the most mediocre. Politics needs no other qualification except one-that is, a deep feeling of inferiority.'
Discuss if you agree or disagree with Osho, philosopher of Intuition Knowing Beyond Logic p. 73.
If anything politicians have a healthy overdose of self-esteem. I am continually astonished by the hubris of American politicians who seem to think that they can behave in ways that are utterly contrary to the public image they project and not be found out for the frauds they are. The specific example I am thinking of is John Edwards.
How incredibly arrogant and self-serving of this man to continue to run for President of the United States at the same time that he was carrying on an illicit affair. I really don't care about politicians' private lives, but it is disgusting when they portray themselves as devoted family men just to curry favor with voters.
This statement can perhaps be compared to the quote, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," which is no more an absolutism than the previous poster. Many politicians go into politics humble perhaps, but not inferior, and they have sincere intentions of serving honorably. Sometimes with great success, but sometimes without. Sweeping generalizations such as that posted in #1 do nothing more than cloud the issue.
Does the quote indicate that the politicians must feel inferior, or that the non-politicians must? After all, if "might is right," it is the mediocre majority that feels superior. This only works if it can instill feelings of inferiority in the people it hopes to rule.
I would say that most of the politicians that I have known and met do not suffer from an inferiority complex. Most that I have known feel really good about themselves and border on more of a superiority complex. I could however see someone who feels inferior wanting to run for office to achieve a level of perceived superiority.
I agree with the previous post about how the statement is a real challenge to prove. I think that the statement also denies the idea that some politicians actually do what they do in the hopes of fostering community and solidarity amongst individuals and their government. I might also posit one other thought. If politicians do suffer from inferiority, but are still able to help out their constituents, does it really matter? The reality is that the statement does not distinguish between the professional and the person. Outside of the "might= right" assertion (which is probably more intriguing to discuss than anything else), the inferiority or superiority of a leader might be a secondary concern if there is a concerted and direct effort to meet the needs of the voter and public.
This is an excessive blanket condemnation of all who go into politics and I have a hard time separating the idea from the person espousing it (the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, who was deported from the US for immigration fraud while under investigation for a whole bunch of crimes connected to his Oregon commune).
We cannot know (nor could the Bhagwan) whether politicians have deep feelings of inferiority or if they have more such feelings than people who go into other walks of life.
I do not see anything inherent to politics that would make it more likely than other professions to attract people who feel inferior or people who feel that might is right.
This seems like a statement that is totally unprovable and it does not make any sense to me.