Actual political history itself can have political biases.

An apolitical history can also have political biases.

The biases aren't what make political history political, but rather its explicit discussion of politics: political events and the people behind them: the when, where, what who.

I am certainly not confused among "study of politics" and "personal politics" and "political bias" and such.

seems contradictory. If you lived on earth, there is no "apolitical lens" to look in. You can only try to grab a truly comprehensive view by finding and studying multiple lenses.

>The biases aren't what make political history political

If you lived in a country, or need a public press to post your findings, or are simply hidden in exposure based on some private company with their own biases, I'd say all those are connected to the political.

What is the test you are using to detects politics, and what is the evidence that it universally detects politics in everything?

And if it detects politics in everything, how do you know the test works? Counterfactuality is lacking. There has to be some calibrating example of something in which the test finds no politics.

History in itself tries (or should try) to be objective and avoid the bias you mention, but that doesn't make it less political by any mean.

Aristotle said politics is the study of how communities can achieve “the good life” through governance and organization. He said we are political animals (zoon politikon) who naturally form communities, such as the polis (city-state), to achieve common goals and virtue.

The idea that any human action is political cannot be attributed to Aristotle. It is also a silly and amateur assertion — to breathe is not political, to think is not political, to eat is not political, etc.

Breathing is a physical action, so there isn’t much to debate there. However, even some physical actions—like using the bathroom—can have political or cultural dimensions. For instance, why do you use a toilet instead of a bidet, as is common in parts of Europe or South America? That choice is shaped by cultural and economic factors that influence your behavior.

Because my bathroom is too small to house a bidet.

Also, a bidet and toilet don’t serve the same purpose so your example is a false choice.

> Well, that depends on what you eat. Do you eat meat, or are you vegan?

The choice of what to eat can reflect or engage with political and social systems, but it isn’t a political act. It is a personal act. And “to eat” is also not a political act.

Note that absolutely nobody is around.

Do you have a direct quote for that? For me, this seems like more than a mere misunderstanding of Aristoteles' work. In Politics book 1, he already explicitly distinguishes between "oikonomike" (the household) and "politike" (the city state) as being two different spheres of engagement. So the claim that any human action is by itself political is just plain false, as actions can either be political or domestic. I struggle to think of any work where he classified mundane acts such as eating as belonging to either category, it seems out of character to me.

Secondly, in Ethics Aristotle stated that he considered politics as a means to an end, not a goal in and of itself: the goal of man is to lead a morally virtuous life, and the goal of the community is to enable and enhance the moral character of its citizens. Therefore, the virtuous man engages in politics to increase the virtue of his entire community, in order to breed more virtuous men. He was also quite clear that public education was required (Politics, book 8) to mold the young into successful statesmen. Both of these seems at odds with your assertion that "humans are political beings" by default.

Having a worldview is not a political act. It might be a bias, but it isn’t politics.

“Political” refers to things related to the governance, policies, or affairs of a country, organization, or group. Usually involves the structure of power, decision-making, and public administration, and debates or actions concerning laws, rights, or societal issues.

Your perspective seems limited to the more common or everyday meaning of “political,” and I understand that; however, in social studies, “political” usually has a much broader scope.

You’re confusing politics with ethics. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that studies moral principles and values, focusing on what is right, wrong, good, or bad in human behavior.

Ethics focuses on morality, while politics addresses power and governance, though they often overlap in discussions of justice and societal well-being.

> Having a worldview is a political act.

Having a worldview is not inherently a political act, but it can become political when that worldview influences or interacts with societal structures, policies, or governance. A worldview shapes how you see justice, power, and societal organization, which may align with or challenge political systems or ideologies.

And that's ok, there isn't anything wrong with that.

>Having a worldview is not inherently a political act

yes it is, because that world view doesn't come up to your head in the vaccum, is result of all social interactions you had in your life and every thing you saw etc, and from that you are creating a political posture. You may not take any action and be completely silent about it the rest of your life (doubtful) but even not talking about it is a political act.

Are you in the USA? This is just something they promulgate in the educational system, along with the idea that there is always room for another opinion that is just as valid, even after domain experts have reached consensus using rational evidence.

If it were the former, it would be uncontroversial. I don't disagree with the claim that worldviews are political. The concept of a world view is a set of perspectives and opinions which encompass the human sphere of existence, which has a big political content. (The ideas contained in a worldview are not all political; a worldview needs facts, too, like salt being sodium and chloride, which isn't something voted on in a parliament.)

So, yes, while my worldview necessarily encompasses political topics, I also have thoughts that are rational and unrelated to politics. Or possibly even to a worldview.

History is biased, I don’t think anyone would debate that, but bias isn’t necessarily political. There’s lots of reasons for people to think some item or story is worth preserving, and most of them aren’t about politics.

The “everything is political” concept has been a very successful propaganda campaign, particularly in the US.

Everyone thinking politics is only about 2 parties and some controversial thinkg to even utter is the successful propaganda.

>the academic study of government and the state.

That's all it is. unless you are truly independent and in the wild, it's hard to say anyone isn't influenced by politics. Hence, biases. Bias in this lens is a byproduct of your environment, managed by politics.

You keep making a point that no one is bringing up. Not only I don’t believe that, as a non-US citizen living in Europe I don’t even care about your two parties.

But there’s quite a stretch between “humans are biased” and “what you think about how society should work influences absolutely everything you do”.

As a silly example, I have quite a collection of music. I keep physical copies of the ones I think are more important to me. If a future archeologist were to find them, they’d get a biased picture of what people listen.

But my taste in music has nothing to do with my beliefs about politics. There’s artists there with every type of conviction, from different eras, from different countries,..

“Everything is political” is a great slogan for activists to get people to do what you want them to do, but like all slogans it’s not actually true.