Questions about apathy; or is it "apathetic questions"?

note: as always, the bulk of the action is in the comments section.

The philosopher Alexandre Kojève (1902-1968) used to say: "only God and Politics" are worth our most serious attention. (He's an atheist by the way. But he also likes to say that "as far as my secretary is concerned, I am god". The reader is thus advised to draw his own conclusions.) Plato (ca. 427-347 B.C.), on the other hand, had the Athenian Stranger make the startling claim (in Bk 7 of The Laws) that only God--and not human beings (and by implications, human affairs, including politics)--"is the natural and worthy object of our most serious and blessed endeavours". Truly "serious" people will not bother with something that is less than serious, he said. This is startling because The Laws is a highly political work in which is set out a blueprint of what was meant to be a practicable ideal regime (contrasted with the not-so-practicable one in the Republic).

* * * * *

Something lzydata said got me thinking. His two main points:

First, we shouldn't exaggerate the political apathy of Singaporeans or the political "pathy" of others. Second, political apathy is to me a very natural outcome when most of the things around you that involve politics - transport, education, health care, jobs, standard of living etc. - work pretty well for Singaporeans in general.

Let me take one step back and ask the prior questions: what exactly counts as political non-apathy? And why is it so good or at least important--such that its contrary, political apathy, is so bad? Or is it that some forms of political apathy/pathy are good, while others bad (alternatively: apathy about some things are bad, but not apathy about other things, etc. And vice versa)?

I think the least that can be said is that if apathy of any sort is to be considered a bad thing, it would have to be because the topic area is significant--and that needs to be established independently. My not caring less--say, my utter apathy--about the doings of Britney Spears should not be counted against me, I hope. To each his or her own. But surely politics is significant, you might say. People should care about politics, ergo, it is problematic if they are apathetic about it. But this is less of an answer than might appear. Politics could mean everything and nothing: what specifics are supposed to be significant to people? Is it realistic or even desirable that everyone put in the utmost attention to every aspect? Even granting the significance of politics, just how significant is it when compared to other aspects of our lives? (After all, which is more problematic--that a man should be "apathetic about politics", or that he should fail to attend to those closest to him?)

Questions and more questions.

Perhaps it's best that each of us tend to our garden.

update: thoughtful response from wows at Singapore Ink.