Comment: The point I’m raising...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: How can we sell ideas (see in situ)

The point I’m raising...

The point I’m raising is why accept any ideology at all? An idea and an ideology are two different things. Ideas bring change, ideologies divide and stagnate. The way I see it if logic and reason weren't complex then we wouldn't find ourselves in the mess we are in; with a lack of logic and reason being applied in our everyday lives, and a lack of any real progress or solutions from their usage. Also, as a graduate student of philosophy I challenge anyone to take an advanced level formal deductive logic class and make the statement: logic is not complex. On this concept of ideas and ideology though, I must admit that there are ideas I agree with from Karl Marx, however, that doesn't make me a Marxist, nor does it necessarily suggest that I support Marx’s entire theory, nor the body of his entire ideology. You see what I'm saying? The point being that I wouldn't define myself as a libertarian, although I agree with libertarian ideas from time to time, I am not, nor will I even be, a libertarian. If this movement is about actually moving things forward in the realm of ideas we need to objectively look at this concept. Ideology creates pure division, and division is not what we need. I'm not saying you can't identify with a particular ideology and progress that if you choose, just don't say you can't progress an idea without an ideology, because it is not true. If it was I wouldn't be a member of this site, or have donated a ton of money to the good Doc. Ideologies are really just tools that strictly limit the conversation, a good example of this is in the field of philosophy, which through the dogmatism of various ideologies, has not progressed significantly for a long time, and as such has seen very little value applied to it (you could argue the same for the field of politics as well, even though it is a high-end pursuit so to speak, most people seem to think of it as boring and useless to them). Ideologies are a lot like religions in that they claim to know all the answers when in fact they probably (because likely no one truly has all the correct answers) don't. This is they Hayekian concept involving the pretense of knowledge "what men imagine they can design." Ideologies propose a finite set of standards that become so dogmatic even clear evidence of their failure (see soviet communism and the various forms of socialism that followed) does not limit their perpetuation. This is not the same with ideas, as ideas operate in infinite probabilities, meaning that if one fails it can be easily modified or replaced by another idea, as the idea is not bound within the doctrine of any given ideology. Also, one idea, let’s say liberty, does not pertain exclusively to any one particular ideology. Ideas are shared amongst a cornucopia of ideologies, some of which use good ideas to endorse bad policies. Ideology simply through its operation limits ideas by creating a matrix of semi-competing ideas which congregate to make up the whole of the ideology. This web of ideas becomes larger that than the ideas themselves, and the ideology eventually becomes a slave to its own doctrine, unable to change. It is pretty sad if we are reduced to arguing over whether we should be identified as this or that, when the ideas we endorse should always be seen as more important and more powerful than any ideology, or label.

"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them." - Mark Twain