Anyone who has ideas about liberalism and conservatism has an ideology.
Apparently it is also based on independent thinking. Perhaps we should all abandon independent thought? Just in case?
The Roots of Islamic Reform
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Anyone who has ideas about liberalism and conservatism has an ideology.
Apparently it is also based on independent thinking. Perhaps we should all abandon independent thought? Just in case?
I disagree with your assessment that extremism is based on independent thinking.
Of course, there are several examples in there too.
Different kinds of "radical" thoughts that go against the fundamentalism in their countries; Eteraz defines the underlying similar principle of adherence to international law as the defining feature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_Ganji
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-irandemocracy/ayatollah_3965.jsp
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,434042,00.html
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/issue-20/why-religion-and-politics-don-t-mix.html
Interestingly he also selects among these those religious Muslims who are for separation of church and state.
Rationality is not an ideology.
And scientific advancement led to the nuclear bomb, so what? Rationality does not automatically lead to any of those particular systems of government. It did lead to the realization that feudalism was a con game and the people have the power.
anything done imperfectly will ultimately fail
if what passes for rationalism is the complete picture of reality (and thus beyond designations of "ideology") why has it resulted in so much trouble?
Ideology assumes a complete picture of reality. Rationality progresses from less to more understanding of reality.
Hmm so one who presumes to understand reality thinks he has a more less complete picture of it?
Yeah and now we are moving towards a more egalitarian society. Oops wait a minute...!
Hmm not so egalitarian after all. Just refined our concepts of what constitutes entitlement.
I don't understand the question.
true
but since there are both capitalist and communist ideologies, does that mean they are actually both complete pictures of reality?
Rationalism also has built in (a priori) assumptions that often put it at odds with empiricism (much like communist ideology has a priori assumptions that often put it at odds with capitalism)
eg
Nowadays these fine old simplicities are lost: physicists assure us that there is no such thing as matter, and psychologists assure us that there is no such thing as mind. This is an unprecedented occurrence. Who ever heard of a cobbler saying that there was no such thing as boots, or a tailor maintaining that all men are really naked? Yet that would have been no odder than what physicists and certain psychologists have been doing. To begin with the latter, some of them attempt to reduce everything that seems to be mental activity to an activity of the body. There are, however, various difficulties in the way of reducing mental activity to physical activity. I do not think we can yet say with any assurance whether these difficulties are or are not insuperable. What we can say, on the basis of physics itself, is that what we have hitherto called our body is really an elaborate scientific construction not corresponding to any physical reality. The modern would-be materialist thus finds himself in a curious position, for, while he may with a certain degree of success reduce the activities of the mind to those of the body, he cannot explain away the fact that the body itself is merely a convenient concept invented by the mind. We find ourselves thus going round and round in a circle: mind is an emanation of body, and body is an invention of mind. Evidently this cannot be quite right, and we have to look for something that is neither mind nor body, out of which both can spring.
-Bertrand Russel
Evidently this cannot be quite right...
But it is right. Naming is the origin of all things. The body is a convenient symbol for a slice of reality.
SAM, I still don't understand what you're getting at.
But it is right. Naming is the origin of all things. The body is a convenient symbol for a slice of reality.
SAM, I still don't understand what you're getting at.
so says your ideology - or do you want to try and ride this idea as being beyond the designation of "ideology"?
but the empiricists would say that is just your mind, which is contingent on the body, telling you that
It's not my ideology, it's a rational hypothesis considering there are no real boundries to things.
Yes, my statement was a thought produced by the mind, which is the body, which is the Earth, which is...
Yes, my statement was a thought produced by the mind, which is the body, which is the Earth, which is...
Totally agree.
marrying empirical ideology (thought is produced by the mind -> body -> earth - > etc) to rational ideology (there are no real boundaries) tends to always be problematic