philosophical not ideological commitment

Avatar

Chris Dierkes

Chris Dierkes (aka CJ Smith). 29 years old, happily married, adroit purveyor and voracious student of all kinds of information, theories, methods of inquiry, and forms of practice. Studying to be a priest in the Anglican Church in Canada. Main interests: military theory, diplomacy, foreign affairs, medieval history, religion & politics (esp. Islam and Christianity), and political grand bargains of all shapes and sizes.

Related Post Roulette

9 Responses

  1. Avatar John
    Ignored
    says:

    Your philosophy IS your ideology, and vice versa. How could it be otherwise?

    Actually that is not altogether true because everyones philosophy/ideology is inevitably an extension of their brain and nervous system emotional-sexual patterning–with no exceptions.

    This invisible and unconscious emotional-sexual script or pattern then demonstrates itself in EVERY-thing that you do, ALLl of the time, and moment to moment.Report

    • Avatar Murali in reply to John
      Ignored
      says:

      Actually that is not altogether true because everyones philosophy/ideology is inevitably an extension of their brain and nervous system emotional-sexual patterning–with no exceptions.

      This invisible and unconscious emotional-sexual script or pattern then demonstrates itself in EVERY-thing that you do, ALLl of the time, and moment to moment.

      If this were true either there is no such thing as philosophical truth or that some types of brain and nervous system emotional-sexual patterning are priveleged in coming up with the truth. This would be trivially true if all we were talking about were that rational types of thought patterning are more likely to produce true thoughts. But I doubt that is what you were trying to say.

      Of course if all you’re trying to say is that no single human is completely rational, that’s barely trivial. If you are saying that humanity has no hope at all of approaching the truth, its either false or incoherent.Report

  2. Avatar mike farmer
    Ignored
    says:

    “Outmoded because, despite its now decades old lineage, contemporary ideologies still haven’t swallowed the bitter postmodernist pill about essentialism and absolutizing universality being zombie concepts: dead, yet refusing to die.”

    Does Scott mean the postmodern ideology which states absolutely that the absolutizing universality zombie concepts are dead? I absolutely reject this absolutizing universality.Report

  3. Avatar Bob Cheeks
    Ignored
    says:

    Wow, good stuff….hurts my head!
    But we don’t need a metaphor, in fact this sounds more like a lament when we consider Plato’s quest for truth, reality,order, the Agathon.
    You and many of your friends here are wonderfully educated, but, the truth is (and I’m not being snarky) that the educational establishment is, itself, derailed and consequently can’t or won’t participate in the search, quest, or movement toward truth. It’s been this way generally since the Enlightenment when certain intellectuals sought to divorce man from metaphysics and theology.
    Consequently, salvation, intellectual or otherwise, is found in a return to the basics to an understanding that inherently man seeks, first, Aition, the ground!
    It’s like Muldur says, “The truth is out there!” But, we spend too much time being deceived.Report

  4. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    There’s more than one way to do it. Or, at least, if there is a one right way, we don’t know which one it is (and the arguments from them what say such things as “no, seriously, I totally have the one right way hammered down flat” are startlingly similar to them what have reached completely different conclusions and go on to say that).

    I don’t know that Western Philosophy has failed necessarily (man, that’s a bold claim) as much as it still isn’t done (and that’s good — all of my stuff is there)… or, like the proverbial blind man with the proverbial elephant, our society has progressed from knowing that it’s like a snake, to knowing it’s like a spear, to knowing it’s like a fan, to knowing it’s like a wall. We have every reason to have reached the conclusions we have (indeed, there are theories that we could have reached no other).

    The problem comes when we then conclude that our new vantage point gives us enough information to proclaim those who came before us wrong. Sure, in some things they were (screw you, Newton!) but the bathwater gets thrown out so often that one (okay, *I*) cannot help but wonder if there was a baby in there. As time goes on, I’m suspicious that we’ve thrown out orphanages.Report

  5. Avatar mike farmer
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m a basically simple fella — it seems we have learned quite a bit — we know what we know — we learn more as time goes on — but we know what we know up to this point. Hardly any new knowledge changes the most factual of knowledge, it merely adds to the knowledge. So, saying we know what we know and then acting on this knowledge (guided by morals, ethics, reason, etc.) is the only way we can make progress — this is not absolutism when you realize that more will be revealed as we move along. Although I can — this I know absolutely now — some revelation might change this knowledge, but now I know it to be true. Otherwise it would be difficult to make judgements which help us survive. If I wasn’t really sure that fire burns, I might simply walk into a burning building on the outside chance that it might not burn me at this time and place, under these conditions. If I don’t absolutely know that beating a child is evil, I might not act to protect the child, because who am I to judge? There is knowledge regarding the world and human nature that we can know, if not absolutely, then close enough to act with confidance — always cognizant that new knowledge will appear and add to what we know.

    Only the most radical of religionists, it seems. claim final and absolute knowledge, but even that doesn’t include secular knowledge that increases all the time — these religionist, in practice, adjust to new knowledge. Even the partisans are forced to adjust to new knowledge, even if they attempt to spin it politically — but any game-changing knowledge is usually adjusted to because reason is so powerful. Yes, there are some who hide in perpetual delusion, but the majority of us can not do that, unless we destroy humanity altogether. Reality wins.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *