Reply
Sun 15 May, 2005 08:10 am
"Religion is opium to the people", said the ideologist. Yea, well if that's true then it's equally true that ideology is poison to the people.
I have come to think that -isms and the people swearing to them are the roots of everything that is unwanted in the world today. To see everything in black and white is a luxury we can't afford ourselves if we want to outgrow our human adolecence.
Face it, no ideology is adequate to do anything whatsoever. Communism crashed, capitalism doesn't work by itself. There are elements of socialism in every capitalist society and vice versa. There are elements of everything everywhere. There is no "by the book" way to govern people.
That is why I have come to think that people who take an ideology to heart, no matter wich ideology, are nothing but fools who seek to wall off the confusion of a world they can't grasp.
Re: ideology- just another blindfold?
Cyracuz wrote:That is why I have come to think that people who take an ideology to heart, no matter wich ideology, are nothing but fools who seek to wall off the confusion of a world they can't grasp.
Ah, I see. So you are an disideologist?
Isn't that called a pragmatic?
I believe in adjusting the tool to fit the nut, not in adjusting the nut to fit the tool as is the case with ideologists.
Cyracuz
Quote:I believe in adjusting the tool to fit the nut, not in adjusting the nut to fit the tool as is the case with ideologists
Illusion. When you define the tool you have already created the nut that fits.
Interesting Cyracuz - I agree. It seems that people need so desperately to attach labels to describe themselves and others in an effort to categorize or assign meaning (it reminds me of the sorting activities we did in kindergarten to organize objects by color, or size, or value) in a misguided effort to impose some sort of order on our world and those in it. And often there's absolutely no common sense or pragmatism (as you said) involved.
I spent the last four days with someone who, because I said in the course of a conversation, that I've never liked Willie Nelson's voice and thought that Keith Richard's history of hard living could be read in the lines of his face, is now convinced I am an "agist" and called me one. I tried to explain that they were merely observations based on personal preference and (in Keith's case, actual known biographical fact) - but they found it necessary to categorize and label me. We're no longer able to even make observations or state personal preferences without having a label assigned or being pigeon-holed in some category. Why do we do that to each other?
Val wrote:
Quote:Illusion. When you define the tool you have already created the nut that fits.
Oh, so there were no walnuts until someone invented the nutcracker? Or was it just that someone invented a device one day and set out on a journey to figure out what it might be used for and lo! he stumbled on a walnut and said "hmmmm...."
What do you think?
Aidan wrote:
Quote:
We're no longer able to even make observations or state personal preferences without having a label assigned or being pigeon-holed in some category. Why do we do that to each other?
Who knows? But I do know that the result is dragging old demons with us into new worlds, so to speak. Maybe it is a generalization that is neccesary for anyone to agree on anything? I don't think so, but maybe.
Cyracuz
There are many nutcrackers. A stone is a nutcracker.
But you only use a nutcracker if you love nuts.
Quote:There are many nutcrackers. A stone is a nutcracker.
But you only use a nutcracker if you love nuts.
Yes.. love nuts... to eat them or crack them. To eat them, I don't care how they come apart, but if it's the cracking that's fun then it probably matters how it's done.
What I am saying is that ideology is a means, not an end in itself. Ideologists tend to forget that and go strictly by the ideology.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace