[MD] Proud to be a Brit / Pommie

[Ham Priday]

[Arlo]:
> The problem with "ideology" is that it does the same thing to "thought" 
> that religion does to spirituality. First it presents the illusion that 
> this one "ideology" has captured the cosmos so accurately that all others 
> can be summarily dismissed. Second, it begins to posit that those other 
> "ideologies" are not only "wrong", but they are "dangerous", evil, and 
> misguided (witness your own ongoing diatribes against "nihilism" or the 
> constant bemoaning of that evil "Marxism" and the world-ending, 
> civilization-destroying, humanity-catastrophic ends that come from those 
> "ologies"... which happily your "ology" will save us all from).

I could make short work of rebutting your argument with Platt's reminder 
that MOQ is also an ideology.  But then, so is our finite perspective of 
reality.  What you seem to be defining is the political "ideologue" -- an 
advocate or adherent of a particular ideology, rather than ideology itself. 
An ideologue is typically a political figure with the authority to shape 
society to his will.  Karl Marx, Adam Smith, Adolph Hitler, John Watson, and 
Noam Chomsky were all ideologues in the sense that they used ideology as an 
instrument to mold social behavior.

While it is true that the proponent of an ideology seeks to justify it by 
showing how it explains the workings of man and his universe, this is hardly 
imposing a "belief system" on others.  Actually, the first definition of 
ideology in my dictionary is "visionary theorizing".  I submit that the 
advancement of an idealistic theory does not "summarily dismiss" or negate 
alternate theories, nor does it condemn alternative ideologies as "wrong", 
"dangerous", or "evil".

Unlike prophets, popes, and despots, the philosopher can do little more than 
try to persuade others of the logic and virtues of his ideology.  With the 
exception of nihilists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, 
philosophers generally have something positive to offer the public, such as 
a new theory of reality or a way of satisfying man's spiritual nature 
without the ritual or dogma of religion or mysticism.  Despite your vehement 
objections to my belief that the ideology of collectivism is inconsistent 
with individual freedom, I don't see any significant difference in the 
practical applications of Essentialism vs. the MoQ.  However, I do find 
black-and-white moral appraisals of Science, Ideology, and Pragmatism overly 
simplistic for a philosophy forum.

Thanks for your views, Arlo.

--Ham