[MD] Proud to be a Brit / Pommie

[gav]

noam chomsky the ideologue....erm....isn't he the guy that exposes the hypocrisy of ideologues?

maybe he is fond of anarcho-syndicalism but he is hardly 'molding society to his will' (not real well anyway). in fact what he does do is reveal *how* society is molded (ie controlled/duped) through the complicity of government, media and business.

i think noam is still a bit SOMish but he is an authentic intellectual; i guess he is still persona non grata over there hey?





--- On Thu, 16/10/08, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> From: Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Proud to be a Brit / Pommie
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Received: Thursday, 16 October, 2008, 4:52 PM
> [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
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/


      Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail