Subj : Everyone's Philosopher To : FRANK MASINGILL From : LEE LOFASO Date : Sat Jul 21 2001 05:37 pm Hello Frank, >LL>What gives people freedom is the ability to make choices. > >Ideologies restrict those choices, thereby reducing people's > >freedom. Since one cannot make a good choice if there is no bad > >choice available, it is not possible for one to do good. We would > >therefore become victims of a nanny state, not having the need or > >desire to think for ourselves. >LL>Not that all ideologies are bad or evil. But there are inherent > >dangers that must be understood whenever one looks to ideology as > >the basis of one's thought. And it is through the use of philosophy > >that enables one to understand what those dangers are, which makes > >philosophy the far more valuable tool. FM> It is seldom, in the realm of Fidonet that one encounters such ready FM>understanding and appreciaton for the strong link between "modernity" and FM>ideology as you have demonstrated in your post. I must observe, however, th FM>I detect a degree of inconsistency between the conclusion in your final two FM>paragraphs in that I could not concede that ideology can be intellectually FM>desirable under any circumstances. I suspect that the reason for this is th FM>you see the possibility of "good" dogma and "bad" dogma so it may be, in you FM>eyes, a matter of semantics. It's more a matter of semantics than anything else. Just because some ideologies are more desirable than others does not necessarily mean that any ideology is a replacement for critical thinking - or thinking of any other kind. :) FM>I feel the necessity of defending philosophy FM>against ALL metastatic thought or closure into any unchanging (unscientific) FM>unchallengeable framework because that is how I would have to define dogma. Dogmas can illuminate, helping us to ascertain what is absolute truth as opposed to something that may or may not be true. But dogmas can be misleading, especially if such dogma is flawed. FM>With that once small caveat, I must say that I think we view the misfortune FM>modern ideology in virtually the same way. All ideologies have flaws, both ancient and modern. All future ideologies are bound to have flaws, as well. The best that one can really hope for in any ideology is one that is not greatly destructive to individuals and society. FM> The resistance against the spirit of man as displayed in the ancient FM>Hellenic gnosticism was followed by a millenial movement leading to the Marx FM>and Comtean dreaming of perfection in this world, so attractive to the FM>alienated of both the ancient past and modernity you have correctly describe FM>as ushering in the 20th century ideologues like Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini and FM>Hitler and their counterparts in the eastern world as it fell under the drea The national socialism of Germany was really more of a "personality cult" centered around Adolf Hitler. The same might be able to be said of communism under Stalin, which is why some historians refer to that period of Russian history as being the Stalinist era. But it was Lenin who wrote the basis of Soviet ideology, in his paper "State and Revolution". Mussolini was kind of a strange case. Italian Fascism was much different than the national socialism of Germany. But even though Mussolini and his party fell from power at the end of WWII, the ideas of Mussolini live on in today's modern democracies. This can be seen by reading Mussolini's paper "The Doctrine of Fascism", noting that virtually every democracy in the world has elements of that particular ideology. FM> We did, indeed, have such nonsensical phraseology even in the western FM>democracies as "freedom from fear and want" and the like. Ah, yes. The Four Freedoms. FDR's finest speech. ;) FM>Philosophy is no FM>allowed very much leeway in modernity, yet, a healthy respect for science ev FM>a restored social science freed of the felt need for proceeding ONLY under t FM>rules of empirical science is certainly still alive and very much alive and FM>grow beyond our expectations in the 21st century. We will, I hope, continu FM>to repudiate those ideologues so entent upon hauling the salvation and FM>perfection suitable only to the experienced beyond into THIS world of imperf FM>man living in the tension between the human and the divine and realizing tha FM>to be his home. Ah. The difference between the finite and the infinite. With man, there is a definite beginning and a definite end. With the divine, there is no beginning and there is no end. Ideologies and ideologues impose or set boundaries, whereas the man who is free has no set boundaries, choosing to *play* with boundaries instead. --Lee * SLMR 2.1a * I do wish they *would* put their heads down! --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:18/140) .