| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 994.1 | | MOSAIC::R_BROWN | We're from Brone III... | Fri Feb 23 1990 12:50 | 7 |
|
Ann:
Please elaborate.
-Robert Brown III
|
| 994.2 | | MOIRA::FAIMAN | light upon the figured leaf | Fri Feb 23 1990 13:01 | 13 |
| > Well, what's the use of having a personal philosophy, or an
> `ideology', if you don't apply it to issues?
Agreed. However, one of the idiomatic connotations of "ideology" is that
it is a collection of beliefs which are so deeply held as to resist any
experiential contradiction. ("Don't bother me with facts ...".)
A personal philosophy which not only affects ones actions, but is updated
in accordance with their consequences and with one's other experiences, is
a valuable thing to have. A rigid ideology which takes precedence over
one's experience of the real world would seem rather crippling.
-Neil
|
| 994.3 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | I've fallen and I can't get up! | Fri Feb 23 1990 13:11 | 14 |
| re: .0
I posit that a difference exists between applying one's personal
philosophy to specific issues and utilizing reductionism to arrive at
conclusions on certain issues based on broad ideological principles
which may not apply in the manner they are used. Such uses of
reductionism prohibit the independent assessment of specific issues on
their own merit due to a rigid formula which defines the correct
conclusion of any possible analysis.
I'd also say I am occasionally guilty of being reductionistic. (new
word) :-)
The Doctah
|
| 994.4 | No true black or white. Gray is Truth | USEM::DONOVAN | | Fri Feb 23 1990 13:24 | 9 |
| re:.0
Life is not simple. Answers are not simple.
Who was it that said,
"Just when I thought I knew the answers someone changed the
question."?
Kate
|
| 994.5 | I've never been very good at tests | LEZAH::BOBBITT | there's heat beneath your winter | Fri Feb 23 1990 14:02 | 19 |
| > , bringing
> broad ideological principles to bear on specific personal or
> theoretical issues, ..."
I think the key word above is "broad". If one brings BROAD ideological
principles, and tries to apply them to specific personal or theoretical
issues, then it seems one is painting a small thing with a very large
brush. Also, when one has broad ideological principles (like FREEDOM
OF SPEECH or FEMINISM or REPUBLICANISM or RELIGION), then they
occasionally become so ensconced in how one things that one ceases to
entertain new options, or concepts that do not interlock with one's
ideology. If one has less-broad or not-quite-so-concrete ideological
principles (flexible towards new input, but not breakable), this
enables better application to specific personal or theoreticl issues,
particularly these issues are those of other people. Nobody wants to
talk to a brick wall.
-Jody
|
| 994.6 | | SA1794::CHARBONND | Mail SPWACY::CHARBONND | Tue Feb 27 1990 05:58 | 7 |
| re .0 The alternative is action divorced from one's
philosophy, or any philosophy, based solely on range-of-
the-moment concerns. See US history, Reagan Presidency,
for results.
This subject would be more appropriate in the Philosophy
conference.
|