FM> overlooks some hard and fast experiences we have had as human beings,
 FM> especially in this century regarding the destructive nature of ideology
 FM> and
 JB> Yes, ideology as in socialism, facism, communism, etc -CAN- and -HAS-
 JB> been destructive; however, does this -inductive- argument then mean
 JB> -all- ideology is destructive (conclusive)?  Nope.
   Yes, John, ALL ideology is destructive both to philosophy AND to science.
I merely stressed these three derivatives of political thought of the 19th
century because of the misery they have caused great masses of people when
forced under their "vanguards" who claim to KNOW the full truth of reality 
nd
are ready, even at the point of a gun to force multitudes to live under their
creeds.  Religious doctrinal movements have always done the same kind of
damage.  But ideology can seize upon ANY search for SOME truth of reality.
Darwin, e.g., was simply a scientist looking for better and more inclusive
answers in his field.  DarwinISM is an ideology.  FreudianISM is an ideology
which Freud, himself, unhappily took SOME steps to cause.  That is why many 
f
his students who learned from him BROKE with him.  Jung specifically SAID 
hat
at a particular point he realized that Freud had become "religious" about his
"sexual" theory.  Need I describe Comte's building of an ideology even though
he termed it a "religion of science?"  It is called "positivism."  I did not
go through the entire catalog which would require more than a paragraph.  
   Ideology is, put quite simply and without coating, the setting forth of
what "appears" to be philosophical reasoning into a structure that purports 
o
answer all or THE MOST IMPORTANT (for the ideologists) questions and will
suffer NO FURTHER DEBATE.  Many ideologies are quite learned and complex as
well as comprehensive in scope.  
   There are ideological elements in all of our political parties and
promoters of some of these really do believe that the party would do well to
embrace THEIR ideologies wholesale.  That is one reason why George Washington
so strongly OPPOSED the very existence of political parties which he called
"factions."  You may recall that in the most recent presidential election the
abortion ideologues won the battle to place a strong "anti-abortion" plank in
the national platform.  But, then, the candidate for that party publically
announced that he didn't even READ the platform and proceded to run under his
own more liberal attitude on this issue.  Party platforms are designed to get
votes and the ideologues who take them too seriously imagine them to be
absolutely contractual.  I'm not sure that's the best analogy but it gets to
some of the issue.
   The Morman missionary or the Jehovah's Witness who rings your doorbell is
NOT there to join with you in searching for the truth of reality.  To be 
uite
blunt, NOTHING you might offer as a question without an immediate answer
interest them AT ALL.  They are there to fulfill their mission of ridding 
OUR
mind of ANY thought that might contradict their message which has total
answers for EVERYTHING.  THAT, John, is an ideology.  Some religious 
ovements
offer more freedom of conscience than others but the tendency is always 
oward
the supremacy of a doctrine.  
   What often happens is that questions are asked in some area which may be
investigated as science normally investigates with constant checks along the
way but then such an investigation can become derailed and begin to insist
that what might have been a THEORY now becomes a truth into which EVERYTHING
must fit.  CreationISM is certainly an ideology and Evolution can degenerate
from the stage of theory in some instances into ideological strictures. We
hope and trust daily that the prescription medicine we are taking has not
originated in somebody's DOCTRINE all the while realizing that at best the
efficacy of the medicine SHOULD simply represent the best knowledge that 
hose
stamping it for approval have at the moment.  People should be free to smoke
Crossvine if they take a notion that it will cure prostrate cancer but we
wouldn't want a "Crossvine" ideology to win control of the political 
achinery
of the country so that EVERYBODY is forced to acknowledge that it is a
cure-all for something.
   I don't think I can be any more plain.
 JB> Ideology -can- and -has been- dangerous, but your conclusion that -all-
 JB> ideology -IS- dangerous is illogical.
   
   Potentially it always is but even if not administered by the boys with the
guns it is ALWAYS destructive of philosophy which is the love of wisdom and
NOT the POSSESSION of wisdom which characterizes an ideology.
 FM> All of this had its precedents in the period since enlightenment and all
 FM> were produced by the specific EMBRACING OF TOTALITARIAN ANSWERS which
 FM> DENIED ANY CRITIQUE UNDER THE CANONS OF WESTERN LOGIC AND DEBATE.  That
 FM> is NOT philosophy.  It IS ideology.  Always has been, always will be.
 JB> As I pointed out to your before, your -assumption- about the INABILITY
 JB> of man to know REALITY is -assumed- (NOT OPEN TO DEBATE) to be true;
 JB> thus, your ideology is that of Vogelar's central theme, man's INABILITY.
 JB> If philosophy is open which presumably includes definitional points,
 JB> shouldn't the definition of ideology be open to debate such as -what-
 JB> about ideology is dangerous?
   I must tell you that when I hear Eric Voegelin referred to as "Vogelar" I
cannot help but smile and realize that this colleague of Sowell at the Hoover
Institution, will probably have to await the 21st century before being
discovered by the public at large even though political scientists throughout
the world know him well enough to spell his name correctly.  He died in 1985
and quite frankly I do not KNOW whether he and Sowell were there at precisely
the same years or not. 
   I don't understand your curious assumption that Voegelin's "central theme"
was "man's INABILITY!!!"  Getting into his _Order and History_ might be a bit
much to begin but one should have little difficulty finding his _The New
Science of Politics_ or his _Autobiographical Reflections_ edited by Ellis
Sandoz, LSU Press, 1989.  If I should be asked to give him a "central theme"
it certainly would be his programmatic change in the middle of his scholarly
life's work to acknowledge that there really IS NO validity in the concept of
one linear history (as the great ideological philosophers such as Hegel had
assured us and his strong (and to me understandable) and firm oppostion to
ideology and gnosticism, ancient or modern.
   One reason Voegelin will take longer for the world to discover is that he
firmly refused to write in such a way that ANY POLITICAL MOVEMENT OR PARTY
could claim him as an apostle.  Acknowledging the humble position of man qua
philosopher as Voegelin did is NOT a means of "winning friends and 
nfluencing
people."  
   Asked by a journalist at LSU once years ago if he "believed Moses existed"
Voegelin fixed him with a cold stare and replied, "young man, I am a scholar,
NOT a fool!!"  
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
  
                                                    
                                                                              
  
                                                    
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------