On 01-11-98 Frank Masingill wrote to David Martorana... 
 
        Hello Frank, 
  
 FM>  DM> Sincerely, (I hope not dishonest ?) 
   
 FM> overlooks some hard and fast experiences we have had as human beings, 
 FM> especially in this century regarding the destructive nature of 
 FM> ideology and 
 
  Yes, ideology as in socialism, facism, communism, etc -CAN- 
and -HAS- been destructive; however, does this -inductive- argument 
then mean -all- ideology is destructive (conclusive)?  Nope. 
  You seem to be imploying one aspect of Mill's Method, 
commonality, for causation.  Meaning, a common theme to 
socialism, facisism, communism, etc, is ideology. 
  However, in socialism, facism, communism, etc share 
commonality in that they all -assume- it possible for 
one or a group of inidividuals to control an economy or 
determine what is -best- for others. Perhaps, it isn't 
the ideology, but rather the -assumptions- the ideology 
is based upon.  
  
 FM> the continued pursuit of philosophy which is always toward the search 
 FM> for wisdom and meaning in existence. 
 
 FM>    I can't see anything to be gained in taking up your reaction to my 
 FM> post in 
 FM> piecemeal fashion for your opposition to the notion that ideology is 
 FM> dangerous for mankind is quite firm.  I AM puzzled as to why. 
   
  Ideology -can- and -has been- dangerous, but your conclusion that 
-all- ideology -IS- dangerous is illogical.    
  Using your logic, one could say cars -have been and are- dangerous; 
therefore, -all- cars are dangerous. 
 
        [snip] 
  
 FM>    All of this had its precedents in the period since enlightenment 
 FM> and all 
 FM> were produced by the specific EMBRACING OF TOTALITARIAN ANSWERS which 
 FM> DENIED 
 FM> ANY CRITIQUE UNDER THE CANONS OF WESTERN LOGIC AND DEBATE.  That is 
 FM> NOT philosophy.  It IS ideology.  Always has been, always will be. 
  
  As I pointed out to your before, your -assumption- about the 
INABILITY of man to know REALITY is -assumed- (NOT OPEN TO DEBATE) 
to be true; thus, your ideology is that of Vogelar's central 
theme, man's INABILITY. 
  If philosophy is open which presumably includes definitional 
points, shouldn't the definition of ideology be open to debate 
such as -what- about ideology is dangerous? 
  
        [snip] 
  
 FM>    That's the best I can do.  You appear to challenge the authors I 
 FM> have 
 FM> mentioned without reading their core messages and dealing with THOSE 
 FM> IDEAS, 
 
  In challenging the ideas, what -criteria- (by what standard, 
presumably the canons of Western thought and debate) is he to 
meet?  Presumably, Western canons. 
  If so, attaching the credibility of the source is acceptable 
Western canon for debate according to "How to Argue" page 
41, "Fallacy of Illegitimate Appeal to Authority."   
  However, it is true the conclusion may in fact be true 
even with "Illegitimate Appeal to Authority," but it does 
-show- the argument is invalid. 
  
 FM> substituting, instead, some definitions that favor your own 
 FM> inclinations with 
 FM> not even the slightest concession that there might be SOME merit in 
 FM> what others have to say on the subject.   
   
        [snip] 
  
 FM>    I hear Sowell quoted a lot in this echo.  Sowell's critique of 
 FM> those who he 
 FM> charges with holding desparately to what he calls the "unconstrained 
 FM> vision" 
 FM> is a clear critique of ideology and to the extent that what he sees is 
 FM> true he is certainly right.  He is right on target.   
   
  Sowell, in "A Conflict of Visions", makes the point that 
probably there are as many "visions" as there are people 
thus to dichotimize visions into "unconstrained" and "constrained" 
simiplifies the picture, but he points out it does serve as a model 
by which explore the arena. 
  Perhaps, you would enjoy Sowell more than you think as perhaps 
you -presume- to much about -what- Sowell thinks. 
 
        [snip] 
 
Take care, 
John 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------