++> From continuing exchange between Frank Masingill
 ++> and David Martorana on Ideology vs. philosophy
 
 DM> 3. The doctrines, opinions, or way of
 DM> thinking of  an individual, class, etc; specif. the body of  ideas on
 DM> which a particular political, economic  or social system is based.
                                                ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
 
 DM>  Ideology = Closed dogma
 
 FM> David, do you not see quite clearly that, while I do not
 FM> necessarily get definition of such terms entirely from Websters,
 FM> the very definitions you give above EQUAL "closed dogma?"
 
 "Social systems"  are my reality and yours ("some good; some bad!").
  ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
 Though I cannot fathom your logic, I would in the future accept
 your definition of "ideology"  when exchanging with you. Though
 I find it awkward as a term to work against philosophy, I know
 you would not give it up, so I will make space for it in my
 basket.
 
 You would now have to supply me with another term for a "good
 system" now that ideology only represents bad systems.
 
 FM> Conceiving of philosophizing as the search for the RIGHT choice
 FM> among a welter of SYSTEMS OF OPINION is precisely the situation
 FM> that occurred in the wake of the foundation of philosophy by Plato
 FM> and Aristotle and again in later epochs such as, for example, in
 FM> the wake of the "enlgihtenment" when free and open exploration of
 FM> the meaning in the experience of man was denied by the ideologists
 FM> who were convinced that each had been given the totality of the
 FM> truth of history and thus needed only to form man into political
 FM> and social units following that plan.  One could name Owen,
 FM> Fourier, St. Simon, Marx, Engels, Bakunin and others and they were
 FM> followed by the Lenins, Mussolinis, Hitlers, Huey Longs, Coughlins,
 FM> Townsends and countless others (some more successful in their
 FM> Orwellian plans than others (Stalin).
 
     Would ol' Abe Lincoln qualify? He certainly had no philosophical
     warmth toward the Southern view!
 
 FM> If you see no difference in this and the varieties of thought on
 FM> which the "fathers" of the American revolt against England drew
 FM> upon and still considered only the best they could do and capable
 FM> of being altered even in the deepest aspect of sovereignty later
 FM> then I don't know that I could offer much more evidence of the
 FM> VAST difference in our positions.
 
     There is little difference in our positions except in the awkward
   way you have chosen to present them. I very very much favor a democratic
   form of government BUT it is still a "system" (a good package of
   ideologies gathered into a "system" enclosed within laws). I very much
   dislike the more non democratic forms of government (bad package of
   ideologies gathered into a "system" likely less enclosed within
   serious taken laws).
 
 FM> "System" is what is bad, David, in terms of PHILOSOPHY.  It is bad
 FM> and wrong because it assumes man only has to search around among
 FM> the debris of "philosophical systems" for one that either "works"
 FM> or "happens to be true" and if that is the case then the ideologists
 FM> who sought to form mankind in the image of that "system" might have
 FM> a point.  They BELIEVE they have discovered final and unalterable
 FM> truth or INDEED that such is even "findable" with regard to reality
 FM> as a whole.
 
  Frank! I believe you are against practical reality, unable to see
  that systems can be *BOTH* good and bad with most somewhere in between!
                             ^^^^     ^^^                        ^^^^^^^
     You are hard to figure as we both live within a "system" that we
     have done well under; and are most fond of (assumed)!
 
 FM> Once a subject has been examined from all sides, "definitions"
 FM> become superfluous and may even be misleading.  They never have
 FM> been anything else (certainly not philosophical anchors) than
 FM> valid attempts to examine terminologies so that discussants might
 FM> try to utilize terms agreed upon. Such an effort is HARDEST in
 FM> the area of philosophical discussion itself. That is why the
 FM> DISCUSSION is more important BY FAR than DEFINITIONS.
 
  I don't agree, but can accept that environment in my wish to continue
  exchange. Our differences are not often in substance, but more the
  liquid metal of our common language. I'm some stubborn in my attitude
  about forcing terms to mean what they were not designed for, while
  perfectly good words designed to clarify understanding are left
  unemployed.    ............but its ok; I can accept your preference.
                       ??
                       oo ........... Dave
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------