Comments on: Cash Ideology? http://nowebsite.co.uk/blog/2006/01/cash-ideology/ cum grano salis Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:04:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3 By: Statto http://nowebsite.co.uk/blog/2006/01/cash-ideology/#comment-76 Statto Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:58:42 +0000 http://nowebsite.co.uk/blog/2006/01/cash-ideology/#comment-76 <blockquote> all ideologies are equally valid </blockquote> What do you mean by "valid"?

all ideologies are equally valid

What do you mean by “valid”?

]]> By: Eskoala http://nowebsite.co.uk/blog/2006/01/cash-ideology/#comment-78 Eskoala Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:06:19 +0000 http://nowebsite.co.uk/blog/2006/01/cash-ideology/#comment-78 It was in response to Jon's dismissal of others' ideologies. I mean that everyone has a right to believe whatever, and everyone can be right, or equally likely to be right, because this is about belief and philosophy and thus there is no right answer. I wouldn't say that all ideologies had equal value, just that none are valueless. That do? I just wanted to point out I wasn't dismissing anyone elses, just putting forward my ideology. It was in response to Jon’s dismissal of others’ ideologies. I mean that everyone has a right to believe whatever, and everyone can be right, or equally likely to be right, because this is about belief and philosophy and thus there is no right answer. I wouldn’t say that all ideologies had equal value, just that none are valueless.

That do? I just wanted to point out I wasn’t dismissing anyone elses, just putting forward my ideology.

]]> By: Statto http://nowebsite.co.uk/blog/2006/01/cash-ideology/#comment-79 Statto Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:38:28 +0000 http://nowebsite.co.uk/blog/2006/01/cash-ideology/#comment-79 I'm not sure I agree... I think I'd agree with "I wouldn’t say that all ideologies had equal value, just that none are valueless", but I'm tempted to be a bit more harsh. It does depend what you mean by "valueless", though; presumably it makes the ideology holder happy, else they wouldn't hold it, but if their ideology is mass murder or some other such singular extreme, I'm tempted to dismiss it totally. Also not convinced about the "right to belief" - it's not like you can stop someone believing something if you want...hmm...or is it..? I think my point is that I'm feeling philosophical and in the mood to split hairs. ;) I was mainly thinking of a Richard Dawkins argument about the existence of God; often, people say "well, since there's no proof that there <em>isn't</em> a God, I suppose I'll just have to keep an open mind", but Dawkins argues that there is equal reason to not dismiss a perfect china teapot orbiting just beyond Pluto, until at some point you factor in likelihood or necessity and decide that, in the absence of much of either, both the teapot and the omnipresent being are fallacies. My point is that there should be a limit to being univerally open-minded. But I assume from what you just wrote that you actually agree with that! I’m not sure I agree…

I think I’d agree with “I wouldn’t say that all ideologies had equal value, just that none are valueless”, but I’m tempted to be a bit more harsh.

It does depend what you mean by “valueless”, though; presumably it makes the ideology holder happy, else they wouldn’t hold it, but if their ideology is mass murder or some other such singular extreme, I’m tempted to dismiss it totally.

Also not convinced about the “right to belief” - it’s not like you can stop someone believing something if you want…hmm…or is it..?

I think my point is that I’m feeling philosophical and in the mood to split hairs. ;)

I was mainly thinking of a Richard Dawkins argument about the existence of God; often, people say “well, since there’s no proof that there isn’t a God, I suppose I’ll just have to keep an open mind”, but Dawkins argues that there is equal reason to not dismiss a perfect china teapot orbiting just beyond Pluto, until at some point you factor in likelihood or necessity and decide that, in the absence of much of either, both the teapot and the omnipresent being are fallacies.

My point is that there should be a limit to being univerally open-minded. But I assume from what you just wrote that you actually agree with that!

]]> By: Eskoala http://nowebsite.co.uk/blog/2006/01/cash-ideology/#comment-80 Eskoala Sun, 22 Jan 2006 15:07:38 +0000 http://nowebsite.co.uk/blog/2006/01/cash-ideology/#comment-80 I'm a bit of an idealist, and thus like the idea of being universally open minded, but certain practicalities have to come in somewhere if we're to get on with our lives. Actually I think a mass-murder ideology is perfectly valid if it makes a person happy, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to prevent mass murder. Where ideologies conflict, conflict must be resolved, and what usually happens is that the majority wins. It's not possible to pleases everyone because of this. I'd not dismiss any ideology, because I believe you can learn from everything, but I'm sure there are several that shouldn't be encouraged by society. Any ideology is perfectly acceptable until you involve more than one person. But, having society (interaction between people) is what is furthering the human race. Compromises are necessary for people to live together. What people believe, or think should never be controlled, but what people do must be to a certain extent, for the sake of the rest. So yeah, I agree with that, but I love exploring idealisms. I’m a bit of an idealist, and thus like the idea of being universally open minded, but certain practicalities have to come in somewhere if we’re to get on with our lives. Actually I think a mass-murder ideology is perfectly valid if it makes a person happy, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be trying to prevent mass murder.

Where ideologies conflict, conflict must be resolved, and what usually happens is that the majority wins. It’s not possible to pleases everyone because of this. I’d not dismiss any ideology, because I believe you can learn from everything, but I’m sure there are several that shouldn’t be encouraged by society. Any ideology is perfectly acceptable until you involve more than one person. But, having society (interaction between people) is what is furthering the human race. Compromises are necessary for people to live together. What people believe, or think should never be controlled, but what people do must be to a certain extent, for the sake of the rest.

So yeah, I agree with that, but I love exploring idealisms.

]]>