Greenspan’s Faith: Ideology trumps Science

[coberst]

I think that Ayn Rand is a very clear example of the apologist that Marx speaks of.

A social theory becomes an ideology when its members become apologists; its members become apologists when they fail as Critical Thinkers.

It appears to me that ideology is a set of ideas to which a group of individuals place great trust. Within this group of individuals, most will become apologists for this ideology because most members cannot think critically. Thus every set of ideas to which many are drawn will become an ideology. An ideology then is a set of ideas that is very popular and which is forcefully promoted by a large number of apologists. Thus the ideology is often enforced by force.

The difference in being a critical thinker or an apologist is that the critical thinker is conscious of his or her fallibility, is conscious of the assumptions that are part of the set of ideas making up that particular domain of belief, and has gained sufficient knowledge about them self to recognize their own prevailing prejudices and how these prejudices are formed.

The critical thinker recognizes the tendency to be biased and can remain rational about his or her set of beliefs. The Christian or the Muslim who remains a critical thinker rather than an apologist can keep the set of beliefs while maintaining a balanced view of that domain of knowledge and how that domain of belief fits into a society in harmony.

“Strange as it may seem, Marx’s concept of apologia bears a remarkable resemblance to, and can be best understood in the context of the traditional discussion of the nature and task of philosophy.”

Philosophy is, as a philosophy professor said to me when I asked him what philosophy was about, a radically critical self-consciousness form of inquiry. Philosophy is the only domain of knowledge that has the attitude and discipline required to critically question its assumptions. All domains of knowledge start with assumptions and if these assumptions are challenged then the whole domain of theoretically defined knowledge loses its theoretical rational and legitimacy.

Pull away the foundational assumptions of any domain of knowledge and the edifice crumbles without it.

A system of knowledge is inherently limited and distorted by its assumptions. Because of these assumptions it abstracts certain aspects of reality and conceptualizes the subject matter in a highly selective manner in accordance with the assumptions. The physicist restricts her focus to matters that can be quantified in terms of weight, time, distance, and perhaps wavelength.

“Each form of inquiry operates within the framework of and the limits set by its basic assumptions, and offer an inherently inadequate account f the world.” Since non-philosophical inquiry is not aware off or able to question its assumptions “they have a constant tendency to claim universal validity and transgress into areas not their own.”

The author argues that “the assumptions underlying and constituting a point of view may be not only methodological, ontological, and epistemological, but also social…To be a member of a society is to occupy a prestructured social space and to find one self already related to others in a certain manner.”

An ideology is systematically biased by its assumptions and it constantly must protect its assumptions from erosion if it is to maintain the status of its ideology. For Marx the ideologist becomes a constant apologist for his ideology. An uncritical or vulgar social theorist, even though personally very critical of the established order cannot overcome the social osmosis resulting from the society and is unable to realize his critical intentions.

I claim that ‘Critical Thinking is philosophy lite’ is a useful and accurate metaphor.

Paucity of Critical Thinking Leads to Ideology

Quotes from “Marx’s Theory of Ideology” Bhikhu Parekh

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by coberst

I think that Ayn Rand is a very clear example of the apologist that Marx speaks of.
A social theory becomes an ideology when its members become apologists; its members become apologists when they fail as Critical Thinkers.
... the claim that ‘Critical Thinking is philosophy lite’ is a useful and accurate metaphor. Paucity of Critical Thinking Leads to Ideology...

Umm... umm... I agree with you.

Excellent post.

[Pyrotex]

One should not be surprised to learn that I am really enjoying this thread. Part of the reason for this is that I really enjoyed Ayn Rand's books and feel that they empowered me. I don't want anyone to feel that the humor in my last posts reflects some "contempt" for Ayn Rand's books. Quite the contrary. Those were two of the most influential books I have ever read. I recommend everyone read them, because (1) they are powerful, fascinating & entertaining stories, and (2) there is something of value in the underlying philosophy that Rand is trying to convey in them.

That something of value is, I believe, the importance of a personal "ethic" of self-reliance and achievement. There is no other single factor of human experience that can contribute so much to happiness and self-respect. Even honesty, integrity, honor, righteousness and love -- though powerful sources of happiness -- are robbed of their power if you surrender yourself to living at the mercy of someone else's achievement.

I've visited the Ayn Rand Objectivism website, and wandered around. I even read a book on Objectivism (written by her "disciples") about a decade ago. And I find that when the object lessons of her wonderful stories are turned into "philosophy" -- and evangelized by a bunch of apologists, it all strikes me as rather lame. Virtue becomes Ideology.

Capitalism and self-reliance are awesome concepts. They make for the most productive economic system the world has ever seen. But there will always be those who find ways to "game the system". Even capitalism and self-reliance can be "gamed" by the unscrupulous. And there will always be "fairness" issues. Most productive doesn't imply most fair. We will always be burdened with striving towards an ever-changing and subjective judgement of what is the "best" balance between productivity and fairness.

And read those books.

[coberst]

Pyrotex

I think you are correct and I wish others could get the inspiration from reading that you have acquired from her book. I am not a fan of objetivism but am a fan of self-reliace and self-acualizing self-learning.

[Essay]

I'm finding it hard to imagine anyone who doesn't acknowledge the high value of "self-reliance and achievement," ...and critical thinking.
I'm also finding it hard to recall any book I've read that doesn't also convey that message, on at least some subtle level.

The Clan of the Cave Bear series comes to mind. Heck, even The Hobbit would qualify. Think of all the great literature of the 19th century, although often by negative example (Thomas Hardy, Ibsen..., yawn, etc.), ...but it still conveys the message....
Or think of other 20th century stuff like Brave New World, 1984, Farenheit 451, Walden II, and other "distopia" versions of how a post-industrial world might be envisioned.

Admittedly Rand creates a strong compelling framework, and the ethics are spelled out (thank-you John Galt) as a key focus; but I think if a literary character is going to develop and progress, then "self-reliance and achievement" are going to be important foci for many great, and even not so great, pieces of literature.

Y'know it shouldn't be surprising that these traits figure broadly in literature, as these are important parts in normal human development (see Erikson's: #4, Industry; #7, Generativity; and #8, Integrity), and in the development of one's personal identity.
Erik Erikson's Psychosocial Theory of Human Development, eight crisis stages human life-cycle, for teaching and learning, child development
Literature can be very influential, and helps provide perspective, as one traverses the various stages.

After hearing about how important are some of the lessons from Objectivism in developing a strong and effective personal ethic, I'm wondering how Rand's ideology translates into the wider spheres of one's local and cultural ethics (civics, religion, etc.), one's national ethics (politics, socionomics, etc.), or one's international and global ethics (environmental, humanitarian, etc.).

~

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Essay

Y'know it shouldn't be surprising that these traits figure broadly in literature, as these are important parts in normal human development (see Erikson's: #4, Industry; #7, Generativity; and #8, Integrity), and in the development of one's personal identity.
Erik Erikson's Psychosocial Theory of Human Development, eight crisis stages human life-cycle, for teaching and learning, child development
Literature can be very influential, and helps provide perspective, as one traverses the various stages.

After hearing about how important are some of the lessons from Objectivism in developing a strong and effective personal ethic, I'm wondering how Rand's ideology translates into the wider spheres of one's local and cultural ethics (civics, religion, etc.), one's national ethics (politics, socionomics, etc.), or one's international and global ethics (environmental, humanitarian, etc.).

~

Excellent question with which to begin a life time of self-learning.

Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.
--Voltaire (1694-1778)

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by coberst

...Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.
--Voltaire (1694-1778)

And my three personal favorite bits of wisdom:

"To do is to be." --Socrates

"To be is to do." --Spinoza

"Do be do be do." --Sinatra