About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 10:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I believe the quote fits some ideologies, e.g. Marxism.

Post 1

Sunday, December 4, 2011 - 12:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What little I know of the author of the quote I skimmed in Wikipedia. Although I doubt he would call himself a pragmatist, it sounds like something a pragmatist would say. However, I fail to see how any system of thought would not qualify as an "ideology," including pragmatism itself. Any attempt to systematize a body of ideas must necessarily qualify as an "ideology." The quote is self-refuting unless, as Merlin notes, one modifies it to limit its context to those ideologies that attempt to rewrite reality, e.g. Marxism.

Post 2

Monday, December 5, 2011 - 5:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aphorisms are intended to convey levels of meaning, giving you something to ponder, worry, or enjoy.

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." -- Robert Heinlein.

We on RoR have already rejected that.  An objective morality is non-contradictory at the conceptual level. Furthermore, if you are psychologically integrated, then there is no emotional conflict to moral action.  That all aside, we know that we do experience these conflicts when life brings new challenges.  The aphorism reminds us to follow our heads, not our hearts.  Make of it what you will, or not.

I am currently reading, The Picture of Dorian Gray.  Sir Henry is the author's viewpoint character and the dialog is dense with aphorisms.  After a while, they become uninteresting, like the toys in a gumball machine, many, pretty and cheap.  (You can see how infectious such writing is.)

I mention that in comparison with this because it is very dense. We - and I mean we on RoR, as well as the broad culture - actually accept Mannheim's redefinition of "ideology."  We have a broad definition: any system of ideas to explain complex social phenomena. Before Mannheim, however, "ideology" was specifically the Marxist explanation of how the capitalist ruling class justified itself.  Ideology replaced religion. Back then, to speak of "socialist ideology" would have been to speak of a "secular religion."  You would have needed to explain yourself, as your audience would have perceived an internal contradiction. 

As I read the Wikipedia biography, I found this: "The quite different German and English versions of the book figure in reappraisals of Mannheim initiated by new textual discoveries and republications."  Therefore, whether in this statement Mannheim was being pithy or mistranslated is not clear to me.  Either way, it just comes across as hopelessly pessimistic.


Post 3

Monday, December 5, 2011 - 12:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

You said:
... we know that we do experience these conflicts when life brings new challenges.  The aphorism reminds us to follow our heads, not our hearts.
But what were you referring to? Where you referring to Mannheim's quote? The reason I ask is because Mannheim's quote reminds us to follow our hearts, not our heads. It is almost exactly like Dewey's: 'Act first, think afterward' aphorism. It's certainly of the same sentiment. Mannheim & Dewey are like 2 peas.


Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/05, 12:28pm)


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.