|
General Metalworking - All aspects of working with metal.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by Strabo on July 22, 2008, 3:50 am
Please log in for more thread options
Ed Huntress wrote:
>> John R. Carroll wrote:
>>> Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, it is. Ideologues tend to be insecure thinkers who get along by
>>>>> demonizing or belittling the other side. That's how they pump
>>>>> themselves up.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>> I see that only applies to the "Other Guy" whoever that might be.
>>>
>>> I don't know about that Tom.
>>> The fundamental truth of the matter is that ideologues are a subset of
>>> the
>>> insecure.
>>>
>> You are an ideologue. I am an ideologue. Every poster here is an
>> ideologue.
>>
>> Looks like you'll have to debate facts.
>>
>>
>>
>> ideology
>>
>> 1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual,
>> social movement, institution, class, or large group.
>> 2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political
>> and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it
>> into operation.
>> 3. Philosophy.
>> a. the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
>> b. a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
>> 4. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.
>>
>> [Origin: 1790–1800; ideo- + -logy; cf. F idéologie]
>> Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
>> Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.
>> 2006.
>
>
> You looked up the wrong word, strabo. What you want is ideologue, not
> ideology. Here's Merriam-Webster's on ideologue:
>
> Main Entry: ideo·logue
> Variant(s): also idea·logue 'i-de-?-?lo?g, -?läg
> Function: noun
> Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
> Date: 1815
> 1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
> 2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
>
Same root, same meaning - one who has, uses, an ideology.
You said, "The fundamental truth of the matter is that ideologues are
a subset of the insecure", implying that those who draw upon an ideology
are insecure and afraid to think outside that structure.
You're simply attempting to undermine your opponent's beliefs and I'm
suggesting that your ideology probably has more substance than that.
But, maybe not.
>
> The back formation carries some extra, crucial connotations.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
>
|
|
Posted by John R. Carroll on July 22, 2008, 8:05 am
Please log in for more thread options
Strabo wrote:
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> John R. Carroll wrote:
>>>> Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, it is. Ideologues tend to be insecure thinkers who get
>>>>>> along by demonizing or belittling the other side. That's how
>>>>>> they pump themselves up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>>> I see that only applies to the "Other Guy" whoever that might be.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about that Tom.
>>>> The fundamental truth of the matter is that ideologues are a
>>>> subset of the
>>>> insecure.
>>>>
>>> You are an ideologue. I am an ideologue. Every poster here is an
>>> ideologue.
>>>
>>> Looks like you'll have to debate facts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ideology
>>>
>>> 1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an
>>> individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
>>> 2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some
>>> political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the
>>> devices for putting it into operation.
>>> 3. Philosophy.
>>> a. the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
>>> b. a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
>>> 4. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.
>>>
>>> [Origin: 1790–1800; ideo- + -logy; cf. F idéologie]
>>> Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
>>> Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House,
>>> Inc. 2006.
>>
>>
>> You looked up the wrong word, strabo. What you want is ideologue, not
>> ideology. Here's Merriam-Webster's on ideologue:
>>
>> Main Entry: ideo·logue
>> Variant(s): also idea·logue 'i-de-?-?lo?g, -?läg
>> Function: noun
>> Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
>> Date: 1815
>> 1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
>> 2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular
>> ideology
>>
>
> Same root, same meaning - one who has, uses, an ideology.
>
> You said, "The fundamental truth of the matter is that ideologues are
> a subset of the insecure", implying that those who draw upon an
> ideology are insecure and afraid to think outside that structure.
No he didn't.
I did, and you missed my point completely.
--
John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
|
|
Posted by Ed Huntress on July 22, 2008, 9:33 am
Please log in for more thread options
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> John R. Carroll wrote:
>>>> Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, it is. Ideologues tend to be insecure thinkers who get along by
>>>>>> demonizing or belittling the other side. That's how they pump
>>>>>> themselves up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>>> I see that only applies to the "Other Guy" whoever that might be.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about that Tom.
>>>> The fundamental truth of the matter is that ideologues are a subset of
>>>> the
>>>> insecure.
>>>>
>>> You are an ideologue. I am an ideologue. Every poster here is an
>>> ideologue.
>>>
>>> Looks like you'll have to debate facts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ideology
>>>
>>> 1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual,
>>> social movement, institution, class, or large group.
>>> 2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political
>>> and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting
>>> it into operation.
>>> 3. Philosophy.
>>> a. the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
>>> b. a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
>>> 4. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.
>>>
>>> [Origin: 1790–1800; ideo- + -logy; cf. F idéologie]
>>> Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
>>> Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.
>>> 2006.
>>
>>
>> You looked up the wrong word, strabo. What you want is ideologue, not
>> ideology. Here's Merriam-Webster's on ideologue:
>>
>> Main Entry: ideo·logue
>> Variant(s): also idea·logue 'i-de-?-?lo?g, -?läg
>> Function: noun
>> Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
>> Date: 1815
>> 1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
>> 2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular
>> ideology
>>
>
> Same root, same meaning - one who has, uses, an ideology.
If it were true that they had the same meaning, the dictionaries wouldn't
give them such radically different definitions. That Webster's definition I
quoted was the ENTIRE definition for "ideologue."
"Ideologue" is an ironic derivation of "ideology." A current example of this
kind of transition is "truth" versus "truthiness." English has hundreds of
such ironic, morphological reversals.
>
> You said, "The fundamental truth of the matter is that ideologues are
> a subset of the insecure", implying that those who draw upon an ideology
> are insecure and afraid to think outside that structure.
First off, it was John who said that, but I fully agree with him. And your
understanding of the implication is correct.
>
> You're simply attempting to undermine your opponent's beliefs and I'm
> suggesting that your ideology probably has more substance than that.
> But, maybe not.
I'd like to avoid a big philosophical discussion about this, but I'll give
you the two-bits version: My position on ideologies is that they have two
faults. The first is one explicit in the definition you pasted here: they
usually are based at least partly on myth and belief, rather than on fact.
The second is that the modern ones, at least, tend to be based on strings of
deductive reasoning. Deduction is a tool that's good for about two or three
"therefores." Beyond that it almost always leads to absurd or at least
erroneous conclusions. Often this is because the premises prove to be wrong,
when they're exposed to enough real examples -- life generally is more
complex than anything that can be boiled down to simple premises, beyond a
few essential ones. But there is another reason, a complex issue of formal
logic that I know little about, except that it's out there; that logic
contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Logic, especially
the vulgar, Aristotelian version that most of us call "logic," is a very
limited tool, one that's misused as often as not. Don't ask me to explain
this. It's a deep subject that I intend to study when I retire. d8-)
What John is saying is that ideological systems appeal to people who have a
low tolerance for ambiguity and who are anxious when things are uncertain.
Everyone has this limitation to some degree; it's one of the characteristics
of being human. People who have a big dose of it are attracted to
tightly-wrapped ideological systems that shield them from ambiguity. But the
systems themselves, exposed to real life over some short or long period of
history, always, always, turn to crap. I know of no exceptions.
Intellectually, politically, recognition of this fact tends to make people
"intellectual centrists," or, the more speculative and courageous example,
"radical centrists." I use the shorthand "anti-ideologue" to describe this
point of view. It's not quite accurate, but it gets the idea across.
Without provoking a long (and probably fruitless) argument about all of
this, let me put a point on it by saying that the born-again are the most
extreme examples of those anxious, insecure, ambiguity-intolerant
individuals that John was referring to. Unhappy with some aspect of their
lives, they're open and ready for revelation and seize on certainty like a
man overboard seizes a liferaft. Once they have a grip on it they have only
one thing to fear: changing their mind. If they give in to life's
ambiguities they will lose it all and drown in the sea of uncertainty,
because they never developed the tools to cope with it. That's the
insecurity John is referring to. For example, George W. Bush.
--
Ed Huntress
|
|
Posted by Dan on July 22, 2008, 11:29 am
Please log in for more thread options Ed Huntress wrote:
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> John R. Carroll wrote:
>>>>> Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, it is. Ideologues tend to be insecure thinkers who get along by
>>>>>>> demonizing or belittling the other side. That's how they pump
>>>>>>> themselves up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>>>> I see that only applies to the "Other Guy" whoever that might be.
>>>>> I don't know about that Tom.
>>>>> The fundamental truth of the matter is that ideologues are a subset of
>>>>> the
>>>>> insecure.
>>>>>
>>>> You are an ideologue. I am an ideologue. Every poster here is an
>>>> ideologue.
>>>>
>>>> Looks like you'll have to debate facts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ideology
>>>>
>>>> 1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual,
>>>> social movement, institution, class, or large group.
>>>> 2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political
>>>> and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting
>>>> it into operation.
>>>> 3. Philosophy.
>>>> a. the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
>>>> b. a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
>>>> 4. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.
>>>>
>>>> [Origin: 1790–1800; ideo- + -logy; cf. F idéologie]
>>>> Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
>>>> Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.
>>>> 2006.
>>>
>>> You looked up the wrong word, strabo. What you want is ideologue, not
>>> ideology. Here's Merriam-Webster's on ideologue:
>>>
>>> Main Entry: ideo·logue
>>> Variant(s): also idea·logue 'i-de-?-?lo?g, -?läg
>>> Function: noun
>>> Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
>>> Date: 1815
>>> 1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
>>> 2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular
>>> ideology
>>>
>> Same root, same meaning - one who has, uses, an ideology.
>
> If it were true that they had the same meaning, the dictionaries wouldn't
> give them such radically different definitions. That Webster's definition I
> quoted was the ENTIRE definition for "ideologue."
>
> "Ideologue" is an ironic derivation of "ideology." A current example of this
> kind of transition is "truth" versus "truthiness." English has hundreds of
> such ironic, morphological reversals.
>
>> You said, "The fundamental truth of the matter is that ideologues are
>> a subset of the insecure", implying that those who draw upon an ideology
>> are insecure and afraid to think outside that structure.
>
> First off, it was John who said that, but I fully agree with him. And your
> understanding of the implication is correct.
>
>> You're simply attempting to undermine your opponent's beliefs and I'm
>> suggesting that your ideology probably has more substance than that.
>> But, maybe not.
>
> I'd like to avoid a big philosophical discussion about this, but I'll give
> you the two-bits version: My position on ideologies is that they have two
> faults. The first is one explicit in the definition you pasted here: they
> usually are based at least partly on myth and belief, rather than on fact.
> The second is that the modern ones, at least, tend to be based on strings of
> deductive reasoning. Deduction is a tool that's good for about two or three
> "therefores." Beyond that it almost always leads to absurd or at least
> erroneous conclusions. Often this is because the premises prove to be wrong,
> when they're exposed to enough real examples -- life generally is more
> complex than anything that can be boiled down to simple premises, beyond a
> few essential ones. But there is another reason, a complex issue of formal
> logic that I know little about, except that it's out there; that logic
> contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Logic, especially
> the vulgar, Aristotelian version that most of us call "logic," is a very
> limited tool, one that's misused as often as not. Don't ask me to explain
> this. It's a deep subject that I intend to study when I retire. d8-)
>
> What John is saying is that ideological systems appeal to people who have a
> low tolerance for ambiguity and who are anxious when things are uncertain.
> Everyone has this limitation to some degree; it's one of the characteristics
> of being human. People who have a big dose of it are attracted to
> tightly-wrapped ideological systems that shield them from ambiguity. But the
> systems themselves, exposed to real life over some short or long period of
> history, always, always, turn to crap. I know of no exceptions.
>
> Intellectually, politically, recognition of this fact tends to make people
> "intellectual centrists," or, the more speculative and courageous example,
> "radical centrists." I use the shorthand "anti-ideologue" to describe this
> point of view. It's not quite accurate, but it gets the idea across.
>
> Without provoking a long (and probably fruitless) argument about all of
> this, let me put a point on it by saying that the born-again are the most
> extreme examples of those anxious, insecure, ambiguity-intolerant
> individuals that John was referring to. Unhappy with some aspect of their
> lives, they're open and ready for revelation and seize on certainty like a
> man overboard seizes a liferaft. Once they have a grip on it they have only
> one thing to fear: changing their mind. If they give in to life's
> ambiguities they will lose it all and drown in the sea of uncertainty,
> because they never developed the tools to cope with it. That's the
> insecurity John is referring to. For example, George W. Bush.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
>
Well and patiently explained.
Dan
|
|
Posted by Hawke on July 22, 2008, 2:47 pm
Please log in for more thread options > >> You looked up the wrong word, strabo. What you want is ideologue, not
> >> ideology. Here's Merriam-Webster's on ideologue:
> >>
> >> Main Entry: ideo·logue
> >> Variant(s): also idea·logue 'i-de-?-?lo?g, -?läg
> >> Function: noun
> >> Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
> >> Date: 1815
> >> 1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
> >> 2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular
> >> ideology
> >>
> >
> > Same root, same meaning - one who has, uses, an ideology.
>
> If it were true that they had the same meaning, the dictionaries wouldn't
> give them such radically different definitions. That Webster's definition
I
> quoted was the ENTIRE definition for "ideologue."
>
> "Ideologue" is an ironic derivation of "ideology." A current example of
this
> kind of transition is "truth" versus "truthiness." English has hundreds of
> such ironic, morphological reversals.
>
> >
> > You said, "The fundamental truth of the matter is that ideologues are
> > a subset of the insecure", implying that those who draw upon an ideology
> > are insecure and afraid to think outside that structure.
>
> First off, it was John who said that, but I fully agree with him. And your
> understanding of the implication is correct.
>
> >
> > You're simply attempting to undermine your opponent's beliefs and I'm
> > suggesting that your ideology probably has more substance than that.
> > But, maybe not.
>
> I'd like to avoid a big philosophical discussion about this, but I'll give
> you the two-bits version: My position on ideologies is that they have two
> faults. The first is one explicit in the definition you pasted here: they
> usually are based at least partly on myth and belief, rather than on fact.
> The second is that the modern ones, at least, tend to be based on strings
of
> deductive reasoning. Deduction is a tool that's good for about two or
three
> "therefores." Beyond that it almost always leads to absurd or at least
> erroneous conclusions. Often this is because the premises prove to be
wrong,
> when they're exposed to enough real examples -- life generally is more
> complex than anything that can be boiled down to simple premises, beyond a
> few essential ones. But there is another reason, a complex issue of formal
> logic that I know little about, except that it's out there; that logic
> contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Logic, especially
> the vulgar, Aristotelian version that most of us call "logic," is a very
> limited tool, one that's misused as often as not. Don't ask me to explain
> this. It's a deep subject that I intend to study when I retire. d8-)
>
> What John is saying is that ideological systems appeal to people who have
a
> low tolerance for ambiguity and who are anxious when things are uncertain.
> Everyone has this limitation to some degree; it's one of the
characteristics
> of being human. People who have a big dose of it are attracted to
> tightly-wrapped ideological systems that shield them from ambiguity. But
the
> systems themselves, exposed to real life over some short or long period of
> history, always, always, turn to crap. I know of no exceptions.
>
> Intellectually, politically, recognition of this fact tends to make people
> "intellectual centrists," or, the more speculative and courageous example,
> "radical centrists." I use the shorthand "anti-ideologue" to describe this
> point of view. It's not quite accurate, but it gets the idea across.
>
> Without provoking a long (and probably fruitless) argument about all of
> this, let me put a point on it by saying that the born-again are the most
> extreme examples of those anxious, insecure, ambiguity-intolerant
> individuals that John was referring to. Unhappy with some aspect of their
> lives, they're open and ready for revelation and seize on certainty like a
> man overboard seizes a liferaft. Once they have a grip on it they have
only
> one thing to fear: changing their mind. If they give in to life's
> ambiguities they will lose it all and drown in the sea of uncertainty,
> because they never developed the tools to cope with it. That's the
> insecurity John is referring to. For example, George W. Bush.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
Although your point is well said and is backed up with sound reasoning it's
not what I would call pithy. I think it can be condensed to a shorter
explanation. For instance, in colloquial terms an ideologue is just a
follower. Generally a follower of some group, organization, or individual
who sets a standard or makes the rules for the followers. In contrast, other
people think for themselves, make their own judgments, and understand the
world according to their own reasoning. Most people are followers. The
reasons for this are many and are mainly psychological and not worth going
into. But it is well known that most humans are followers not leaders or
mavericks. Conservatives by nature like authority, rules, leaders, and a
well defined set of principles to guide them. That makes them great
followers. You are a follower. Not all of us are though. We may all have a
particular ideology we believe in but we're not wedded to it the way real
followers like you are. The bottom line, don't lump us all into your view of
ideology and ideologues because were not like you right wingers.
Hawke
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Heller Staples | April 2, 2007, 10:32 am |
| What was he thinking. | April 7, 2006, 1:07 am |
| What was he thinking. | April 7, 2006, 1:12 am |
| Thinking about the unthinkable? | November 11, 2006, 5:12 pm |
| Creative thinking | May 12, 2008, 1:38 pm |
| Thinking of Winter Welding | September 5, 2008, 3:34 pm |
| Import Manicure & Pedicure tools from us. | December 13, 2006, 9:17 am |
| get your gradually driving thinking in addition to my era | August 12, 2007, 7:50 pm |
| Re: spin forming on air | October 3, 2007, 8:55 pm |
| Re: spin forming on air | October 4, 2007, 7:05 am |
|
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap