Hmmm. Well, I am about as intellectual as they come, lol. Economics, sociology, and even philosophy might be "specialized circles", but I don't think that means any of the above advance a common agenda even within their circle. Except rhetorically (in the pejorative sense of "rhetoric").
Originally Posted by Mario F.
However, I am intrigued: perhaps you could point me to an example of such a scholar?
Part of my point was, your idea is NOTHING NEW, and qv. the observations of Orwell and Nietzsche that I pointed to. The 20th century, thanks in part to the modern media, was probably unprecedented WRT the frequency at which one group would usurp another and claim they were "breaking new ground by burying the old". Certainly, that was the explicit goal of the cultural revolution in China, and (less explicitly) the historical re-visionism of the Nazis.
I think it is possible to get people to think differently by giving them new words to use, but I am not sure if throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the way to do that.
I'm positive it would be. If ideas were discussed instead of ideas gagged by century old ideological principles.
AFAICT you are just advocating what I would call "anti-intellectualism". I guess I do take that personally so my perspective is slightly emotional, but I also believe very strongly (and rationally) that it is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Absolutely. However, that does not mean abandoning our ideas about right and left. I do need to get my shoes on the correct foot. ;)
If the right saw the virtues of some of the left and the left the virtues of some of the right, you'd almost certainly have a solution to our problems.
You talk about this, and yet you are as polemical as ever. So now, rather than dismiss my arguments as "leftist", you can dismiss them as "still tied to that old idea, politics".
I've observed this repeatedly in GD and it is an honest and serious critique, Mario: you are too prone to abstraction/generalization and avoid discussion of significant, concrete examples.
Here's your chance: please give me a definite example of what you are talking about.
Because over the years, left and right did everything they possibly could to be everything except the other.
This is interesting, because it demonstrates that there are some "old ideas" you are rejecting, but others you insist on clinging to. Considering you are against polemics (but still, lol, very polemical about that), it seems ironic that the idea you cling to here is parties.
What our politics need is moderated parties capable of construing politics outside an ideological framework and being largely immune to its effects.
I would love to see a representative democracy without parties. I am not sure if there are any. Of course, that would mean your parliament/congress/whatever would not have a singular permanent leader, but is that such a big step?
Yes, but not just to be clever. I would love to see you refine your thinking here. After all, Mario, you and I do have something to offer one another, dialectically,* heh-heh. But if "coming out of your corner" simply means finding the next one, expect to end up going full circle in the end.
The fact you took your time to answer to the point -- and to every point -- my previous argument, illustrates very well you understood every single bit of what was being said. You just choose to make use of your writing qualities and dialectic tricks to attempt to corner them.
Oh pooh. Am I never going to live ancient Greece down now? You will, at least (and IMO, at best) help hedge the populist vote here: "Well I ain't all book learned or nothin', but I still know my mind..."
I can't quite return in kind your speech. It's beyond my own abilities, or interest, to start a debate with you in the best (and worst) tradition of ancient Greece. I just find it a waste of time.
Sure. Don't we all?
I'm not opposed to it in the sense that an old school industrialist might be opposed to the idea of global warming -- I don't have a vested interest in the outcome. However, I have a hard time getting my head around the "idea" that what you are discussing is not also "ideological".
What I register however is your opposition to the idea that political thinking can be defined outside an ideological framework.
Which is not to say it is bad, but it is far from sensical at this point, IMO. It order for me to take it seriously, I have to perceive it as something other than just another polemic.
Responding with, "Well you just perceive everything as polemic" is another polemical generalization. Around and around. You want to keep spinning the wagon wheel whilst shouting, "Can't we get this thing to stop?" :tongue:
* Here's the baby in your bathwater:
Originally Posted by MK27
Hopefully, what's old is new again.
Originally Posted by wikipedia