Malcolm Dunnachie Thompson wrote:
> Any telling of history is ideological, and even the
> historiographical criteria by which one would decide on which ideology a
> particular history partakes of are themselves ideological. There's no
> escaping it, just like there's no escaping power - viz, my post several
> days ago. It's not a matter of being non-ideological - it's a matter of
> picking one. Ideology is, like power, neither good nor bad. There are bad
> ideologies and good ideologies, and which ones I choose to put in which
> category depends entirely upon my perspective on the present.
>
> To make it perfectly clear: it is not that those histories that are
> ideological are bad and those that are political are good. This, of
> course, is a non-sensical claim. All histories are ideological - and the
> ones that serve *my* ideology are good, and the ones that serve my
> opposing ideology are *bad*. And the same holds true for everybody, I
> think, if only because people are not likely to take up a history whose
> function is contra their interests. People are not likely to agree with
> what they disagree with. And everybody has a poltical position within
> this culture - everybody is positioned within it in some way, and from
> this position will follow interests.
I appreciate your responding to my earlier barb with an argument and not merely
a parry. However, I still see your argument as problematic. What I find particularly
confounding is your view that all people are willing to sacrifice their ability to think
critically about past events to their practical interests.
I personally am willing to listen to and consider all sorts of evidence and
arguments (narratives, if you will) about past and present events. Convince me, is what
I say. The fact that I am able both to see myself as an object in the world and to know
myself as an experiencing subject means that I am also able to reflect critically on the
relation between my views and my current interests. If I am made aware of evidence that
suggests that I hold a view that is distorted or needlessly biased, I am thus able to
revise it.
Additionally, as I am sure you are aware, it is problematic for you to assert
that *all* people prefer to see the world in a way that is wholly self-serving. Either
that is true a priori, which you probably wouldn't allow, or it true a posteriori, which
means that it would have to be borne out by experience and observation. And what I have
said demonstrates that it is certainly not true of all people.
********************************************************
Nicholas Dronen
Carpe Ya-ya.
http://w3.servint.com/cognigen/f/fci.cgi?dr2864423
********************************************************
> Any telling of history is ideological, and even the
> historiographical criteria by which one would decide on which ideology a
> particular history partakes of are themselves ideological. There's no
> escaping it, just like there's no escaping power - viz, my post several
> days ago. It's not a matter of being non-ideological - it's a matter of
> picking one. Ideology is, like power, neither good nor bad. There are bad
> ideologies and good ideologies, and which ones I choose to put in which
> category depends entirely upon my perspective on the present.
>
> To make it perfectly clear: it is not that those histories that are
> ideological are bad and those that are political are good. This, of
> course, is a non-sensical claim. All histories are ideological - and the
> ones that serve *my* ideology are good, and the ones that serve my
> opposing ideology are *bad*. And the same holds true for everybody, I
> think, if only because people are not likely to take up a history whose
> function is contra their interests. People are not likely to agree with
> what they disagree with. And everybody has a poltical position within
> this culture - everybody is positioned within it in some way, and from
> this position will follow interests.
I appreciate your responding to my earlier barb with an argument and not merely
a parry. However, I still see your argument as problematic. What I find particularly
confounding is your view that all people are willing to sacrifice their ability to think
critically about past events to their practical interests.
I personally am willing to listen to and consider all sorts of evidence and
arguments (narratives, if you will) about past and present events. Convince me, is what
I say. The fact that I am able both to see myself as an object in the world and to know
myself as an experiencing subject means that I am also able to reflect critically on the
relation between my views and my current interests. If I am made aware of evidence that
suggests that I hold a view that is distorted or needlessly biased, I am thus able to
revise it.
Additionally, as I am sure you are aware, it is problematic for you to assert
that *all* people prefer to see the world in a way that is wholly self-serving. Either
that is true a priori, which you probably wouldn't allow, or it true a posteriori, which
means that it would have to be borne out by experience and observation. And what I have
said demonstrates that it is certainly not true of all people.
********************************************************
Nicholas Dronen
Carpe Ya-ya.
http://w3.servint.com/cognigen/f/fci.cgi?dr2864423
********************************************************