| My new blog on 22:16 - Dec 3 with 1813 views | Birchy915 |
| My new blog on 22:02 - Dec 3 by BigDaveMyCock |
What is meant by taking things at more 'face value'? One can attempt to create a rigid interpretation of communism for example. Where do you start...Das Kapital by Karl Marx? Well we could, but that wouldn't capture communism as it has existed. Instead, we may want to turn to the work of Lenin, but that was never realised in the Soviet Union for whatever reason. Stalinism is probably something like what we mean by communism, but that would only describe a specific era of the Soviet Union. Thus, our 'face value' communism is going to be a little inaccurate. We'll be ditching large swathes of history/theory. In fact, history will cease to become something that moved and categories such as communism as changing forms of societal organistion. History becomes rigid.
You are, in other words, creaing a straw man for the purpose of your theory of pragmatism. You're belief in taking things at more 'face value' is actually a necessary method that you have to adopt because once a societal mode of organisation is opened up to any sort of analytical rigour then the whole notion of rigidity collapses like a house of cards. You may think history is bunk, but what it does tell us is that it (history) definately wasn't rigid.
Moreover, why is it only pragmatism that moves/changes?
Unexplained and ahistorical rigidity has to be insisted upon because it is only from this methodological starting point that pragmatism is allowed to be the motor of change.
Pragmatism, by it's very definition, only exists in and through the very theories it purports to be seperate from. Pragmatism can't exist on it's own. Otherwise it would be a theory of societal organisation.
I also think you're normative attraction to pragmatism is confusing. Stalin was incredibly pragmatic (whatever worked for old smokey Joe) as to was Chairman Mao. However, I suspect this is not the pragmatism you support. I think you support some form of liberalism, but then you would have to deal with theory and I suspect you don't want to do that.
[Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
"Where do you start...Das Kapital by Karl Marx? Well we could, but that wouldn't capture communism as it has existed. Instead, we may want to turn to the work of Lenin, but that was never realised in the Soviet Union for whatever reason. Stalinism is probably something like what we mean by communism, but that would only describe a specific era of the Soviet Union. Thus, our 'face value' communism is going to be a little inaccurate."
As I was trying to explain, we are not trying to establish a canon, but simply a line in the dirt that says "This is communism" afterall, you could'nt go around calling Marx a Capitalist, it would be baseless and illogical.
The line between socialism and communism is a little more blurry but there is a difference in ideology, this is important. You may find ideologies that intersect, but in this instance we dont say "Ideology doesnt exit", we say, "oh these ideologies intersect a little".
Pragmatism is a super philosophy, it adopts a big tent strategy and does not carry and political or ideological weight, only the idea that good ideas are worth using.
I have never said that a Communist cannot be pragmatic, however a Communist who is not pragmatic is redundant in terms of advancing the ideology, thus the cartoon.
The cartoon does not say Communism is dead, simply that without pragmatism, all ideology is dead (stagnant) as you yourself have argued. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|  |
| I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them. |
|  |
| My new blog on 22:25 - Dec 3 with 1799 views | R17ALE |
| My new blog on 22:16 - Dec 3 by Birchy915 |
"Where do you start...Das Kapital by Karl Marx? Well we could, but that wouldn't capture communism as it has existed. Instead, we may want to turn to the work of Lenin, but that was never realised in the Soviet Union for whatever reason. Stalinism is probably something like what we mean by communism, but that would only describe a specific era of the Soviet Union. Thus, our 'face value' communism is going to be a little inaccurate."
As I was trying to explain, we are not trying to establish a canon, but simply a line in the dirt that says "This is communism" afterall, you could'nt go around calling Marx a Capitalist, it would be baseless and illogical.
The line between socialism and communism is a little more blurry but there is a difference in ideology, this is important. You may find ideologies that intersect, but in this instance we dont say "Ideology doesnt exit", we say, "oh these ideologies intersect a little".
Pragmatism is a super philosophy, it adopts a big tent strategy and does not carry and political or ideological weight, only the idea that good ideas are worth using.
I have never said that a Communist cannot be pragmatic, however a Communist who is not pragmatic is redundant in terms of advancing the ideology, thus the cartoon.
The cartoon does not say Communism is dead, simply that without pragmatism, all ideology is dead (stagnant) as you yourself have argued. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
Reading that reminded me of Dave Fletcher.
"Hello and welcome to today's Canon League Division 4 match versus Crewe Alexandra"
I apologise to 90% of the readers in advance! |  |
| |
| My new blog on 22:29 - Dec 3 with 1788 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| My new blog on 22:16 - Dec 3 by Birchy915 |
"Where do you start...Das Kapital by Karl Marx? Well we could, but that wouldn't capture communism as it has existed. Instead, we may want to turn to the work of Lenin, but that was never realised in the Soviet Union for whatever reason. Stalinism is probably something like what we mean by communism, but that would only describe a specific era of the Soviet Union. Thus, our 'face value' communism is going to be a little inaccurate."
As I was trying to explain, we are not trying to establish a canon, but simply a line in the dirt that says "This is communism" afterall, you could'nt go around calling Marx a Capitalist, it would be baseless and illogical.
The line between socialism and communism is a little more blurry but there is a difference in ideology, this is important. You may find ideologies that intersect, but in this instance we dont say "Ideology doesnt exit", we say, "oh these ideologies intersect a little".
Pragmatism is a super philosophy, it adopts a big tent strategy and does not carry and political or ideological weight, only the idea that good ideas are worth using.
I have never said that a Communist cannot be pragmatic, however a Communist who is not pragmatic is redundant in terms of advancing the ideology, thus the cartoon.
The cartoon does not say Communism is dead, simply that without pragmatism, all ideology is dead (stagnant) as you yourself have argued. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
'Pragmatism is a super philosophy, it adopts a big tent strategy and does not carry and political or ideological weight, only the idea that good ideas are worth using.'
Explain a good idea that doesn't carry any political or ideological weight? [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|  |
| |
| My new blog on 22:32 - Dec 3 with 1783 views | Birchy915 |
| My new blog on 22:29 - Dec 3 by BigDaveMyCock |
'Pragmatism is a super philosophy, it adopts a big tent strategy and does not carry and political or ideological weight, only the idea that good ideas are worth using.'
Explain a good idea that doesn't carry any political or ideological weight? [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
Well theres nothing political about a good idea (good meaning effective rather than ideologically pleasing) and It does not depend on any ideology other than itself. | |
| I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them. |
| |
| My new blog on 22:34 - Dec 3 with 1781 views | R17ALE |
| My new blog on 22:29 - Dec 3 by BigDaveMyCock |
'Pragmatism is a super philosophy, it adopts a big tent strategy and does not carry and political or ideological weight, only the idea that good ideas are worth using.'
Explain a good idea that doesn't carry any political or ideological weight? [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
Basically, you can be a politician or have a policy set in stone from which you will not waver.
A politician will be a politician and will therefore always be pragmatic to retain popularity.
With the exception of Hitler, and other dictators who trod on a few toes.
Am I warm Mr Mycock? | |
| |
| My new blog on 22:37 - Dec 3 with 1771 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| My new blog on 22:32 - Dec 3 by Birchy915 |
Well theres nothing political about a good idea (good meaning effective rather than ideologically pleasing) and It does not depend on any ideology other than itself. |
'the future is and will always be pragmatism (in a logical, sensible and civillised country).'
Does that carry any ideological commitment. | |
| |
| My new blog on 22:41 - Dec 3 with 1760 views | Birchy915 |
| My new blog on 22:37 - Dec 3 by BigDaveMyCock |
'the future is and will always be pragmatism (in a logical, sensible and civillised country).'
Does that carry any ideological commitment. |
Not especially, you could be a pragmatic of whatever ideology.
My point here is that pragmatism is a philosophy of progression, any society that does not progress is illogical.
The direction of progression is irrelevent. | |
| I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them. |
| |
| My new blog on 22:45 - Dec 3 with 1751 views | R17ALE |
When Charlie (B4E) comes back on this thread, he is going to combust, smear rabbit food on his knackers, and encourage Thumper to start licking his nads! | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| My new blog on 22:45 - Dec 3 with 1749 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| My new blog on 22:34 - Dec 3 by R17ALE |
Basically, you can be a politician or have a policy set in stone from which you will not waver.
A politician will be a politician and will therefore always be pragmatic to retain popularity.
With the exception of Hitler, and other dictators who trod on a few toes.
Am I warm Mr Mycock? |
No, Birchy is arguing that being pragmatic is to do or be something that is distinct or seperate from being communist, capitalist, socialist whatever. I'm saying communism, capitalism and socialism etc has always changed and that change encaptures pragmatism.
The big difference, as I see it, is that Birchy sees pragmatism as the motor of change whereas I see it as an expression of change. | |
| |
| My new blog on 22:47 - Dec 3 with 1743 views | Birchy915 |
| My new blog on 22:45 - Dec 3 by R17ALE |
When Charlie (B4E) comes back on this thread, he is going to combust, smear rabbit food on his knackers, and encourage Thumper to start licking his nads! |
Is that directed at me? | |
| I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them. |
| |
| My new blog on 22:47 - Dec 3 with 1739 views | D_Alien |
| My new blog on 22:45 - Dec 3 by R17ALE |
When Charlie (B4E) comes back on this thread, he is going to combust, smear rabbit food on his knackers, and encourage Thumper to start licking his nads! |
Sounds fairly pragmatic, if he's that unattractive to the opposite sex |  |
| |
| My new blog on 22:48 - Dec 3 with 1734 views | R17ALE |
| My new blog on 22:47 - Dec 3 by Birchy915 |
Is that directed at me? |
No it is directed at Charlie (B4E).
I struggled to make it any clearer in the original post tbf! | |
| |
| My new blog on 22:49 - Dec 3 with 1728 views | Birchy915 |
| My new blog on 22:45 - Dec 3 by BigDaveMyCock |
No, Birchy is arguing that being pragmatic is to do or be something that is distinct or seperate from being communist, capitalist, socialist whatever. I'm saying communism, capitalism and socialism etc has always changed and that change encaptures pragmatism.
The big difference, as I see it, is that Birchy sees pragmatism as the motor of change whereas I see it as an expression of change. |
Almost, I see both, It can be seen either way, however, as a motor, it has to exist as part of a manner of government, some would argue that this makes it an ideology, but it is more of a principle. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
| |
| I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them. |
| |
| My new blog on 22:51 - Dec 3 with 1721 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| My new blog on 22:41 - Dec 3 by Birchy915 |
Not especially, you could be a pragmatic of whatever ideology.
My point here is that pragmatism is a philosophy of progression, any society that does not progress is illogical.
The direction of progression is irrelevent. |
Can pragmatism exist on it's own? | |
| |
| My new blog on 22:54 - Dec 3 with 1711 views | Birchy915 |
| My new blog on 22:51 - Dec 3 by BigDaveMyCock |
Can pragmatism exist on it's own? |
In what sense?
Without a Politician to follow it?
Or without ideology for it to guide? | |
| I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them. |
| |
| My new blog on 22:58 - Dec 3 with 1632 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| My new blog on 22:54 - Dec 3 by Birchy915 |
In what sense?
Without a Politician to follow it?
Or without ideology for it to guide? |
The latter. What I'm trying to establish is that does pragmatism only exist when it has a theory to guide it. | |
| |
| My new blog on 23:04 - Dec 3 with 1625 views | Birchy915 |
| My new blog on 22:58 - Dec 3 by BigDaveMyCock |
The latter. What I'm trying to establish is that does pragmatism only exist when it has a theory to guide it. |
Well it doesn't require an ideology, but an idea is needed.
| |
| I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them. |
| |
| My new blog on 23:07 - Dec 3 with 1615 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| My new blog on 23:04 - Dec 3 by Birchy915 |
Well it doesn't require an ideology, but an idea is needed.
|
Sorry, what I meant was can it exist in the absence of a theory which it can guide. | |
| |
| My new blog on 23:11 - Dec 3 with 1606 views | Birchy915 |
| My new blog on 23:07 - Dec 3 by BigDaveMyCock |
Sorry, what I meant was can it exist in the absence of a theory which it can guide. |
No, it does require something to have a pragmatic approach towards. | |
| I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them. |
| |
| My new blog on 23:17 - Dec 3 with 1599 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| My new blog on 23:11 - Dec 3 by Birchy915 |
No, it does require something to have a pragmatic approach towards. |
So it ultimately has to have an 'ideological/theoretical' attachment to something? If the something which it relies on for it's derivation is fully negated then it cannot exist? | |
| |
| My new blog on 23:19 - Dec 3 with 1595 views | Birchy915 |
| My new blog on 23:17 - Dec 3 by BigDaveMyCock |
So it ultimately has to have an 'ideological/theoretical' attachment to something? If the something which it relies on for it's derivation is fully negated then it cannot exist? |
The idea of it can exist but it cannot be put into practice. | |
| I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them. |
| |
| My new blog on 23:25 - Dec 3 with 1587 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| My new blog on 23:19 - Dec 3 by Birchy915 |
The idea of it can exist but it cannot be put into practice. |
How can the 'idea' of being pragmatic about something exist when the something doesn't exist? | |
| |
| My new blog on 23:29 - Dec 3 with 1580 views | TTNYear |
| My new blog on 23:17 - Dec 3 by BigDaveMyCock |
So it ultimately has to have an 'ideological/theoretical' attachment to something? If the something which it relies on for it's derivation is fully negated then it cannot exist? |
So for us thickies .. Coleman, ideologically speaking thinks that Cavanah is a central midfielder, but through pragmatism he'll hopefully realise that ideologically speaking that's nonsense. Think I'm out of me depth here, then again I'd be out of my depth in a puddle...
How do you like your eggs cooking? Ideologically speaking .... |  |
| Anti-cliquism is the last refuge of the messageboard scoundrel - Copyright Dorset Dale productions |
| |
| My new blog on 23:29 - Dec 3 with 1578 views | Birchy915 |
| My new blog on 23:25 - Dec 3 by BigDaveMyCock |
How can the 'idea' of being pragmatic about something exist when the something doesn't exist? |
Well we just managed to have a debate about it only referencing the word ideology, not any ideology in particular, so surely the idea can exist without being attatched to any ideology. But granted you would have to attach it to an ideology in order for it to be of any use. | |
| I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them. |
| |
| My new blog on 23:30 - Dec 3 with 1574 views | Birchy915 |
| My new blog on 23:29 - Dec 3 by TTNYear |
So for us thickies .. Coleman, ideologically speaking thinks that Cavanah is a central midfielder, but through pragmatism he'll hopefully realise that ideologically speaking that's nonsense. Think I'm out of me depth here, then again I'd be out of my depth in a puddle...
How do you like your eggs cooking? Ideologically speaking .... |
Pragmatism would say that since all the best teams have wingers, we could probably do with a pair. | |
| I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.