Ideological Purity vs Pluralism

[_honorentheos]

I think that there are right ideas and bad ideas, but bad ideas are easier to identify than right ideas. You might also want to expound on pluralism, because I get the vibe that people are going to think pluralism is related to some kind of relativism, instead of an acknowledge of diversity that allows minorities to thrive.

Thanks for the post, Stak.

I'd be interested in your ideas on pluralism given the variety of ways to describe it.

[_madeleine]

honor, you approach this topic with the a priori conviction that if there is an absolute truth, it cannot be known.

I approach it with the a priori conviction that there is an absolute truth and it can be known.

These are ideologies.

What are not ideologies are experience. For example, if 10 years ago a person had adopted the ideology that includes a pro-choice stance on abortion, and behaves very predominantly towards this position. How they vote is influenced by this ideology. How they think of other people. What they expect from healthcare options. These are influenced by an ideology.

Perhaps then their daughter comes to them more recently and says, "I'm pregnant and want an abortion". If then the person reacts with a strong conviction against the abortion, and expressed desires that she doesn't go through with it. What does the daughter think. What is the problem? Why is this person against her having an abortion? If the answer to this seeming contradiction is, "I was pro-choice for other women, but for you, I already love the baby."....what happened to the person's ideological response?

This then is an encounter, an experience, that is lacking in ideologies entirely. It is not based on a set of rules, or doctrines, or societal views. It is only one person recognizing the dignity of another person.

A lot of people try to generate this type of encounter, this experience, but the reality is, it is happening around us all the time, we only have to notice.

As a Christian, my first encounter and experience is with Jesus Christ, who is not an ideology, but a Person. Yet, much of the world tries to make Christianity an ideology, and many Christians behave as though Jesus Christ is not a Person, but an ideology. But many are wounded very deeply by this Person, which for us is not an ideology, but an encounter with the Infinite, Who is Truth.

It then becomes a question of living in the Reality of this encounter, rather than living an ideology. Is it possible to live this way? It is, but it is made difficult in a world that seeks to apply ideologies to authentic experiences that define us as human.

Now take this and turn it around, to a person who such as myself who was for a very long an atheist, with a firm ideology that there was/is no absolute truth. I didn't go looking for a new ideology to replace this ideology. What I had was an authentic encounter, an experience, that indicated to me that the ideology I had was not only flawed, but impossible to confirm by experience. Experience, rather, confirms that there is something instead of nothing.

Peace.

[_honorentheos]

Madeleine,

When I proposed the OP, the question in my mind wasn't which ideology was right but if our current views on ideology closely resemble antiquated views about race? Because, to be honest, I feel as passionately about my views as I believe you do.

And, rather than try and point out where you and I disagree, I wonder where it is we can agree. And if such a point can be reach where, if extended to all of humanity, it would reflect a true pluralism rather than just tolerance tenuously balanced between competing views of superior ideology?

Because of this, I really appreciate your comments because they test my thoughts more than a counter-argument to my view could. I am finding myself wondering, "Is the best we can hope for to agree to disagree?" Or is there any chance for a future generation of people to actually exist in respectful recognition of equal but contradictory views in the many social realms where we interact with one another?

While rereading Stak's post I thought how his view seems almost Socratic - that through some form of knowledge we can attain greater virtue. Maybe I misread him?

At any rate, I wonder if the term "a priori" is the core of the problem? I have to guess that philosophical pluralists have answered this, but I'm not that familiar to be able to say. I hope that one of our philo-philes may have some insight into that question.

[_madeleine]

honor--I don't see the issue in believing there is an absolute truth. I find it much more depressing to say their isn't. To me that is saying there is nothing. In the sense that, if all things equally mean something, then they also equally mean nothing.

You can already see this in the attitude that many in the "first world" have towards claims of truth. More and more people are just, indifferent, ie, claims of truth mean nothing to them.

[_honorentheos]

Madeleine,

I've given this some more thought and have arrived somewhere I would not have expected. I share it because I suspect it is very flawed thinking but could cause someone with a broader interest in the world than whether or not they can post images on some backwater LDS-related board to point such errors out. I'm thinking that leaves EA or maybe brade right now.

While considering our earlier posts, and my desire to discuss places of agreement rather than conflict, I found myself asking a form of Kant's question related to the categorical imperative - "If it were a universal law that all people believed as madeleine and became catholic, would the world be better or worse for it?"

And I decided that, on the whole, I was ok with it.

But to extend it to pluralism, I asked myself if it was ok to apply this thinking to a list of ideologies including Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, Secular Humanism, etc., and found that as long as I imposed some limit on the level of extreme fundamentalism on how this ideology would be accepted by all mankind, I was still ok with it.

But then I asked how most people would feel about this? or, to be fair, why I was justified in putting limits on how the belief could be expressed?

Does this help us formulate a good filter for preventing "bad ideas" from taking hold in a pluralistic society? or is it as you suggest - just a belief in some form of absolute truth that favors plurality over singular forms of ideology?

With this in mind, I reflected on the race issue. I don't think we are more understanding of race issues because of tolerance, but because most of us have some to truly believe there is no fundamental difference between the races. We are all truly the same, and this has to be believed to e actionable.

So, perhaps I am coming around to your view - for pluralism to be able to secure a place in the world, I think it has to become more than multiculturalism in order to gain actionable wide-spread acceptance. People have to believe in some external truth that shows pluralistic ideologies are more valid than mono-ideologies if they are to take firm root.

Anyway, it's interesting to me to think about more.

[_Doctor Scratch]

There was a pretty good article about political ideology, rhetoric, and violence as it pertains to American culture in the most recent issue of Esquire. I think it dovetails somewhat with the OP here.

[_honorentheos]

There was a pretty good article about political ideology, rhetoric, and violence as it pertains to American culture in the most recent issue of Esquire. I think it dovetails somewhat with the OP here.

Thanks, Scratch. I'll look for it. Do you happen to have a story title or issue number in case I miss it on the newstands?

[_madeleine]

But to extend it to pluralism, I asked myself if it was ok to apply this thinking to a list of ideologies including Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, Secular Humanism, etc., and found that as long as I imposed some limit on the level of extreme fundamentalism on how this ideology would be accepted by all mankind, I was still ok with it.

But then I asked how most people would feel about this? or, to be fair, why I was justified in putting limits on how the belief could be expressed?

Does this help us formulate a good filter for preventing "bad ideas" from taking hold in a pluralistic society? or is it as you suggest - just a belief in some form of absolute truth that favors plurality over singular forms of ideology?

As soon as you start imposing "correct ideas", you're headed into totalitarianism.

With this in mind, I reflected on the race issue. I don't think we are more understanding of race issues because of tolerance, but because most of us have some to truly believe there is no fundamental difference between the races. We are all truly the same, and this has to be believed to e actionable.

The concept of 'race' as we (the world) use it today, did not exist until the 17th century. It is a social classification, as true as "middle class" or "working class". These are structures of society, and so are "true" in the sense that we can verify their existence and use, but they are not Truth, with a capital 'T'.

So, perhaps I am coming around to your view - for pluralism to be able to secure a place in the world, I think it has to become more than multiculturalism in order to gain actionable wide-spread acceptance. People have to believe in some external truth that shows pluralistic ideologies are more valid than mono-ideologies if they are to take firm root.

Anyway, it's interesting to me to think about more.

It is an interesting topic. :) I'm wiped out, but I see in your thought process that you have a pragmatic approach to truth.

PS: *nothing* is my experience of atheism, not Catholicism. :) But then, I was a right and proper nihilist. I saw the whole world as one big social construct, and nothing was "real", or true if you like, everything was contrived. So, I still have nihilist tendencies, but, there is in fact *something*. Which brings up one of the best philosophical questions of all: "Why is there something instead of nothing?"