Who Were the Sea Peoples?

Somebody (I'll take note next time and report back) is running ads with female atheletes declaring "sports has no gender." Female atheletes. Who compete in leagues that quite explicitly ban men from competing. Whose entire career depends upon... sports having genders. Ideologies are attempts to replace reality with a dreamworld.

Here : "This dynamic operates most visibly at our universities, where well-off, mostly white liberals—the post-Protestant WASPs—rule. The legitimacy of this elite depends upon its commitment to 'include' the 'excluded.' It goes without saying that an Ivy League administrator must manage the optics very carefully to sustain 'marginality' among the talented students who have gained admission. 'Microaggression' and other key terms in the ever-­evolving scholasticism of discrimination thus play very useful roles. They renew the threats of discrimination and exclusion, and this reinforces the power of liberal elites. Their institutional ascendancy is necessary to protect and provide patronage to the 'excluded.' I’m quite certain that if political correctness succeeds in suppressing 'microaggressions,' we’ll soon hear about 'nano-­aggressions.' The logic of solidarity in marginality requires oppression, and solidarity in margina...

If someone asks me what my greatest achievement in political philosophy is, I would answer, "Providing a precise, non-question-begging definition of ideology." I offered this, in Oakeshott on Rome and America , in Aristotelian terms: ideology is the attempt to treat as theoria was is instead a matter of phronesis (practical wisdom). Let us consider the matter of my getting to work. When I need to get to campus, what I do is consider the current circumstances I face in getting there, and then choose the best means to get there, given what I face. Some days, the G train is a perfectly adequate means. But other days, I find the G train is running slowly, or skipping stops, or I am just running a few minutes late, and I get a cab. But what route should the cab take? Well, I check my phone, and look for traffic jams. In fact, I've taken 5 or 6 different cab routes to get to work. But the "travel ideologue" will have none of this. There is a single correct wa...

I stop listening: "He adamantly refused to replace the primordial human distinction between good and evil with the pernicious ideological distinction between Progress and Reaction." From a nice article here .

"In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost his faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought."

Let us imagine a land called Aqua. Aqua is a desert land, but because water is so important to these desert people, their culture centers around its worship. And in Aqua, there are legends of a place, far across the desert, where water is abundant. (Somewhere, over the rainbow...) Over the centuries, various Aquans attempt to cross the barren desert and find this place where water is plentiful. And, at long last, a few hardy pilgrims succeed. They find a place with a great lake, and, for the first time, some Aquans are able to plunge into a large body of water and swim. They directly experience immersion in water, the movements necessary to swim, the feedback one gets from the water as to when one is swimming well or poorly, what it is to flounder in the depths and nearly drown, and so on. And this immersion is a transformative experience for those who undergo it. Those experiences are first reality. Naturally, when these pioneers return to Aqua, they try to communicate their ex...

Anyone using this term assumes we are in the end stage of "capitalism," however they define that word. But history gives us no knowledge of the future, and thus, no knowledge of how far along we are in some process. History is precisely the discipline, as Oakeshott would put it, that views the world sub specie praeteritorum , through the lens of its "pastness." In history, the present world is seen as laden with artifacts that tell us what came before it. Those artifacts, understood as evidence of a past that has vanished, cannot possibly tell us what is to come. Thus, "late capitalism" is always an ideological construct, not an historical one.

Here : "The mythical Greek Procrustus had a strange obsession about his guest bed: If a guest did not fit the bed precisely, Procrustus would make him fit. If the guest’s feet lapped over he would cut them off; if the guest was too short he would put him on a rack and stretch him until he was the 'right' length. I always tell this myth to my own students as the perfect metaphor for what ideology does: It does violence to reality to make it fit a pre-conceived mold."

You're going to see more from me on Voegelin and ideology in the next couple of days, in relation to a contemporary issue, but in the meantime, enjoy this . A sample: "It seemed characteristic of ideological system-builders to want absolute certainty about the world and to try to achieve that certainty through airtight, simple, and yet supposedly all-explanatory systems of ideas.[2] Voegelin found it helpful to understand these systems in terms of “second realities.” The “Second Reality” (Voegelin borrowed the term from Heimito von Doderer) is the dream world reality created by the ideological system-builder, in which he and those who embrace the system live as if it were the actual world (the First Reality)."

"Ideology is existence in rebellion against God and man. It is the violation of the First and Tenth Commandments, if we want to use the language of Israelite order; it is the nosos , the disease of the spirit, if we want to use the language of Aeschylus and Plato. Philosophy is the love of being through love of divine Being as the source of its order. The Logos of being is the object proper of philosophical inquiry; and the search for truth concerning the order of being cannot be conducted without diagnosing the modes of existence in untruth. The truth of order has to be gained and regained in the perpetual struggle against the fall from it; and the movement toward truth starts from a man’s awareness of his existence in untruth." -- Israel and Revelation , ix-xiv

My friend Joe Jordan, after reading my post on "Religion and Ideology," sent me the following, which I post with his permission: I bring this up in my political theory courses to differentiate between philosophy and ideology. I hate it when people talk about having a "philosophy" as if it were a method of fixing a flat tire while pulled over on the side of the road. To keep "philosophy" pure from ideology, I present the following dichotomies: Philosophy: Involves humble personalities Begins in wonder Open-minded Involves dialogue / hence republican Ever-differentiating Asks questions Seeks truth Ideology: Involves vainglorious personalities Begins in assumed certainty Close-minded Involves dictation / literally dictatorship Attempts a one-size-fits-all explanation of reality / reductionistic Avoids questions / Asserts ready-made "answers" Seeks power A very rough sketch, of course. The battle between Socrates and Thrasymach...

Here, I consider the difference between a religion and an ideology. Of course, as is always the case, someone may define these items differently, and no one can say their different definition is wrong .  Definitions cannot be right or wrong, they can only be more or less helpful. So please, please, don't post a comment arguing about my definitions as being different than yours! Of course, someone could define these terms so that all religions are "ideologies," if by "ideology" they mean a somehow connected nexus of thoughts, images, and so forth. And someone could define "ideology" in such a way that every single person on earth has an "ideology," if that just means "how they think about things." I am only trying to say that here is what I have found to be a fruitful differentiation of these terms, and certainly not "the correct" differentiation of them! And further I will note that I am here following in the footsteps ...

Ideologies contain strategies for self-maintenance, among them a filter that converts every statement that might challenge the ideology into one it can easily refute. So, for instance, when I wrote a post showing that taxation is just, the filters of several commenters tuned it into a post arguing "We shouldn't worry about justice in the context of taxation!" Now, it was easy to refute: Gene doesn't care about justice: what an amoral guy!" A favorite way ideologues do this is by continually re-stating your argument. Let's imagine someone has an ideology requiring them to believe that the Spurs are a terrible basketball team and anyone who likes them has a completely distorted worldview. Here's how to play this game: Spurs Fan: Tony Parker is a very good point guard. Anti-Spurs Ideologue: Oh, so what you're saying is that Parker is the best point guard who has ever played! SF: Don't be ridiculous: I'm just saying he can really move th...

Instructions for the ideological two-step: Imagine two rocks in a pool. The rock to the left is called "ideal theory" and the rock to the right is called "real world policy." (Don't think of the political left and right here: we just need to differentiate the two feet somehow.) Place one foot on each rock. Let's put your left foot on "Democratic reform leads to an empowerment of the average citizen, an increase in his or her liberty and security, and a higher standard of living." Now, carefully place the right foot down on "The U.S. must act internationally in the interest of democratic reform." To do the two-step and render yourself immune from being knocked off of your ideological platform, you just notice which leg an opponent is trying to dislodge, and swiftly lift that one and switch all your weight to the other. So, your opponent comes at your left leg: "This is empty verbiage." Shift to the right : "No, ...

On Facebook, I encountered someone claiming that anyone who did not place liberty above all other values was not a "true libertarian." I noted that recognizing the multiplicity of human values, and the fact that we must balance one against the other in acting, is a sign of sanity, and that elevating one value above all others is a mark of monomania. In response, the original poster told me that what I said was merely a cover for wanting to "impose" my "plan" on a large number of people who are not interested in it, through initiating aggression against innocents. This is what I would refer to as "ideological jujitsu." I did not suggest any "plan," but merely pointed out an aspect of our moral life that has been noted by many others, such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas. I am not attempting to "impose" this reality on anyone: it is simply a fact about our moral life. Actually, it is my conversation partner ...

Here is something to wrap your head around: German barbarians beyond the edge of the Roman Empire, who were living in what were essentially stateless societies, used stealth, pleading, and even warfare in their efforts to try to move across the border and settle inside the Empire. Now, if the benefits of living under a state where that clear to illiterate barbarians in 200 A.D., why are there very smart people in 2014 who can't see them? Well, as I was once one of them, I can answer that: ideology. It takes a whole lot of training in an ideological mode of looking before you can render yourself unable to see what those ancient barbarians saw clearly.

On Facebook I saw a semi-famous conservative author post that while George Zimmerman's ex-girlfriend recanted her charge that Zimmerman threatened her with a gun, the media had "naturally" buried the story. A number of people with similar views entered this echo chamber and posted "Of course the media won't cover this!" and so on. A few hours later, the story played on the CBS nighttime news, I believe as the third feature of the night. The next morning, I checked my CNN phone app, and saw it was headline news on CNN as well. I asked on Facebook if anyone was going to change their mind as to how "Of course the media won't cover this" based on the pretty plain evidence that the media gave it quite prominent coverage. Nothing. This is the way an ideology works. Everything in the world continually confirms the ideology because the ideology is a filter: it only lets in confirmations! If you are an anarchist, you will only see police brutalit...

As Plato taught us, all polities are like caves. Our puppet-masters cast shadows on the cave wall and teach us to believe these shadows are reality. Just read USA Today and watch an hour of the evening news and you will get to see the shadows of dozens of our modern idols. The evangelists of radical ideologies have gotten part way to this truth. They recognize that the shadows that transfix most people are illusions, and that the icons used by the puppet-masters are artificial constructions. But they go wrong in thinking that the problem is this particular set of social arrangements. The implementation of their ideology will involve the carving out of a new cave and the inauguration of new puppet-masters wielding new icons. The people will sit in different sets of chains watching a different shadow drama on the a different cave wall, but the situation in essence will remain unchanged. Radical ideologies: 1) If they catch on, lead to upheavals, which make the world much worse fo...

Libertarians may sometimes feel I'm picking on them for ignoring reality, such as the reality of power. Well, as an ex-libertarian, it is true that I have focused on this more than the lack of realism in other views. But that does not mean that I think libertarians are unique in this regard. Last night, for instance, I went down to my local to watch the debate, since it was hosting a debate party. When Romney mentioned that people ought to consider marrying before having children, the bar erupted in boos and catcalls. (And nota bene, I am not a Romney supporter!) What the hey? In all of empirical social science, is there a better established truth than that children of stable, two-parent households have a leg up on those raised in single-parent ones? Of course, that doesn't mean we should make life harder for single moms, or anything like that. If my daughter became pregnant by a guy who vamoosed once that fact became known, I would let her know that her mom and I would do...

One thing an ideology does is fill you full of pat answers. These are rolled out whenever something that threatens the ideology happens along. For instance, when a Marxist ideologue (there are people who study Marx who are not ideologues!) is presented with an extensive case justifying a return to capital, does he carefully consider the case, and see if he should alter his views? No, he tells the presenter that he is a mouthpiece for the capitalists, and thus the Marxist ideologue doesn't have to think about the argument at all. This can take more subtle forms, one of which is to apparently address the argument being presented, while actually doing no such thing. But the ideologue and his junior followers can pull out this "response" whenever confronted by the original argument. For example, Rothbard apparently reviewed Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation , a very dangerous book for him, since Polanyi knew his Mises and Hayek fairly well. But Rothbard actua...