Philosophy question

[glastofun]

Hi everyone,

I know there are a few people who use these forums who are well read when it comes to philosophy, so I was wondering if someone could help me. I'm trying to get hold of a reputable source which claims it is possible to do something in a way that is ideology free. I know many philosophers are concerned with the effects of ideology and the way in which it contstructs experience, but are there any who say it is possible to do something that isn't ideologically driven? I've done all the standard searches; google scholar, search facilities within specific journals etc, but kind find anything.

I'd really appreciate any help,

Thanks.

[ampersand]

my prediction.

neil will say one thing. worm will say the opposite. it will result in name calling. you won't know who to believe and will wish you hadn't started this thread.

[worm]

Hi everyone,

I know there are a few people who use these forums who are well read when it comes to philosophy, so I was wondering if someone could help me. I'm trying to get hold of a reputable source which claims it is possible to do something in a way that is ideology free. I know many philosophers are concerned with the effects of ideology and the way in which it contstructs experience, but are there any who say it is possible to do something that isn't ideologically driven? I've done all the standard searches; google scholar, search facilities within specific journals etc, but kind find anything.

I'd really appreciate any help,

Thanks.

Edited December 13, 2010 by worm

[worm]

my prediction.

neil will say one thing. worm will say the opposite. it will result in name calling. you won't know who to believe and will wish you hadn't started this thread.

[ampersand]

You forgot to add that ampersand would give a brief synopsis.

[worm]

i assumed that was a given in my writing of said synopsis.

[eFestivals]

my prediction.

ampersand will say one thing. worm will say the opposite. it will result in name calling. you won't know who to believe and will wish you hadn't started this thread.

corrected for you.

[worm]

corrected for you.

[ampersand]

corrected for you.

[Cardboard Box City]

Bhabha speaks of 'inbetweeness', 'hybridity', and the 'split subject', which are all philosophical experiences that exist outside of ideology.

[glastofun]

Worm - thanks for your insights! I'm checking out the link now...

I'll elucidate a little. I'm trying to develop an arguement that it's possible to develop policy in an apolitical way. So I thought of using the philosophy stuff as back ground to this claim.

Edited December 13, 2010 by glastofun

[eFestivals]

I'm trying to develop an arguement that it's possible to develop policy in an apolitical way.

then don't bother to waste your time. It can't be done.

Politics is simply a view of which is the better way to go about achieving something. As soon as you reach a view about anything, it cannot be apolitical.

The smart way to have approached this would have been to consider the idea from the bottom up and not the top down. But doing things in the wrong manner seems to be a regular flaw with academic philosophy, which only ever results in skewing the facts of reality to try and make the reality fit something it can never fit.

[worm]

Yeah but he's a bit of a black sheep.

[Cardboard Box City]

As was Marx in his time and Voltaire before him. Anyone who challenges the norm is a black sheep; that's what the word means.

We'll be speaking his language in 100 years or so once they come to fruition.

[worm]

Politics is simply a view of which is the better way to go about achieving something. As soon as you reach a view about anything, it cannot be apolitical.

[worm]

WHOOOOOOOOOOSH...

[grumpyhack]

This discussion started with the phrase 'ideology free' and that then mutated in replies into 'apolitical.' I'm not so sure the two are wholly interchangeable.

[worm]

You may have missed this grumpyhack.....

Worm - thanks for your insights! I'm checking out the link now...

I'll elucidate a little. I'm trying to develop an arguement that it's possible to develop policy in an apolitical way. So I thought of using the philosophy stuff as back ground to this claim.

Edited December 13, 2010 by worm

[glastofun]

This discussion started with the phrase 'ideology free' and that then mutated in replies into 'apolitical.' I'm not so sure the two are wholly interchangeable.

[pinback]

To be ideology-free is also an ideology though, innit?

[eFestivals]

To be ideology-free is also an ideology though, innit?

Yup. The whole idea of what the OP posted he wanted to do is a logical impossibility.

(well, it is unless he has a made-up dictionary ... so, cue worm ).

As I said, if he'd approached things in the opposite direction, then he'd have (I hope) realised that impossibility - rather than starting down the clearly useless path that a philosophical approach took him along.

Edited December 14, 2010 by eFestivals

[worm]

To be ideology-free is also an ideology though, innit?

Edited December 14, 2010 by worm

[worm]

Yup. The whole idea of what the OP posted he wanted to do is a logical impossibility.

[eFestivals]

You can begin (in fact you can only begin) from a position that is free from ideology. But once you write this up, it becomes ideologically bound.

That's not what I was getting at.

If he'd paid a little more attention to the words he was using to define what he was trying to achieve, then before he gets onto thinking about the deep and meaningful 'is it possible....?', those very words he used would have made clear to him that it wasn't by the fact of their definitions.

It was a case of getting ahead of himself, of thinking forwards onto that 'is it possible...?' to try and find an answer, before he'd actually considered what the question asked actually meant.

[worm]

If he'd paid a little more attention to the words he was using to define what he was trying to achieve, then before he gets onto thinking about the deep and meaningful 'is it possible....?', those very words he used would have made clear to him that it wasn't by the fact of their definitions.

Edited December 14, 2010 by worm