Philosophy question

[worm]

In summary, you can ask questions free of ideology and if you answer them without an axiom (something that not even science would attempt to do) then you're still free of ideology.

However, the moment you use an axiom to interpret, place or judge an answer you are back into ideology.

So, you can be free of ideology, but once you state this you no longer are because it takes an ideology to interpret, place and/or judge the truth of your statement.

Edited December 14, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

That's not entirely true though. You cannot define without considering the limitations, boundaries and fine edges of a concept. I'd argue that this process begins with ''is it possible''. It's also proof of an ideology-free position.

My point does relate to this. What I'm saying is that to ask the question ''is it possible'' you arn't entering into an ideological terrain. What you're actually doing is disseminating ideology by challenging a concept or convention. However, this is in turn assimilated into an ideology on completion as we judge the findings either political, scientific, historical etc and then put them into the relevant ideological structure so that we may deem them right or wrong.

You seem to be assuming that the question comes equipped with an answer, which is to say that it is free of an ideological constraint (in that it requires no axiom to work out). So you're contradicting your position of there being no such thing as an ideology-free position.

You can't properly answer a question until you understand what the question is asking.

Had the OP stopped to better consider what the question was asking, then that very question would have told him that there cannot be an answer.

And so there would have been no point asking for an answer. The question by it's very definition says that there cannot be an answer.

[worm]

You can't properly answer a question until you understand what the question is asking.

Had the OP stopped to better consider what the question was asking, then that very question would have told him that there cannot be an answer.

And so there would have been no point asking for an answer. The question by it's very definition says that there cannot be an answer.

Edited December 15, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

You've been unclear.

The question is ''is it possible to develop policy in an a-political way''. Are you saying that this is illogical and self explanatory because developing policy is a political act?

If you are, as I think you are, then what I've been saying is that developing policy is not necessarily a political act. This is because an action and its reasoning are not ideological in nature; they're logical. Therefore, you can develop a policy in an a-political way i.e. ''I will eat today''. However, the moment you put this to other people it becomes political because it crosses swords with their reasoning and actions.

If you were then to say that action and reasoning were ideological in nature, then you'd also be saying that a question could not be illogical and/or self explanatory as you'd need ideology to answer it.

Do we understand each other now or have I mis-interpreted what you're saying?

You've not (here) mis-interpreted what I'm saying, but your conclusions are totally incorrect.

(tho the way I'd said it in earlier posts was very unclear, you're right).

But it's impossible to develop any policy in an apolitcal way. Put simply, everything is politics.

Every person has a pre-existing view, or will come to a conclusion (for something they don't yet have a view on) based on other pre-existing views they have. Nothing of those pre-existing views can be free of the political.

[worm]

You've not (here) mis-interpreted what I'm saying, but your conclusions are totally incorrect.

Edited December 15, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

Why? I've just told you why it is possible. Explain to me why you think it isn't and why you think that everything is politics.

so show me something that is free of politics.

Your example of eating defo wasn't.

For example: My need to eat is not due to politics.

My action of eating is not due to politics.

My desire to eat again is not political.

My intention to eat again is not political.

incorrect for all of these. You have a view that you need to eat.

Of course, you might hold the view that you don't need to eat. But it's a view that you 2won't hold for very long.

It only becomes political when someone else restricts me or when I draw up a manifesto of eating for others.

not true. Politics does not need an other.

Politics is merely a question of style and interpretation.

ahhh, the wonders of that fantasy dictionary again.

I'm not sure what you mean by pre-existing. Pre-existent to what?

any new consideration.

And why can't someone's pre-existent desire for food be a-political?

I refer you to any dictionary. That will give you the answer, and tell you how you've made a major error.

p.s. how can something be self explanatory when all logic is political? Surely to answer the question you'd need knowledge of the policy.

Not in the case of the OP's question. I refer you to that dictionary again.

Seriously, get a dictionary and look up every word. You get to find out that answering the question posed is a logical impossibility.

[worm]

so show me something that is free of politics.

Edited December 15, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

The dictionary will tell you that politics are matters of state and that a state is the organisation of a group of people. So you're incorrect.

Then I suggest you get another dictionary.

Or do you really believe that your local council has nothing to do with politics?

And do you really believe that your local church coffee mornings are free of politics?

Etc, etc, etc.

[worm]

Then I suggest you get another dictionary.

Or do you really believe that your local council has nothing to do with politics?

And do you really believe that your local church coffee mornings are free of politics?

Etc, etc, etc.

Edited December 15, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

A council's matters are political because it is a state; an organisation of a group of people. A church's matters are political because it is also a state; an organisation of a group of people. An individual's matters are a-political as they are not a state. They only come to be political once the are interpreted by a state.

Had you read the dictionary, you wouldn't have had to have asked those illogical questions.

I'd actually mis-read your definition; I withdraw those last comments. Apols.

An individual's choices are no different; it is an organised group of one, but always a choice informed by a larger group and with an impact back onto that larger group.

But this is probably the point I give up. We've been here before, and your belief then was that there could be impact-free-to-others doings by individuals in modern society. All these years later I'm still waiting for you to give the examples as proof of that I asked for.

[worm]

I'd actually mis-read your definition; I withdraw those last comments. Apols.

[eFestivals]

That was owing to your mis-interpretation. Though I could have a drink of water and it have no impact on modern society, nor the environment as water cannot be destroyed. I'm no believer in the butterfly effect.

If you have a drink of water then you are denying all others that same water at that moment in time. And it impacts on the environment because that water is not available for its use right now (cos you've just drunk it).

Ah well, maybe in another few years you'll manage it.

Anyway, to get back to the point (which your definition is good for)....

You can't go about organising a group of people without organising a group of people - which is what the OP is asking if it's possible to do.

And so, as I said, the question hadn't been properly considered before he went off looking for an answer to it.

[worm]

If you have a drink of water then you are denying all others that same water at that moment in time.

Edited December 15, 2010 by worm

[worm]

You can't go about organising a group of people without organising a group of people - which is what the OP is asking if it's possible to do.

[eFestivals]

I just wanted to address this....

Or when they are assimilated by a pre-existing narrative, such as 'freedom' or 'equality'.

But the point is: they always are.

Others are aware of your existence; they are aware that your existence is, if you like, in competition with their own*. By your existence you are (w*nky unnecessary language ) "assimilated into the pre-existing narratives" of those people with their interest in their own survival and not yours.

(* not nowadays necessarily for base survival. It might be for a job, or for the last Rollo. )

[eFestivals]

No he wasn't. He was asking whether you could 'develop' a policy in an a-political way. You can. But the moment you present your manifesto to others it becomes political.

Nope. The policy itself is about organising others to try and get a particular outcome. That's very definitely politics, even in your definition.

It's no less that if no one is ever told of it or it's never implemented.

[worm]

Nope. The policy itself is about organising others to try and get a particular outcome. That's very definitely politics, even in your definition.

[worm]

But the point is: they always are.

Edited December 15, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

To use my example again: A policy related to getting food because you're hungry is a humanastic response, not a political one.

It might be a humanistic response. But that doesn't say anything about whether it's free of politics or not!

[worm]

It might be a humanistic response. But that doesn't say anything about whether it's free of politics or not!

[eFestivals]

This is what we'd probably call being directed by reason or instinct or inspiration or intuition

and all of that is informed by what exactly....?

Every person is a part of an organised group - society (and an infinite number of ever-shifting sub-societies) - whether they want to be or not, and all that they think or do comes from that.

A person's own reasoning/instinct/whatever is always politically led as a result.

[worm]

and all of that is informed by what exactly....?

Edited December 15, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

You eat because you are hungry ....

correct

... and you can work out what that means.

Yes I can. It's a shame that you're failing with it yourself tho.

What it means is that your decision to eat impacts on others, and that fact doesn't pass them by. By that very reality, it becomes a political situation.

Society comes from there being more than one person and politics comes from having to deal with that fact.

Exactly!! So politics is irrevocably bound to the reality of society, so that any action or situation within society is political.

Then if it is politically led you cannot say that an answer is contained within the question. It is contained within the policy. But given that reason gave us politics you don't have to worry about that because you're obviously wrong.

Any attempt to form policy can never be apolitical. It is by default political, because it's aim is to organise others.

[worm]

What it means is that your decision to eat impacts on others.

[worm]

correct