[PREV - POLAR_SARTRE] [TOP]
FAIR_GAME
November 8, 2011
Once again: are you allowed
to evaluate ideas based on INTO_THE_BRAINPAN
what they actually do, or
are you forced to take them
on their own idealized terms?
For example, Marxist "intellectuals"
have some striking, well-known problems
(a willingness to ignore realities
for political reasons).
But is that a fair grounds to
dismiss Marx? All of Marx? He
wrote quite a bit of stuff, and You might, for example,
while he may have regarded it as reject historical
one single doctrine, there's no inevitabilities and yet
reason we have to. buy the critique of
capitalism and yet reject
the utopian communist
schemes...
Similarly, free-market doctrine
has some nice ethical arguments
in favor of it's insistance on
relying entirely on voluntary
agreements of free individuals...
But having watched this doctrine
get selectively applied and
generally abused I don't think very As Chomsky puts it,
much of the people propounding it "Socialism for the
with ideological blinders. rich, free markets
for the poor."
The question then is, is the way
the idea of "free markets" plays in
the wild a reason to reject the
idea itself?
The disease in both of these cases
arises out of the desire of the
people who claim adherence to the We wouldn't think very
doctrine to *do* something with it, much of them if they
to engage with the world. *refused* to do this,
would we? Damn
So, if we use the way impractical idealists.
the doctrine plays out
in the world to
complain about the
doctrine... can it's
advocates complain?
--------
[NEXT - EXPERTISE]