Palmares
1st August 2003, 01:06
I put this in OI, but I put it there by accident, and my request to a mod to move it here wasn't heard. So I have placed it here myself. Sorry for the inconvenience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People have always argued upon pragmatic points such as: compromise; reformism; revisionism; docility; open-mindedness; etc - as opposed to such dogmatic points as: doctrine; principle; creed/article of faith; tenacity; etc. Is either such approach even remotely logical? One must always (eventually) be biased, but this is not the catalyst for absolutism, that is in the Manichean sense. This rises the point of opposing forces, the dialectic anomaly. Henceforth, dogmatism is the thesis, and it's opposite is pragmatism the antithesis. But what is the synthesis?
In order to understand dogmatism, one must first understand its parts. Dogmatism is most commonly known as the tenacious belief in a religion or ideology. The former though comes in various forms and has different concepts, but all religions ultimately are based on faith. The most obvious is Christianity, for the Seven Virtues (as opposed to the Seven Deadly Sins) comprise of the cardinal virtues: prudence; justice; fortitude; temperance: and the theological virtues; faith; hope; and charity. All concepts of Christianity rely on faith, e.g. Mark 5:36, "Fear not, only believe", Mark 9:23, "All things are possible to him who believes", etc. This concept's importance is immediately blatant in Islam, e.g. 'The Five Articles of Faith', 'The Five Pillars of Faith'. Even the arguments (ontological, cosmological, and design theory) for God's existence (of the Judeo Christian-Islamic tradition) are based on faith, that is the premise is the definition of God, of which only one of faith has reason to believe this definition ('Unchanged changer', the 'first cause', He created all, and all is dependent on him, logically omnipotent - not absolutely omnipotent, as the Bible is quoted as contrary to this). However someone could argue that faith is not central to Buddhism, for the Buddha himself taught that one should test his teachings for truth, not simply accept it in faith. Then there is also the open-minded Mahayana Buddhism, who would appear more to doctrine than Theravada Buddhism (that is it is more sound to the concept of 'anicca' -impermanence, hence doctrine can change, despite Theravada Buddhism being more dogmatic to all other concepts). So it would appear Mahayana Buddhism is reaching some sort of synthesis, but it may be leaning too much towards pragmatism (e.g. the worship of Buddha images/statues, which the Buddha himself condemned as deity worship). It must also be noted that atheism itself is dogmatic, for in general atheists do not even try to understand what they vehemently oppose.
Next one must try to understand ideological dogmatism. It is somewhat harder to depict faith in ideology without deviating from the 'absolute doctrine', such as solidarity/patriotism/nationalism, etc (though Fascism and Nazism are exempt). These can often be created through vigorous agitation and propaganda (sometimes causing things like deifying the leader, etc). Instead of depicting faith, the 'absolutism' would seem more appropriate (though they may linked in together). A prime example of the 'absolutism' of ideological doctrine is making the system of an individual into a doctrine, an 'ism'. Of course there is the problem of a deviating system upholding an 'absolute' doctrine which infact does not represent it doctrinally (e.g. 'Stalinism' or 'Trotskyism' as opposed to 'communism'). But looking at the fundamentals of an 'absolute' doctrine, there is room for error. For example, unlike the Bible, which it's adherents treat it as absolute truth despite it being 2000 years old, communists do not follow the 'Communist Manifesto' as the absolute truth. Perhaps it is more accurate to say realistic communists think this, nevertheless, sectarian communists ('Stalinists', 'Trotskyists', 'Leninists', 'Luxembourgists', 'Maoists', etc) similarly will discover the true uncertainty of doctrine. This goes the same for 'free market' ideologies as this very concept is 'absolutistic', money is paramount, social issues, such as the people themselves, are irrelevant. Even 'environmentalism' is encompassed within this, trees in this case are paramount, ecological preservation is central, no system change, social issues are secondary. Albeit some 'environmentalist' circles do uphold a stronger social importance, but avoid stigmatised labelling (e.g. socialistic/communistic type social systems). Such a lack of understanding of different (not 'good' or 'bad') views leads to ignorance. Ideological dogmatism is no different to religious dogmatism.
On the other end of the spectrum, one must also look at pragmatism. This was originally a 19th century American doctrine that 'the meaning or value of an idea lies only in it's practical consequence'. Pragmatism is not as far reaching theoretically as dogmatism, but is perhaps treated as much worse, when infact they are dialectically tantamount. Religious pragmatism could maybe be demonstrated as such things as pantheism, Mahayana Buddhism, Quakers (Christian sect), integrated religions (combination of various religions), etc. Not all are necessarily bad, but some would appear as overwhelming, or simply absurd. But are all of them truly pragmatic? Allowing homosexual priests into the clergy could also be considered pragmatic, and allowing the clergy to be free of celibacy (not in all cases), etc. However religious pragmatism isn't nearly as bad as ideological pragmatism, except in the cases of militant extremists, who though are called fundamentalists, are actually fundamentalists of their pragmatic variant of their religion (misinterpretation of religious covenant - e.g. 'Wahhabism', or even the 'Ku Klu Klan', etc).
Finally ideological pragmatism must be looked at. This directly links to the political spectrum, socially and economically. Firstly, in regards to the 'free market' economy, capitalism, pragmatism of this system can come in the form of regulated trade (subsidies, tariffs, etc), in a sense 'unfreeing' the market, regulated education (progressive and/or regulated fees, tertiary places, etc), regulated health system, changing the socio-economic structure in a non-dialectic fashion, such as a overwhelming middle-class of petty-bourgeoisie (as opposed to increasing lower-class and an aristocratic upper-class). This may seem counter-productive to the 'right' spectrum, productive to the 'left' (but obviously minimally), and seemingly leads to the middle spectrum, yet it may all be a facade, as right or left pragmatism can disguise an (eventual) 'absolute' doctrine. Prime examples are the 'centre-left' system of Social-Democrat Germany, 'centre-left' system of Labor Britain, 'centre' system of Liberal Australia, and the 'centre-left' system of the former Democratic United States (Republican United States is blatantly right-wing, leaning on far right). Germany though can lean leftwards because one, the Social-Democrats are theoretically (gradual) socialist based, two because of the environmentalist coalition partners, and three most importantly because of the communist coalition partners. However Germany overall is accurately described as 'centre', only appearing left on big issues if party principles and fundamental supporters demand it. Britain was relatively sound previously, but their alignment with neo-conservative America has dramatically changed this, no more is needed to be said. Australia is straight forward, the name 'Liberal' was chosen because the alternative (and more accurate) name 'Conservative' didn't sound as inviting. So Australia was already conservative (not to mention the alternative party Labour has slowly turned into a mirror party), and this has been further heightened by their alignment with neo-conservative America. In the former Democrat US, the system was at best 'centre', as like Australia, both major parties are pragmatic 'centre' and 'centre-right'. Pragmatism of a 'leftist' system is usually in reference to capitalistic reforms, such as privatisation, globalisation, deregulated economy, deregulated education and health, actions of non-sustainability, etc. But just like 'rightist' reforms, they are not necessarily bad. Whether a reform is 'capitalistic' depends on degree, or whether it is even part of fundamental doctrine. Relating back to 'absolute' doctrines, it must be noted any deviating doctrine from an original is infact pragmatism, whether it be 'Stalinism'/'Trotskyism' from 'communism', or 'Nazism' (if not 'Hitlerism') from 'Fascism' and 'capitalism'. Even a 'whistle blower' is pragmatic, dogmatism is form of conformity.
Pragmatism and dogmatism are two prominent concepts dialectically opposing each other. Neither are 'bad', but one absolutely opposed to the other can be, as ignorance cannot understand relativism. As dialectics go, a synthesis is the combination of the two opposing forces, but usually taking the form of which one force has more influence. In this case, dogmatism is the more absolute concept, and hence more heavily perpetuates ignorance. Whereas pragmatism is not as absolute, and as a result has more room for error, more room for change. To analogise this last point, treat dogmatism as a 'no' answer, and pragmatism as a 'yes' answer. Suppose someone is asked a difficult question, perhaps a conscience question. "Should abortion be legal?" A 'no' answer is a reactionary and blunt answer, doctrinal, narrow-minded. A 'yes' answer is thought through (a 'no' answer isn't necessarily not), understanding, open-minded. To make this more clear, a 'no' answer absolutely blocks the question. A 'yes' answer has infinite possibilities, it can be total legalisation, or regulated (even to the degree of it being barely legal). Therefore the leaning of the synthesis will ultimately be of pragmatism. Hence, the thesis of dogmatism and the antithesis of pragmatism culminate in the synthesis of 'revisionism'. In this case, 'revisionism' is defined as regulated pragmatism, or more accurately, regulated and appropriate change, but it must be clarified these changes are not those that are contrary to the fundamental principles. For example, to analogise 'dialectical materialism', the thesis is 'capitalism', the antithesis is 'communism', and the synthesis is 'socialism'. This 'revisionism' is based on 'realism', as opposed to utopian 'idealism'. To further understand this 'revisionism', one must also understand and apply the concept of 'freedom' and (absolute) 'subjectivity' of existentialism. Jean-Paul Sartre said, "We are condemned to be free", and by this he meant we were condemned to (absolute) freedom, freedom of choice. Linked to this is that everything is subjective (impermanence - Buddhist 'anicca'). These are the only absolute concepts that are logical, that is whether one can see through the negative revelations. As a result, dogmatism seems ascetic (along 'bad faith' lines), which it infact is. While pragmatism is simply the complete opposite, but existentialism isn't directly opposite the dogmatism, only concepts within it (Kierkegaard's Christian existentialism for example).
Dogmatism (thesis) vs. Pragmatism (antithesis) = Revisionism (synthesis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People have always argued upon pragmatic points such as: compromise; reformism; revisionism; docility; open-mindedness; etc - as opposed to such dogmatic points as: doctrine; principle; creed/article of faith; tenacity; etc. Is either such approach even remotely logical? One must always (eventually) be biased, but this is not the catalyst for absolutism, that is in the Manichean sense. This rises the point of opposing forces, the dialectic anomaly. Henceforth, dogmatism is the thesis, and it's opposite is pragmatism the antithesis. But what is the synthesis?
In order to understand dogmatism, one must first understand its parts. Dogmatism is most commonly known as the tenacious belief in a religion or ideology. The former though comes in various forms and has different concepts, but all religions ultimately are based on faith. The most obvious is Christianity, for the Seven Virtues (as opposed to the Seven Deadly Sins) comprise of the cardinal virtues: prudence; justice; fortitude; temperance: and the theological virtues; faith; hope; and charity. All concepts of Christianity rely on faith, e.g. Mark 5:36, "Fear not, only believe", Mark 9:23, "All things are possible to him who believes", etc. This concept's importance is immediately blatant in Islam, e.g. 'The Five Articles of Faith', 'The Five Pillars of Faith'. Even the arguments (ontological, cosmological, and design theory) for God's existence (of the Judeo Christian-Islamic tradition) are based on faith, that is the premise is the definition of God, of which only one of faith has reason to believe this definition ('Unchanged changer', the 'first cause', He created all, and all is dependent on him, logically omnipotent - not absolutely omnipotent, as the Bible is quoted as contrary to this). However someone could argue that faith is not central to Buddhism, for the Buddha himself taught that one should test his teachings for truth, not simply accept it in faith. Then there is also the open-minded Mahayana Buddhism, who would appear more to doctrine than Theravada Buddhism (that is it is more sound to the concept of 'anicca' -impermanence, hence doctrine can change, despite Theravada Buddhism being more dogmatic to all other concepts). So it would appear Mahayana Buddhism is reaching some sort of synthesis, but it may be leaning too much towards pragmatism (e.g. the worship of Buddha images/statues, which the Buddha himself condemned as deity worship). It must also be noted that atheism itself is dogmatic, for in general atheists do not even try to understand what they vehemently oppose.
Next one must try to understand ideological dogmatism. It is somewhat harder to depict faith in ideology without deviating from the 'absolute doctrine', such as solidarity/patriotism/nationalism, etc (though Fascism and Nazism are exempt). These can often be created through vigorous agitation and propaganda (sometimes causing things like deifying the leader, etc). Instead of depicting faith, the 'absolutism' would seem more appropriate (though they may linked in together). A prime example of the 'absolutism' of ideological doctrine is making the system of an individual into a doctrine, an 'ism'. Of course there is the problem of a deviating system upholding an 'absolute' doctrine which infact does not represent it doctrinally (e.g. 'Stalinism' or 'Trotskyism' as opposed to 'communism'). But looking at the fundamentals of an 'absolute' doctrine, there is room for error. For example, unlike the Bible, which it's adherents treat it as absolute truth despite it being 2000 years old, communists do not follow the 'Communist Manifesto' as the absolute truth. Perhaps it is more accurate to say realistic communists think this, nevertheless, sectarian communists ('Stalinists', 'Trotskyists', 'Leninists', 'Luxembourgists', 'Maoists', etc) similarly will discover the true uncertainty of doctrine. This goes the same for 'free market' ideologies as this very concept is 'absolutistic', money is paramount, social issues, such as the people themselves, are irrelevant. Even 'environmentalism' is encompassed within this, trees in this case are paramount, ecological preservation is central, no system change, social issues are secondary. Albeit some 'environmentalist' circles do uphold a stronger social importance, but avoid stigmatised labelling (e.g. socialistic/communistic type social systems). Such a lack of understanding of different (not 'good' or 'bad') views leads to ignorance. Ideological dogmatism is no different to religious dogmatism.
On the other end of the spectrum, one must also look at pragmatism. This was originally a 19th century American doctrine that 'the meaning or value of an idea lies only in it's practical consequence'. Pragmatism is not as far reaching theoretically as dogmatism, but is perhaps treated as much worse, when infact they are dialectically tantamount. Religious pragmatism could maybe be demonstrated as such things as pantheism, Mahayana Buddhism, Quakers (Christian sect), integrated religions (combination of various religions), etc. Not all are necessarily bad, but some would appear as overwhelming, or simply absurd. But are all of them truly pragmatic? Allowing homosexual priests into the clergy could also be considered pragmatic, and allowing the clergy to be free of celibacy (not in all cases), etc. However religious pragmatism isn't nearly as bad as ideological pragmatism, except in the cases of militant extremists, who though are called fundamentalists, are actually fundamentalists of their pragmatic variant of their religion (misinterpretation of religious covenant - e.g. 'Wahhabism', or even the 'Ku Klu Klan', etc).
Finally ideological pragmatism must be looked at. This directly links to the political spectrum, socially and economically. Firstly, in regards to the 'free market' economy, capitalism, pragmatism of this system can come in the form of regulated trade (subsidies, tariffs, etc), in a sense 'unfreeing' the market, regulated education (progressive and/or regulated fees, tertiary places, etc), regulated health system, changing the socio-economic structure in a non-dialectic fashion, such as a overwhelming middle-class of petty-bourgeoisie (as opposed to increasing lower-class and an aristocratic upper-class). This may seem counter-productive to the 'right' spectrum, productive to the 'left' (but obviously minimally), and seemingly leads to the middle spectrum, yet it may all be a facade, as right or left pragmatism can disguise an (eventual) 'absolute' doctrine. Prime examples are the 'centre-left' system of Social-Democrat Germany, 'centre-left' system of Labor Britain, 'centre' system of Liberal Australia, and the 'centre-left' system of the former Democratic United States (Republican United States is blatantly right-wing, leaning on far right). Germany though can lean leftwards because one, the Social-Democrats are theoretically (gradual) socialist based, two because of the environmentalist coalition partners, and three most importantly because of the communist coalition partners. However Germany overall is accurately described as 'centre', only appearing left on big issues if party principles and fundamental supporters demand it. Britain was relatively sound previously, but their alignment with neo-conservative America has dramatically changed this, no more is needed to be said. Australia is straight forward, the name 'Liberal' was chosen because the alternative (and more accurate) name 'Conservative' didn't sound as inviting. So Australia was already conservative (not to mention the alternative party Labour has slowly turned into a mirror party), and this has been further heightened by their alignment with neo-conservative America. In the former Democrat US, the system was at best 'centre', as like Australia, both major parties are pragmatic 'centre' and 'centre-right'. Pragmatism of a 'leftist' system is usually in reference to capitalistic reforms, such as privatisation, globalisation, deregulated economy, deregulated education and health, actions of non-sustainability, etc. But just like 'rightist' reforms, they are not necessarily bad. Whether a reform is 'capitalistic' depends on degree, or whether it is even part of fundamental doctrine. Relating back to 'absolute' doctrines, it must be noted any deviating doctrine from an original is infact pragmatism, whether it be 'Stalinism'/'Trotskyism' from 'communism', or 'Nazism' (if not 'Hitlerism') from 'Fascism' and 'capitalism'. Even a 'whistle blower' is pragmatic, dogmatism is form of conformity.
Pragmatism and dogmatism are two prominent concepts dialectically opposing each other. Neither are 'bad', but one absolutely opposed to the other can be, as ignorance cannot understand relativism. As dialectics go, a synthesis is the combination of the two opposing forces, but usually taking the form of which one force has more influence. In this case, dogmatism is the more absolute concept, and hence more heavily perpetuates ignorance. Whereas pragmatism is not as absolute, and as a result has more room for error, more room for change. To analogise this last point, treat dogmatism as a 'no' answer, and pragmatism as a 'yes' answer. Suppose someone is asked a difficult question, perhaps a conscience question. "Should abortion be legal?" A 'no' answer is a reactionary and blunt answer, doctrinal, narrow-minded. A 'yes' answer is thought through (a 'no' answer isn't necessarily not), understanding, open-minded. To make this more clear, a 'no' answer absolutely blocks the question. A 'yes' answer has infinite possibilities, it can be total legalisation, or regulated (even to the degree of it being barely legal). Therefore the leaning of the synthesis will ultimately be of pragmatism. Hence, the thesis of dogmatism and the antithesis of pragmatism culminate in the synthesis of 'revisionism'. In this case, 'revisionism' is defined as regulated pragmatism, or more accurately, regulated and appropriate change, but it must be clarified these changes are not those that are contrary to the fundamental principles. For example, to analogise 'dialectical materialism', the thesis is 'capitalism', the antithesis is 'communism', and the synthesis is 'socialism'. This 'revisionism' is based on 'realism', as opposed to utopian 'idealism'. To further understand this 'revisionism', one must also understand and apply the concept of 'freedom' and (absolute) 'subjectivity' of existentialism. Jean-Paul Sartre said, "We are condemned to be free", and by this he meant we were condemned to (absolute) freedom, freedom of choice. Linked to this is that everything is subjective (impermanence - Buddhist 'anicca'). These are the only absolute concepts that are logical, that is whether one can see through the negative revelations. As a result, dogmatism seems ascetic (along 'bad faith' lines), which it infact is. While pragmatism is simply the complete opposite, but existentialism isn't directly opposite the dogmatism, only concepts within it (Kierkegaard's Christian existentialism for example).
Dogmatism (thesis) vs. Pragmatism (antithesis) = Revisionism (synthesis)