Skyhilist
25th September 2013, 07:36
I've come to realize something. The way that most of us on here (in my opinion) have come to analyze ideas is really wrong.
Let me provide an example.
Suppose we have two tendencies. These tendencies are tendency 1 and tendency 2. Now, both of them were conceived over a century ago so they're prone to having certain ideas that aren't really good or relevant anymore. For example, let us say that each of these two tendencies has 3 main ideas. Tendency 1 has ideas A, B, and C, of which A and B are still good ideas but C is not. Tendency 2 has ideas D, E, and F, of which E and F are still good ideas but D is not.
The way we should analyze this situation is to say that when we logically evaluate ideas A-F individually, we see merit in ideas A, B, E, and F. Instead, here's what people on here do: they try to determine which tendency has more merit, tendency 1 or tendency 2. As a result, an individual will hold onto either ideas A, B, and C or ideas D, E, and F. As a result of this, people fail to recognize good ideas that don't fall within tendency 1/tendency 2 and also continue to uphold flawed idea C/D depending on what tendency they chose as more reasonable.
This is a problem because it makes it so that we're not really choosing on our own what ideas we like and what ones we don't. Almost everyone on here might like to think that, but it's not true. People on here tend to do this: they evaluate which tendency they like best (Left Coms, M-Ls, anarcho-communists, etc.) based on what the ideas of that tendency are like. This is the wrong way to do things. Why? Because the tendency you chose may have 99 great ideas and 1 bad idea... and one of the tendencies you rejected may have had 1 great idea and 99 bad ideas. But the problem is, once we choose a tendency, we don't see it that way. Things become more black and white and we tend to oversimplify, psychologically. Now, we see our own tendency as having 100 good ideas and the tendency in question that we rejected as having no good ideas.
This is why, we must isolate ideas from the tendencies that they come from. Had everyone done this before choosing tendencies, we'd have a much more logical basis for our ideas. Imagine if you'd analyzed these 200 ideas independently (100 from each tendency). You'd have 100 ideas that you saw as good and 100 that you saw as bad, or less good. That is how you would organize things, and that is more logical. If you could look down on the version of yourself who'd accepted ideas based on what tendency they were, you'd say "wow that person (yourself) has 99 great ideas, but 1 bad idea." You're able to look at ideas rationally from this perspective. Whereas on the other hand if you had chosen ideas based on what you saw as the most logical tendency, you would be that version of yourself that you were looking down on -- so you'd come to see that (now current version of) yourself as having 100 good ideas and no bad ideas. This wont be done on as logically sound a basis as before, because you'll have fooled yourself psychologically based on what tendency you've already chosen as to what constitutes a good idea.
Once you abandon the rational way of analyzing ideas independently, it's hard to get back on track. Psychologically, when you choose a tendency, your mind wants to see everything within that tendency as right -- and it wants to see more things in other tendencies as wrong than really are (and when I use the words "right" and "wrong", I mean what you would conclude to be right and wrong if you evaluated every single idea independently and divorced it from the tendency it came from). We should therefore include that ideas must be divorced from the tendencies that they come from when we are analyzing them. It is better in the same way that a double blind experiment is better than a single blind one. Only then will the way we form our beliefs be on the most logical basis.
Now, if you do this and it ends up that after looking at every major idea individually, you agreed with all the ideas of a single tendency and none of the ideas of other ones, then fine. But this is extremely unlikely. Given the hundreds if not thousands of relevant leftist ideas, it is probably extremely unlikely that if you evaluate every idea independently, you will reach exactly the same set of conclusions and have the same set of beliefs as any given tendency. If you do, then it may in fact provide strong evidence for the fact that you've done an inadequate job of isolating ideas from their respective tendencies when analyzing them. I, for example would say that I have done a poor job of this. Why? Because I really don't disagree with any of the ideas put out by anarcho-syndicalists or anarcho-communists and therefore feel that I can call myself those two things. So how might I, and all of you, isolate these ideas better in order to be able to analyze them more logically and without preference/bias based on the tendencies that they came from? That my friends is the million dollar question.
I hope I've made sense to you all. It's very late here and I've grown quite tired.
Let me provide an example.
Suppose we have two tendencies. These tendencies are tendency 1 and tendency 2. Now, both of them were conceived over a century ago so they're prone to having certain ideas that aren't really good or relevant anymore. For example, let us say that each of these two tendencies has 3 main ideas. Tendency 1 has ideas A, B, and C, of which A and B are still good ideas but C is not. Tendency 2 has ideas D, E, and F, of which E and F are still good ideas but D is not.
The way we should analyze this situation is to say that when we logically evaluate ideas A-F individually, we see merit in ideas A, B, E, and F. Instead, here's what people on here do: they try to determine which tendency has more merit, tendency 1 or tendency 2. As a result, an individual will hold onto either ideas A, B, and C or ideas D, E, and F. As a result of this, people fail to recognize good ideas that don't fall within tendency 1/tendency 2 and also continue to uphold flawed idea C/D depending on what tendency they chose as more reasonable.
This is a problem because it makes it so that we're not really choosing on our own what ideas we like and what ones we don't. Almost everyone on here might like to think that, but it's not true. People on here tend to do this: they evaluate which tendency they like best (Left Coms, M-Ls, anarcho-communists, etc.) based on what the ideas of that tendency are like. This is the wrong way to do things. Why? Because the tendency you chose may have 99 great ideas and 1 bad idea... and one of the tendencies you rejected may have had 1 great idea and 99 bad ideas. But the problem is, once we choose a tendency, we don't see it that way. Things become more black and white and we tend to oversimplify, psychologically. Now, we see our own tendency as having 100 good ideas and the tendency in question that we rejected as having no good ideas.
This is why, we must isolate ideas from the tendencies that they come from. Had everyone done this before choosing tendencies, we'd have a much more logical basis for our ideas. Imagine if you'd analyzed these 200 ideas independently (100 from each tendency). You'd have 100 ideas that you saw as good and 100 that you saw as bad, or less good. That is how you would organize things, and that is more logical. If you could look down on the version of yourself who'd accepted ideas based on what tendency they were, you'd say "wow that person (yourself) has 99 great ideas, but 1 bad idea." You're able to look at ideas rationally from this perspective. Whereas on the other hand if you had chosen ideas based on what you saw as the most logical tendency, you would be that version of yourself that you were looking down on -- so you'd come to see that (now current version of) yourself as having 100 good ideas and no bad ideas. This wont be done on as logically sound a basis as before, because you'll have fooled yourself psychologically based on what tendency you've already chosen as to what constitutes a good idea.
Once you abandon the rational way of analyzing ideas independently, it's hard to get back on track. Psychologically, when you choose a tendency, your mind wants to see everything within that tendency as right -- and it wants to see more things in other tendencies as wrong than really are (and when I use the words "right" and "wrong", I mean what you would conclude to be right and wrong if you evaluated every single idea independently and divorced it from the tendency it came from). We should therefore include that ideas must be divorced from the tendencies that they come from when we are analyzing them. It is better in the same way that a double blind experiment is better than a single blind one. Only then will the way we form our beliefs be on the most logical basis.
Now, if you do this and it ends up that after looking at every major idea individually, you agreed with all the ideas of a single tendency and none of the ideas of other ones, then fine. But this is extremely unlikely. Given the hundreds if not thousands of relevant leftist ideas, it is probably extremely unlikely that if you evaluate every idea independently, you will reach exactly the same set of conclusions and have the same set of beliefs as any given tendency. If you do, then it may in fact provide strong evidence for the fact that you've done an inadequate job of isolating ideas from their respective tendencies when analyzing them. I, for example would say that I have done a poor job of this. Why? Because I really don't disagree with any of the ideas put out by anarcho-syndicalists or anarcho-communists and therefore feel that I can call myself those two things. So how might I, and all of you, isolate these ideas better in order to be able to analyze them more logically and without preference/bias based on the tendencies that they came from? That my friends is the million dollar question.
I hope I've made sense to you all. It's very late here and I've grown quite tired.