SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (39133)4/12/2004 1:11:46 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793926
 
Isn't that true for any political philosophy you could name?

Of course. That's why it's so ridiculous to exempt conservatives, which is what started this discussion. Conservatives don't have a monopoly on reality any more than anyone else. Anyone who thinks they do is a conservative dittohead.

I don't think it's the political philosophy, though, but one's cultural circle. Since those we know are generally like us, it's natural to assume that that's reality rather than just the particular cultural island on which we happen to be.

The salient question here is, to my mind, does the movement have thinkers and what are their ideas, or is it running on fumes?

I certainly think that the conservative movement has thinkers. I think that's where the best thought has been going on for some time now. But thought isn't much of a factor once you get past the professional thinkers and their apprentices in any movement. Movements have their thinkers and their popularizers and their demagogs and their masses who lap up what feeds their biases and declare themselves among the smart crowd.

You can focus if you want on comparing the relative sharpness of the thinkers. Certainly that's worth something. In my mind, the dittoheads of whatever flavor are still dittoheads.

P.S. This is my working definition of "dittohead." Found it somewhere on the internet a while back.

dittohead
the crowning achievement of late 20th century philosophy, one who takes pride in his or her lack of ability to form original or analytical thought.