No.187358
>>187356I didnt understand the part where it says piss in Abdl is ok but poop is not because of the metaphysical implications, can you expand on that
No.187960
I think the text ironically falls into the same traps that it points out
It starts very abstract in its definition of ideology, perhaps because ideology has no strong definition and more specific terms for each component part make for a far better way of defining the word
The text then launches into being very historically driven, and pointing out a large number of ideologies and their definitions without adding any particular interpretation of its own
This part is at least very informational, I didn't know about quite a few of these
It feels like from the particular ideologies chosen to be put on display, the text is attempting less to showcase successful ideologies and more to showcase unsuccessful ones, which is a strange thing to do when you consider that the purpose is supposedly to define ideology on a deeper conceptual level
The parts that I felt were actually interesting were the stuff about thesis, antithesis and synthesis, and the "spirit of an era" since this is quite close to the truth
While this gives some level of justification to the dull history lesson (demonstrating how each era builds on the last while also putting forward new concepts; an idea which could work as a definition of ideology), it's only really implicitly stated and there's almost even a level of deception in connecting it to the Hegelian ideas and how they themselves were part of this cycle
No.187961
The small tidbit at the end about "ideological entropy" is also intriguing and should rightly be expanded on
If you want my perspective (and I know that no one does), there are ideologies that are clearly correct and ideologies that are clearly incorrect, and both have their purpose in the world
It is a Divine Principle that there are those in the world who tell the truth and those who obfuscate it
As such, "ideological entropy" would actually be a good thing since it would satisfy this Divine Principle
Leading a revolution, either of truth or of lies, would not have the desired effect of allowing mass Enlightenment but would actually prevent Enlightenment since it would disrupt this Divine Principle
As such, a revolution of such nature would be, and has been, met with wrath from God and prevented from going to completion
No.187965
>>187341What do you use to write your PDFs.