Actions, not Ideologies are Important
It seems like once a week on average one comes across an article on why some ideology is the cause of some wrong or right. For example, why capitalism won over communism or why socialism is better than neoliberalism, et cetera.
It seems all too obvious that these have almost nothing to do with the outcomes ascribed. I mean is "the economic flavour of the week" to blame for our recent economic woes or did candidates get elected and policies made because actors saw a specific advantage for them in a candidate? Those candidates happened to believe in a specific doctrine but isn't that incidental?
But why do we feel a need to explain things this way? Why do we feel a need to explain things at all? Certainly we understand that the world is a chaotic system and hence small events having out of proportion effects are the rule as opposed to the exception. So certainly such a system has no defining governance, no rule by which its cogs turn.
We can point to a situation and predict the short term consequences but in the long term, the path escapes us. Is that why we try and divine meaning?
I say no. The reason we have this need to explain some tort or benevolence is merely to conjure the agreement of others. It's interesting that both the benefits to some action and the justification are almost concomitant in recent news (and maybe has always been).
In a society there is a great need to depend on others and hence they provide future value. Moral frameworks provide some sort of agreement to cooperate. The appearance of adherence to these frameworks becomes all the more important when one is breaking said covenants. So it's more important to look at what someone actually has done in the past as opposed to what they promise to make great again or why.
It seems all too obvious that these have almost nothing to do with the outcomes ascribed. I mean is "the economic flavour of the week" to blame for our recent economic woes or did candidates get elected and policies made because actors saw a specific advantage for them in a candidate? Those candidates happened to believe in a specific doctrine but isn't that incidental?
But why do we feel a need to explain things this way? Why do we feel a need to explain things at all? Certainly we understand that the world is a chaotic system and hence small events having out of proportion effects are the rule as opposed to the exception. So certainly such a system has no defining governance, no rule by which its cogs turn.
We can point to a situation and predict the short term consequences but in the long term, the path escapes us. Is that why we try and divine meaning?
I say no. The reason we have this need to explain some tort or benevolence is merely to conjure the agreement of others. It's interesting that both the benefits to some action and the justification are almost concomitant in recent news (and maybe has always been).
In a society there is a great need to depend on others and hence they provide future value. Moral frameworks provide some sort of agreement to cooperate. The appearance of adherence to these frameworks becomes all the more important when one is breaking said covenants. So it's more important to look at what someone actually has done in the past as opposed to what they promise to make great again or why.
Comments
Post a Comment