Kent Stevens

What would you see if somehow you could go back one hundred years in time? You would first probably see what a dramatic change in culture has happened. People dress differently. The technology would be very different with their being no cars for example. Transportation is based around the horse. Their language is slightly different, with a large range of terms yet to be invented. The kind of plants and animals cultivated by people would be very different. The ideas about religion and politics would be very different.

If you stayed around for a while you would find out about some contemporary events. The first Nobel Prizes are awarded in 1901. Marconi broadcasts a radio signal across the Atlantic in 1901. The Wright Brothers have achieved controlled flight in 1903. The fictional character Peter Pan is invented in 1904. There is a war between Russia and Japan starting in 1904.

In short the culture between now and then would be completely different. There has been vast changes in beliefs, technologies, languages, religion, politics, the arts, cultivated organisms, and the mass media. One thing that remains true is that conflict occurs between different countries. Also, that the big difference in cultures occur between the people in different countries.

It can be seen that culture has been many facets to it. Ideas are only one part of culture. However, in all parts of culture there is competition. There is competition in business, politics, religion, the arts, and the sciences. This indirectly results the competition between ideas, between technologies, and between forms of entertainment for example.

We should note that we are a cultural entity, a cultural animal. We are connected to a particular culture yet also involved in changing it.

We should also note that we are a tribal entity, a tribal animal. We exist in tribes that in turn compete with other tribes. That the big difference in culture happens between tribes or nations.

phaedrus

Ahh...Idea competition. Promote the free market theory to the field of "ideas". But i would rather think looking at the history of mankind, it is the marketing of 'idea' that matters rather than the 'idea' itself.

Why? For example, can we believe in the society's capability of adopting the right "idea"? Or what is "right" is what the society thinks is "right"? If it is left to the majority, wouldn't religion become the all pervasive "idea"? The issue here is not whether an idea has a competitive advantage in terms of enhancing the "present" but the crux is in the "communication" of this idea and its potential to the "decision makers" in the society/group who in turn will sell the idea to their peers.

Obviously, every society is scared/wary of "new ideas" which dont follow the pattern of "tradition". They will only accept/adopt these ideas only if they see their success or are comfortable with the change these ideas might bring to the "status quo".

1sec

THE CULTURAL ANIMAL
Ok, now that you've said it, it is all clear to me:

Of course people are cultural animals. It is their fundamental trait that they should create a symbolic universe (i.e. culture) in response to nature.

THE INSTRUMENTAL IDEAS
Now. Do people inside each group compete to see their ideas winning against the others'. No. They compete in terms of satisfying their needs. Ideas are only tools, either picked up from the group's reservoir of knowledge, or created by gifted individuals.

Thus people buy and sell, borrow or lend, steal or coin ideas in order that they should see their ends meet.


...well, it is a little simplistic, isn't it?
...ideas are more than that_
...but in relation to cultural development, I think I've hit the right string

Kent Stevens

[/QUOTE]
IOW, the whole history of philosophy, seems to be nothing more than an entertaining curiosity that is otherwise worthless if no progress in understanding philosophy is possible.
[QUOTE]

Beliefs in science get better over time. They become more accurate in their depiction of reality. Philosophical ideas also would improve in how well that they are based more on reality. People may desire after truth so these ideas are more likely to be accepted.

The fact that for most of recent human history people have believed in what is basically bunk suggests that there are other things then how well a belief represents reality. People seem to be very keen on submitting themselves to the supposed ruler of their tribe in god. Belief in god helps justify people worshipping and following their kings blindly. People would rather be tribal than reasonable.

We are fortunate that we live in age that we do not have to submit and worship our leaders. Our tribe allows much more freedom than the tribes or countries did in the past.

Note that I am not suggesting moral relativism by talking about idea competition. Reject those things that you find to be false or immoral. Do what that you want without going to excess. In this way there is idea competition and bad ideas from your perspective are lost.

jpbrooks

It is the reciprocity among philosophy and other areas of inquiry such as the physical and social sciences, which, themselves, advance our knowledge about reality, that allows philosophy to make progress.

I agree.
Some "people of faith", who seek to justify their laziness or reluctance in thinking for themselves, "hide" behind their "faith".
From personal experience, it is extremely difficult to communicate with such people, no matter what they place their "faith" in.
They don't value logic and reasoned discourse, and become angry and uncommunicative when one points out the self-defeating nature of trying to justify their stances explicitly.

True. But as long as we live in a "tribe" whose government is not restricted to protecting the rights of its rights-respecting citizens, any freedom that is granted to those citizens is always in danger of being revoked.

And it is the rejection of false and immoral ideas that constitutes the progress to which I am alluding.

I am interested in learning about methods by which new ideas can be reliably "mass produced". So far, from what I have read about creative thinking, there doesn't seem to be a method that can generate new ideas "mechanically". All of the "methods" that I have come across depend, in one way or another, on the (mystical) faculty of human "insight" to arrive at new ideas.

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

emphryio

Quote:
(...generating new ideas mechanically....
... relies on the (mystical) faculty of human insight...)

One very simplistic method, to be creative or to create a new idea, is to simply take existing reality and arbitrarily imagine some "change" to it and then attempt to imagine the results. Of course if the "change" was truly arbitrary, it could be argued quite a few imagined changes would be necessary before you ever stumbled upon one that had any merit. But in reality I think this simplistic method doesn't work so bad.

I might even say that the level of creativity a person possesses could be based on the frequency with which they can introduce a change and how well they are at imaging the results.

It's quite simplistic. But it works.

PsycheDelia

perhaps the competition of ideas is necessary to keep one single idea from becoming totally dominant, and ruling the world, so to speak. every idea needs to be checked so that it doesn't manifest itself in its extreme form. even the good ideas need that - non-violence taken to an extreme would mean passivity (not that there is any justification IMO for physical violence of any kind, but what if turning the other cheek came to mean not reacting, even internally, to any provocation?). so the competition of ideas keeps the good and the bad ideas in check, and that could (should?) lead to the development of new ideas, the adaptation of old ones, and the overall dynamism of human nature.

of course, these days it's easy to see how some ideas can become dominant and win over the competition. it's usually the ideas of those who control the most powerful propaganda vehicles (hollywood comes to mind)

Kent Stevens

In any competive situation people tend to wonder why is a certain competitor is successful. A related question is what gives one competitor the competitive edge or competitive advantage over other competitors.

I am suggesting that some of the following features contribute to success in ideologies. I am focusing on this aspect of culture and ignoring other things like competition in technology and the arts for now. Success here simply means being able to get a large number of adherants to a particular ideology. Examples of ideologies includes philosophy, religion, political ideology, general economic theory, and science.

The kind of questions considered is why Christainity is the largest religion in terms of numbers? Why is Islam the fastest growing religion in the world? Why was monarchism successful for so long?


Features of Successful Ideologies

Political power: The dominant ideology in a society tends to support the people in power or supports the revolutionaries that obtain power. Consider Christainity helping to support the roman state. Originally the emperor Constantine enforced Christainity partly to help bring unity to the Empire. In most societies the king is either the head of the major religion or has substantial control over the state religion. The king has divine sanction from God. So to go against him is to go against God. Marxism and Fascism were successful in obtaining power based on their particular ideologies which also sanction the state.

Military power: The two major religions also seem to be the most violent ones. This helps in the conquest of other communities and assimilation of the religion into these other communities. Every nation has an ideology that helps justify the necessity of defence.

Economic power: Ideologies that are useful for some people to obtain wealth tend to be selected over others. Traditionally the monarch of each state is the wealthiest person in each state. Again god's will is a justification that certain aristocrats enjoy wealth. Even in a modern democracy it is clear that there is a slight bias to wealth in that rich people contribute to political parties. Consequently, political parties and their ideologies normally are O.K. with rich people. Capitalism won over communism. Applied science offers some benefit in the creation of new wealth.

Personal benefit: This is one of the main reason that religion is successful in that it promises certain things to believers. The more extreme the promise the more successful the religion. Part of the reason that democracy is successful in developed countries is that it gives freedom to people in these societies.

Truth: All ideologies promise the truth. Sciences edge is in this area, with it being more accurately being able to predict and explain reality. Some philosophies have promised a unique truth with their ideas.


There are other characteristics of successful ideologies but some of the main features are listed above.

phaedrus

So it is not really a "competition" based on the worth of the idea but rather is based on based on economic/military strenghts?

You can add population growth to the above characterstics if "no. of followers" is a definition of a successful ideology

btw, now we have moved away from the term "idea" to "ideology". Can religion be called an ideology? (in a literal sense?)

Kent Stevens

I am using the term ideology as large grouping of ideas. Ideology is normally used to describe something like Marxist ideology for example. I am changing the meaning of ideology from it's ordinary meaning to include religion.

The worth of ideas and values is linked to your political affiliation and personal philosopy/ religion. I don't like the idea that religions in the past have been used as state propaganda. I am happier that I live in a time where we have choice about the beliefs we hold.