Analysis Of The Foundations Of Ideology In Western Civilizations

The foundation for ideology was born for and to battle against; was more than that of a struggle for political power or influence, it was a struggle for the foundations of civilization. That the church based civilization in religious design as to separate civilization from the metaphysics into that of a more clear interpretation, though still biased, “let everyone follow their own belief, for, as you know, there is an immense variety of opinions and freedom of judgement,” out of the confusion of metaphysics realities. Ideology transitioned into newton scientific thought, to derail Rome’s’ dictate, into a scientific process by the process whereby social life is converted to a natural reality. vita mortalium non est exigenda nobis ad stateram philosophiea statera philosophiea “we must not regulate our lives by the standards of philosophy, the balance of philosophy” “fails to achieve empirical relevance.”

Bodin describes in the Colloquium heptaplomeres, “in which his religious opinions seem to have developed into a kind of theism which leaves each man’s religion, provided he has some, to his own personal conscience,” ideology contrivance would give a more clear interpretation of what was needed a “Newton science of thought;” for the unity of the state. Since all science rests upon ideas, inexorably would develop Roman design, indispensable mediums in which individuals live out their relations to a social structure that ‘false ideas’ help to legitimize a dominant political power, this conjuncture of discourse and power is paradoxical at best. Inadvertently, which humanity becomes the slaves of thought to the ideologies man creates, constructed coherent system of ideas. “Who could be so fastidious that he would not approve and praise the man who devoted his industry and diligence to such a carefully constructed work? That whoever wishes to discuss them has no choice but to collect and sort and assemble them in a manner both different from the others and appropriate to his own work, as if consciously imitating the man who made the mosaic floor.” The analogy of the Roman is clear, ideology elaborated Civitas terrena, the city of this world whose institutions perpetuate the transmission of injustice from generation to generation, as the Svengalian institution whose ideologies have defiled political life since its foundation inspires paradise.

Ideology would oust theology as the dominant unifying system, and, instead the Roman state would further, the system, “Nothing is said has not been said before,” Civilization artifice would reconstruct politics, economics, and ethics from the ground up.” “The ideal conception for the commonwealth,” the new guard that is more or less forced to rely on a carefully reformed version of the old guard, Utopia. “The ideal conception of a city for philosophical purposes,” ideology desired, and to free humanity from the shackles imposed by priests and absolutist governments. (Smith 1997: 233) Ideology had its origins by the French philosophical camp and, François-Marie Arouet de Voltaire, (1694-1778) in his letter on the Blind for the Use of Those Who See (1749), Denis Diderot (1713-84) argued that ideas and values, like visual perception are relative to sensory experience. Etienne Bonnot, abbé de Condillac (1714-80), analysis of language and sensation, treated words as signs for ideas derived from sensation and hence regarded language as a sign system for the representation of knowledge. He stated, “that the art of reasoning, reduced to its simplest form can only be a well- formed language.” Rousseau (1712-1778), “without a perfect knowledge of the inclinations of individuals one could not understand society,” “The ‘situation’ of society, while it arouses men's moral faculties.” The result was both clarifying religious and moral certainties as well as political beliefs relative and questionable and providing a scientific explanation to a political programme from philosophy. That the Idéologues, wished to reconstruct philosophy into an analytical method for the study of the nature, sources, and implications of ideas.

According to Destutt de Tracy, “One has only an incomplete knowledge of an animal if one does not know its intellectual faculties. Ideology is a part of zoology, and it is above all with reference to the study of man that this science has importance,” to the Aristotelian axiom, “man is by nature a political animal.” That is ideology, the Utopian thought, based upon Sir Thomas More, from the Lockean sense of ideas, that the scientific method Francis Bacon imparted the French philosophical camp developed into ideology. An Aristotelian science that of Bacon's warning against idola (“idols, phantoms, or misconceptions”) as sources of error in knowledge. The genesis of “ideology,” traced; Bacon's idola, proved so essential in the study of physical nature for having developed the scientific method; was the first to understand the truth that all knowledge comes from the senses.

Into Locke’s theory of the mind, that the origin of modern concepts of identity and of the self-derived from sense perception that became consequential to ideology, idea, and near to the Lockean sense concept of tabula rasa, the concomitant rejection of innate ideas. That Locke's typology of ideas, of two types, of ideas, simple and complex, importantly their interaction of associationism. Developed the concept of ideology analysis of how perception and physiognomy relate to language, and ideas, into the basis for social and cultural transformation; “scientific idea’s” should exercise power. Which sought nothing less than to describe how the mind works, the “Rules for the Direction of the Mind.” That Descartes ideological project attempts to codify the laws of thought, and does not provide criteria for distinguishing, ideological thought from philosophical thought, ideologue denoting “visionaries” or “daydreamers,” that is where the term “ideologue” originated; that is how it came to take on a connotation, “Science for understanding ideas.” That governments grow out of, the art of statecraft, not philosophy. In this way, the concept of ideology helps us to understand politics, in so far as politics involves philosophy and to protect and to promote learning, knowledge and truth through experiment and induction bound to truth.

Elaborated the Roman state into an “ideology” and “utopia,” according to this formulation, is an idea system congruent with, and supportive of, the status quo. Thomas More, Utopia, by contrast, is an idea system opposed to the status quo and supportive of an alternative social order. A “no such place” only those mental orientations are utopian, “which, when they pass over into conduct, tend to shatter, either partially or wholly, the order of things prevailing at the time.” The ideology-utopia distinction, since either concept may be simultaneously opposed to (or supportive of) a given status quo and supportive of (or opposed to) a rival one. Despite their appeal to science, a great deal of their analysis was strikingly speculative and intuitive. And always been abstraction, fixated beliefs that can only explain the inexplicable is vexed by the conversion of ideas of this psychological language of ideology. That its commitment to the consequences of ideas, “a daydreamer truth arises in action, and meaning is given to the visionary’s experience” by its ideologue, ‘transforming moment,’ “ideas are weaponized,” from the past as government can only evolve from statecraft engrafted and tested from a priori (of the earlier). As ideology is a falsehood in government manufacturing as it is statecraft that architects the art of governments, the Roman state has remained, a pragmatic veracity, within the ideological calculus, as a true utilitarian idea, tried and tested.

The ideological history of Western man has failed to learn any lessons from a ‘chivalric adventure with religious overlay’ when the mistakes of unfamiliarity with the environment, underestimation of the enemy, and internal quarrels were repeated on a grander scale have enslaved the people that their counterparts they defined as barbaric. the Roman remains inherently bounded by the ideological; “have been the instruments of tyranny at home; historically the means of defense, against foreign danger. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. If tyranny and oppression come to America, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” (James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787) So from Bodin’s view of the disastrous victory of the Romans over their imperial rival Carthage, we might take the lesson that all imperialist victories are defeats: the British victory over the Spanish and French in America led to the American Revolution; the American victory over the British owed much to the French army and navy, quasi-war expenditures of which were a major cause of the French Revolution; and in our day, the victory of the American-backed dictatorships in Middle-Eastern countries over the Russians brought about the “Arab Spring” as in Latin America.

Democracy was incorporated to be managed democracy that was always the scepter of inverted totalitarianism backed by the symbol of the free-world, the icon of democracy is always the imperialist: fear kept the Romans virtuous, but the defeat of its enemy Carthage spelled the end of Roman virtue—or as we have seen in recent history. “Rome lived upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face. Industry is the only true source of wealth, and there was no industry in Rome. By day the Ostia road was crowded with carts and muleteers, carrying to the great city the silks and spices of the East, the marble of Asia Minor, the timber of the Atlas, the grain of Africa and Egypt; the carts brought out nothing but loads of dung. That was their return cargo.” “Which, America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benign sympathy of her example. The revolution is... the blow dealt... again the counter force of tyranny, incubated, which has never entirely recovered from the blow, but which from then till now has gone on remolding and re-grappling the instruments of governmental power, that the Revolution sought to shape and hold as defenses of liberty. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, “'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.”—George Washington

Were they even the banners of foreign independence, else she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, indeed to violate all the wars of interest instead for its empire, will intrigue the individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom, in the pursuit of happiness.” John Quincy Adams, Speech before the House of Representatives, July 4, 1821, coming from the president who tried to usurp America’s liberty, during the night of the midnight judges that “the liberty of America” is independence. So, “Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry.

Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.”—Plutarch That is the irony of Cicero’s paradox is that, in order to be free, we must obey the law. So, the law, which prevents one man from raping another, man’s wife out of lust, makes us free, not slaves. On the other hand, when a man, or a few men, succeeds in placing themself, or themselves, above the laws, the whole city is enslaved to their rapine. Servitude of the city is the consequence of the lack of fortitude and the base ambition of the citizens who do not dare to standup to the tyrant and his partisans and prefer to submit their lives to an alien will which is the “Iron Law of Oligarchy,” instead enslave themselves to the passions of the utopian ideal of democracy and liberty.

This turns the potentiality for freedom into servitude. That Democracy has always been inherently demagogic inexorably the tyranny of the majority whether that be of the minority, elite or the masses since the Athenian democratic experiment that failed. “Which all democrats affirm to be the principle of their state, and in this way, men think that they will secure equality and freedom in their state. Since the basis is the anabasis of every democratic state the embodiment of liberty,” as Aristotle said. that is the boundaries of liberty, the laws and customs which protect us from the propensity of demagoguery; from the utopian ideal of democracy, for the ideal of liberty, “that which is fit for a freeman,” rather than freedom. There is only one definition for, “When one is deprived of one’s liberty, one is right in blaming not so much the man who puts the shackles on, as the one who had the power to prevent him but did not use it.”—Thucydides.