Re: # 180

PM
((((No. I don’t deny it. But when it comes to philosphical systems and the ethical outlook derived from them, some are more open than others, leading to a less dogmatic, more inclusive system than others. Compare Nazism, which, in fact, does not comply with your definition of ideology at all, with Quakerism, or even Islam, which rougly do. Surely you can see a substantial difference there?))))

Off course there are differences in the ideological system derived from philosophical system...for example Marxism does not have any ethical system at all in the strict sense.....All you can derive from it is ,’ the social implication of values" ’pragmatically’ wedded to its philosophical basis.....in Islam values and ethics have far more significance than Marxism because in the case of Islam an individual not only follow moralities but also have certain level of ’consciousness’ of those values and the sense of accountability to God. In Marxism there is no need to be ’conscious’ of those values as long as they are serving their social purpose and giving a feed back to the ideological system it is derived from.......but in all cases they are ’ideologies’ by any definition............even Nazism is a comprehensive ideology because it derives the superiority of a race from a scientific Darwinism.

So even Nazism is not without any philosophical basis and intellectual justification. Its authoritarian approach does demand a complete ideological system and it philosophical grounds..(Now its another thing whether these implication are complementary to Darwinism or it has a ’valid’ intellectual grounds)...but it satisfies every definition of ideology.