Answer 4 of the following, in 250-500 words.
1.
Review the history of the concept of ideology. Ultimately, do you agree with the statement, “ideologies provide valuable functions but can also blind their host”
I do personally believe that ideologies help different functions in everyday life, but they can also hinder some aspects as well; especially those who may be stubborn and unwilling to keep an open mind in life. The reason that I see ideologies hard to deal with is because people use them to their advantages and tend to miss the fact that there are other truths in the world. Some of these truths may oppose what they believe, so in the big picture, they are blinded by their beliefs. Marx, in, “Ideology: Career of a concept” comes up with …show more content…
He sees being free as being able to do as one wants to, without having to ask for permission, because they are their own being. When one is free, they are capable of doing with their property as they please. The next part in the State of Nature is equality. Being equal to Locke is no subjection from another being, who is of the same rank. This would essentially be two humans being free of each other, without having rule over other individuals as we are all created equal. This can however be argued because his definition of equal is vague and open to interpretation. For example, slavery can be viewed in this section as we are all humans, who should treat each other equally, but it apparently wasn’t the case as white men saw themselves as greater than African Americans. They believed in a sense that they were not equal or of the same rank, so they were able to own them. The last part of the State of Nature is being, “rational”. This is the ability to know what one wants and what is in their best interest. He describes this as the rule of the state of Nature, essentially saying that if one didn’t want to be attacked, or stripped of their life, property, or health, then they wouldn’t do to others what they didn’t want done to …show more content…
Unlike MLK Jr., Malcolm X was not opposed to violence. He sought after it regardless, because he thought it to be necessary at times in order to take a stand. Alfred on the other hand saw it as a stand to the state, in more of a for of resistance against the state. X was very active in this way, where it was in a way, a first option, but Alfred saw it as a finally step to victory for the people. In addition, where Alfred saw Civil disobedience as a step to victory, it appears that X was more about taking control of themselves, not fighting as a step to victory, but of course, it was a different fight they had
1.
Review the history of the concept of ideology. Ultimately, do you agree with the statement, “ideologies provide valuable functions but can also blind their host”
I do personally believe that ideologies help different functions in everyday life, but they can also hinder some aspects as well; especially those who may be stubborn and unwilling to keep an open mind in life. The reason that I see ideologies hard to deal with is because people use them to their advantages and tend to miss the fact that there are other truths in the world. Some of these truths may oppose what they believe, so in the big picture, they are blinded by their beliefs. Marx, in, “Ideology: Career of a concept” comes up with …show more content…
He sees being free as being able to do as one wants to, without having to ask for permission, because they are their own being. When one is free, they are capable of doing with their property as they please. The next part in the State of Nature is equality. Being equal to Locke is no subjection from another being, who is of the same rank. This would essentially be two humans being free of each other, without having rule over other individuals as we are all created equal. This can however be argued because his definition of equal is vague and open to interpretation. For example, slavery can be viewed in this section as we are all humans, who should treat each other equally, but it apparently wasn’t the case as white men saw themselves as greater than African Americans. They believed in a sense that they were not equal or of the same rank, so they were able to own them. The last part of the State of Nature is being, “rational”. This is the ability to know what one wants and what is in their best interest. He describes this as the rule of the state of Nature, essentially saying that if one didn’t want to be attacked, or stripped of their life, property, or health, then they wouldn’t do to others what they didn’t want done to …show more content…
Unlike MLK Jr., Malcolm X was not opposed to violence. He sought after it regardless, because he thought it to be necessary at times in order to take a stand. Alfred on the other hand saw it as a stand to the state, in more of a for of resistance against the state. X was very active in this way, where it was in a way, a first option, but Alfred saw it as a finally step to victory for the people. In addition, where Alfred saw Civil disobedience as a step to victory, it appears that X was more about taking control of themselves, not fighting as a step to victory, but of course, it was a different fight they had