a short parable on Ideological Thinking
when "realism" is nominalist, and why "communism" is anti-social.
A Thomist, a Communist, an Orthodox Believer, a White Nationalist and a normie Catholic adulterer walk into a bar. The adulterer betrays his sin to his best pals. And the Thomist says, “Oh no, I never suspected you were a nominalist! This is serious, you need to start reading Lonergan tomorrow. You could go to hell.“ The communist says, “its just the working of the dialectic internal to capitalism in forming a revolutionary self-consciousness in the proletariat, don’t beat yourself up, all is still leading to a revolution.“ The orthodox evokes the filioque, saying “rationalism in the west dissolved the mystery of God and thus the proper fear of God, joining the orthodox church would solve the problem” the White Nationalist, of course, tells him to blame the Jews for his misdeed.
This parable is meant to help clarify how the bad kind of ideological thinking works. The adulterer has a problem with lust and self control. If he had real friends, or friends who were wise, they would address the salient matter and give him things to think or to do that would actually help him practically to get over his problem, confess, and make amends, etc and improve his life. But instead each of his friends sees his fall as an opportunity to insist upon conformity to their theoretical perspective, and they expect him to conform at the very point the theoretical perspective is misrecognizing his problem, which basically ensures both that, should he take any of his friends seriously and follow their advice, the theoretical perspective will be falsely understood (because ideas themselves are being abused here), and that the practical problem will persist. The irony is that the Thomist “realist” take on the problem itself is (so often!) nominalist. The Marxist take invites him believe himself to be a slave of a word called “capitalism.“ The Nationalist take worships “the jews” as a quasi-omnipotent deity responsible for all things. Ideological thinking tends to produce exactly what it means to avoid, in these cases, Nominalism, “Capitalist” Hegemony, and “Jewish” Racial Supremacy.
The Orthodox Believer has at least a slightly more plausible theory—God does assist us in overcoming sin—but if the normie catholic decides to convert under the impression that proper Trinitarian Dogma is what is going to help him, then he risks unbelief altogether, and as right belief isn´t a replacement for the hard combat for virtue. Thus, the only thing that is communicated to him through his friends “help,“ should he choose to go in one of these directions, is a tendency for instrumentalizing belief and advertising this instrumentalization to others as a solution for the various practical problems of life. Christians often call this sort of attempt to persuade “evangelization.”
Ideological thinking creates: (1) Nominalist “Realists” that take refuge in the recitation of the “right” words alone, without considering their proper application or their role in helping things move towards their proper End. Ideological thinking promotes (2) a Spiritualist “Communitarians“ that take refuge in Belief as a condition of social belonging, not as a condition of elevated intellectual vision and life. Ideological thinking produces (3) a Hypocritical “Orthodoxy”—e.g. Strict Conformity in a Minimum of “Essential” Dogma, and Laxity in All Else. Ideological thinking generates (4) a Public Opinion “Identitarianism” (unified in opposition) which seeks to liberate and excuse in-group behavior, and seeks to control and blame the out-group behavior.
In contrast to ideological thinking, Wisdom seems to combine these: from the Thomist (1) a Realism that knows the right words (Form) to make sense of the urgent Matter in order to turn things toward their proper Ends. Wisdom takes, from the Marxist, (2) a Materialism that knows what role to attribute to circumstance and community in pursuit of virtue. Also wisdom teaches, with the Orthodox, (3) Devotion in All Things; or how one can cooperate with God´s grace. And learns from a real Nationalist (4) a Patriotism where group supremacy is cashed out in terms of participation in the common good and increased only in terms of taking responsibility, for therein lies true liberty.
you can also support me with a small tip here: https://buymeacoffee.com/sweller
I'm not sure where the target of your critique begins and ends, as I do fully agree with your points. Nevertheless, I would still insist on the importance of there being people who diagnose these problems on an intellectual or formal level which doesn't make the opposite error of reducing all issues of bad thinking to a lack of maturity or sin, most of the people for whom this description is accurate being generally too self-satisfied to take such proposals seriously anyways.
The Catholic caught in adultery, one must say, if rebuked and confronted with the word of God, will repent - or at least try to find some way to justify their life style within a Catholic understanding of the world. The "nominalist" or existentialist or however one might have it, will relativise, deconstruct, and question the very idea of human nature, using every means possible to deny what is before there very eyes and what their heart in truth bears witness to, abolishing their very humanity in the attempt to excuse their behavior. (I have witnessed this over and over again in Germany and even among close friends from the US). In such cases the appeal to the moral in whatever form simply doesn't work, which is why it is extremely helpful to show those under the delusion that they came to these conclusions rationally that they have fallen prey to a self-destructive philosophy which one can articulate, describe, and expose problems with, and which has just as much an intellectual history (in the broadest sense of the word) as the Catholicism they reject does. In other words they are no sophisticated Zarathustra prophet but also a subject of the historicity of thought and in a way which they have uncritically accepted.
Naturally nominalism is not the only Boogeyman in the world of ideas, and the world of ideas is certainly not the primary cause of the fall of man; so in this sense I fully agree with you that treating the rejection of nominalism as the solution to our societal problems in a formal sense is a non-starter. Ideas, as Husserl and Kierkegaard suggested, have to be fully received into the soul as bearers of being, which requires life change on the most practical level.
,