4 ms·

It's important to distinguish between the logical structure of an ideology and the moral or ethical implications of that ideology. Your argument appears to hing

It's important to distinguish between the logical structure of an ideology and the moral or ethical implications of that ideology. Your argument appears to hinge on the assertion that fascism lacks a coherent logical framework, dismissing it as primarily propaganda without a logical core. However, identifying the logical structure of an ideology doesn't necessitate endorsing its moral standing. Fascism, as historically understood centers around certain key principles such as the ones I provided above (authoritarian leadership, nationalism, and collectivism over individualism etc). These principles form a coherent, if morally contentious, framework. The logic in this context refers to the internal consistency and the cause-and-effect relationships within the ideology. For example, the fascist belief in authoritarian leadership is logically connected to its emphasis on national unity and strength, as authoritarianism is seen as a means to achieve and maintain this unity. Your reference to "might makes right" does encapsulate a belief system, within the context of fascist ideology, it also follows a logical pattern. The ideology posits that strength (might) is necessary for national revival and dominance, and therefore, actions that lead to increased strength are justified (right). This is a form of logic, albeit one that many find ethically objectionable. Regarding the rejection and persecution of science, this was not a reflection of the inherent logic of fascism but rather a consequence of its authoritarian nature, where any dissenting ideas, including scientific ones, were suppressed to maintain control. Moral and ethical criticisms of fascism are valid, but they are distinct from an analysis of its logical structure. The logical coherence of an ideology is separate from its moral standing, and it's possible to examine the former without endorsing the latter.

the_af 3y ago
> Your argument appears to hinge on the assertion that fascism lacks a coherent logical framework, dismissing it as primarily propaganda without a logical core. It's not my argument alone: a lot has been written about fascism and its lack of logical core! There isn't a lot of "logical structure" to it. I don't think "as historically understood" fascism forms a self-consistent logical core; I think it is well studied that is amorphous, illogical and inconsistent, and that's the historical consensus. > However, identifying the logical structure of an ideology doesn't necessitate endorsing its moral standing. To be clear, I'm not making a moral argument. I don't believe you support fascism either, and I understand what you're trying to argue. I just think the consensus of people who studied fascism is different to your opinion. Fascism (regardless of whether it's right or wrong -- and I believe we both believe it to be wrong) is highly illogical. There's not much to it beyond its propaganda. It's riddled with inconsistencies, it's not just "wrong" but there's not much to it beyond appeals to emotion. > Your reference to "might makes right" does encapsulate a belief system, within the context of fascist ideology, it also follows a logical pattern We both agree it's a belief system. I disagree it's logical. Not everything with an "idea" (or a bunch of ideas) is logical. "Ideas" are not enough for something to be called logical. Again, this is not my argument alone. A lot has been written about fascism espousing what I'm saying here. It bears repeating again, just in case: I'm not making a moral argument. I don't believe you're "defending" fascism either; that's not what I'm disagreeing with. I'm rejecting your assertion that fascism is logical (if mistaken). I'm asserting it's both illogical and mistaken. I would accept something evil and logical can exist, it's just that fascism is not it!
- lossolo 3y ago
  Appeal to authority does not constitute an argument. Your response continues to emphasize the perceived lack of a logical core in fascism, while also pointing out that this perspective is supported by a consensus among those who have studied the ideology. You need to dissect the nature of the argument you're presenting and the distinction between logical structure and ideological content. To effectively argue that fascism lacks a logical structure, provide specific examples of its internal inconsistencies or contradictions. Simply stating that experts agree with your view does not address the core question: What specific elements of fascist ideology lack logical coherence? I am not aware of any experts who have studied this ideology and concluded that it lacks logical structure. If you maintain that such experts exist, could you please provide citations for their arguments along with the relevant sources? Assuming you reference these experts, you should be able to accurately cite their specific arguments and sources. So please provide precise citations relevant to the context of our discussion, along with the sources. I will argue that you are still conflating between the ideological content of fascism and its logical structure. An ideology can be logically consistent in how its principles interconnect and support each other, even if those principles are based on fallacious premises or lead to unethical conclusions. The fascist emphasis on nationalism and authoritarian control logically leads to policies that suppress dissent and prioritize state power over individual rights. This is a LOGICAL progression of ideas within the framework of the ideology. You assert that not everything with an "idea" is logical. While this is true, the logical coherence of an ideology is not just about having ideas but about how these ideas are systematically interconnected and rationalized within that ideology. Fascism has demonstrated a certain internal logic in how it articulates and rationalizes its principles, such as the belief that a strong authoritarian leader is necessary for national unity and that individual rights can be sacrificed for the greater good of the nation. You mention that fascism is riddled with inconsistencies. If these inconsistencies disrupt the internal logic of the ideology, then please identify them. So if you want to effectively argue that fascism lacks a logical structure, then go beyond stating the consensus of scholars (appeal to authority) and to specifically identify where the ideology fails to maintain logical consistency. Without these specifics, your thesis relies too heavily on an appeal to authority and a general dismissal of the ideology without addressing its internal logic.

the_af 3y ago

> Your argument appears to hinge on the assertion that fascism lacks a coherent logical framework, dismissing it as primarily propaganda without a logical core. It's not my argument alone: a lot has been written about fascism and its lack of logical core! There isn't a lot of "logical structure" to it. I don't think "as historically understood" fascism forms a self-consistent logical core; I think it is well studied that is amorphous, illogical and inconsistent, and that's the historical consensus. > However, identifying the logical structure of an ideology doesn't necessitate endorsing its moral standing. To be clear, I'm not making a moral argument. I don't believe you support fascism either, and I understand what you're trying to argue. I just think the consensus of people who studied fascism is different to your opinion. Fascism (regardless of whether it's right or wrong -- and I believe we both believe it to be wrong) is highly illogical. There's not much to it beyond its propaganda. It's riddled with inconsistencies, it's not just "wrong" but there's not much to it beyond appeals to emotion. > Your reference to "might makes right" does encapsulate a belief system, within the context of fascist ideology, it also follows a logical pattern We both agree it's a belief system. I disagree it's logical. Not everything with an "idea" (or a bunch of ideas) is logical. "Ideas" are not enough for something to be called logical. Again, this is not my argument alone. A lot has been written about fascism espousing what I'm saying here. It bears repeating again, just in case: I'm not making a moral argument. I don't believe you're "defending" fascism either; that's not what I'm disagreeing with. I'm rejecting your assertion that fascism is logical (if mistaken). I'm asserting it's both illogical and mistaken. I would accept something evil and logical can exist, it's just that fascism is not it!

lossolo 3y ago
Appeal to authority does not constitute an argument. Your response continues to emphasize the perceived lack of a logical core in fascism, while also pointing out that this perspective is supported by a consensus among those who have studied the ideology. You need to dissect the nature of the argument you're presenting and the distinction between logical structure and ideological content. To effectively argue that fascism lacks a logical structure, provide specific examples of its internal inconsistencies or contradictions. Simply stating that experts agree with your view does not address the core question: What specific elements of fascist ideology lack logical coherence? I am not aware of any experts who have studied this ideology and concluded that it lacks logical structure. If you maintain that such experts exist, could you please provide citations for their arguments along with the relevant sources? Assuming you reference these experts, you should be able to accurately cite their specific arguments and sources. So please provide precise citations relevant to the context of our discussion, along with the sources. I will argue that you are still conflating between the ideological content of fascism and its logical structure. An ideology can be logically consistent in how its principles interconnect and support each other, even if those principles are based on fallacious premises or lead to unethical conclusions. The fascist emphasis on nationalism and authoritarian control logically leads to policies that suppress dissent and prioritize state power over individual rights. This is a LOGICAL progression of ideas within the framework of the ideology. You assert that not everything with an "idea" is logical. While this is true, the logical coherence of an ideology is not just about having ideas but about how these ideas are systematically interconnected and rationalized within that ideology. Fascism has demonstrated a certain internal logic in how it articulates and rationalizes its principles, such as the belief that a strong authoritarian leader is necessary for national unity and that individual rights can be sacrificed for the greater good of the nation. You mention that fascism is riddled with inconsistencies. If these inconsistencies disrupt the internal logic of the ideology, then please identify them. So if you want to effectively argue that fascism lacks a logical structure, then go beyond stating the consensus of scholars (appeal to authority) and to specifically identify where the ideology fails to maintain logical consistency. Without these specifics, your thesis relies too heavily on an appeal to authority and a general dismissal of the ideology without addressing its internal logic.