Three Telos Model: Difference between revisions
→Nonlinear spaces
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 91:
The use of a Cartesian space has been the standard practice for mapping ideology but there is no clear reason why this topology is preferrable.<ref>https://antinomiaimediata.wordpress.com/2018/11/28/ideological-dimensions/</ref>
What is often called [[w:Horseshoe theory|horseshoe theory]] claims that the extreme authoritarian economic left (Communism) is adjacent or close to extreme authoritarian economic right (neo-reactionism/fascism). This would imply a horse shaped political spectrum embedding in a 2D space. This concept has little to no academic traction but it does illustrate the
Political philosophers have argued that a good political ideology must also incorporate constraints between different desires<ref>http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/JacobyAPSR2014.pdf</ref>. For instance, from the liberal economic position, Milton Friedman advocated for the necessity of putting one of two desired values ahead of the other by stating "A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both". The implication of this being that both Equality and
It may still be useful to represent political ideologies that violate the constraints and are practically untenable. Even if they are in some way suboptimal or inherently self-contradictory, people may still hold them. It is unclear if the ultimate goal of such political maps is to chart the space of what people claim to believe or what is political viable. ▼
▲It may still be useful to represent political ideologies that violate the constraints and are practically untenable. Even if
== References ==
|