The Power of Ideas: Inspiring Book for Entrepreneurs & Innovators | Business Growth & Creative Thinking | Perfect for Startups, Leadership & Motivation

I read this book years ago when I was reading a lot of Isaiah Berlin. Once you have read his works there is a certain sameness of approach, but it doesn't matter, because it is always interesting. But the overarching factor is that his works were proof that the history of ideas can be done at a very high standard. That means, to my mind, always being based on something, and not on hearsay. And especially not based on the sort of reasoning that goes like this: "well, it must have been so, otherwise that would that would mean..... and that is untenable for what I (we) believe." . That is often the sort of thing one gets from hidebound religionists who don't like the many contradictions that the study of the history of ideas produces. Of course, some philosophers have scoffed at the very idea of "intellectual history" because it is only tangentially involved with univocal systems. And as far as it goes, that is a worthy objection. But philosophy per se is only worthy in analyzing the distinct realm of one philosophical system or legal theory whose parameters must be accepted first before the analysis can even begin.. For instance, to take a current example of internet effluvia, the Catholic "Mirror of Justice" site is committed to analyzing everything from one conceptual system. And that is their business to do so. But when they try to apply their "insights" into the law or philosophy to the wider world outside Catholic parameters they hit a road-block. There assertions make little sense in terms of the wider world of intellectual history. This is not a matter of opinion, but of overwhelmingly cumulative thematic facts. Thus, philosophies are generally only good for explicating the coherence of an idea for one system. Step outside of that system -- and by definition everything is outside a system in the public square -- and you need intellectual history to put together the vexing bits. But there is a telling exception to this, and that is the ultimate sanction of law. Certain things, no matter how one might construe them intellectually are against the law. It is a fact of the intellectual history of ALL societies that they make a single exception for the swirl of ideas. And that is assent to the strictures of law. What is intellectually extremely interesting about this is that the more "highly developed" a society becomes the more further away those ideas categorized as "religious" are identified with that special realm of "law". And this then becomes also a very telling heuristic by which to analyze the perennial political reactionary mindset that the perennially disgruntled seem to fall into. They hanker for the identification of "law" with "religion". If they knew some of the real historical contours of intellectual history they would quickly see that religion can never again have that sense of specialness for all of society, and that it would be dangerous for it to have it. The safe place for religion is simply that it be personally special. And that is special enough surely if one truly embraces the dignity of the individual.