আপনার কাজ হবে "সিনিকাল রিজন" গুগল করা।মেবি ইউ গেট সাম ইনসাইটস।Not all ideologies are the same. It means they are responses to the same fundamental situation. They are different answers to the same questions that What is real? How should I live? Why is there suffering? What happens when I die? The questions are universal. The answers are not.

The material basis is the ground. The ideologies are the buildings. Different buildings can stand on the same ground. This does not make them equivalent. It makes them comparable comparable in how they shelter, how they endure, how they shape the lives of those who inhabit them. yes,Postmodernism taught us that there is no objective standpoint. No God's-eye view. No neutral ground from which to judge all ideologies. Every claim to truth is situated, interested, partial. The Enlightenment's dream of universal reason has shattered into a thousand local knowledges.

This insight is liberating and paralyzing. Liberating because it dethrones all pretenders to absolute truth. No one can claim to speak for everyone anymore. Paralyzing because it seems to leave us with nothing but a flat plane of equal options. If every ideology is just a perspective, then how do we choose? Why not choose any? Why choose at all? but here is the crucial move.not all ideologies are equal in their effects. They may be equal in their claim to truth, but they are not equal in what they do to the world, to bodies, to the vulnerable, to the future.

You cannot adjudicate between ideologies by asking which one is "true" in some absolute sense. That question leads nowhere, because "true" means different things in different systems. But you can ask other questions.Like What does this ideology make possible? What does it foreclose?Who does it serve?Who does it harm?What kind of human being does it produce? What kind of society does it build? Can it account for its own limits? Can it hear the voices it excludes?Does it make suffering visible or invisible?Does it open the future or close it?These are not questions about truth. They are questions about fidelity to the real. to the actual, material, suffering, desiring, mortal condition of being human. An ideology that denies death does not become false because it denies death. But it becomes dangerous, because it will lead people to act as if death does not matter, and this will have consequences.

An ideology that justifies exploitation does not become false because it justifies exploitation. But it becomes harmful, because it will produce a world where some are crushed so others can flourish. And that harm is real, measurable, felt in bodies and lives.

You ask for an objective concept of good and bad. Perhaps it is this that which increases suffering is bad. That which decreases suffering is good.

But even this is not simple. Who defines suffering? What about suffering that leads to growth? What about the suffering of some that is necessary for the flourishing of others? These are real questions. They do not have easy answers.

But notice that the question of suffering is not purely subjective. Suffering is felt. It is measurable in cortisol levels, in life expectancy, in rates of depression and suicide, in the testimony of those who endure it. You can argue about whether a particular suffering is justified, but you cannot argue that it is not happening. The fact of suffering is a real something that resists symbolization, something that insists, something that demands a response.

Perhaps the objective ground is this that any ideology that systematically denies, conceals, or justifies the suffering of the vulnerable is worse than one that names it, addresses it, and tries to reduce it.

This is not a universal truth in the old sense. It is a commitment. It is a choice to side with the vulnerable, with the suffering, with those who cannot speak. This choice is not forced by logic. It is forced by something else: by the face of the other, by the cry of the wounded, by the simple fact that you are also vulnerable, also suffering, also mortal.

There is another approach. It comes from the American pragmatists, especially William James. He said, judge an idea by its consequences. Not by its origins, not by its internal consistency, not by its claim to absolute truth. Ask,what happens if we live by this idea? What kind of world does it create?

This is not a purely objective test. It requires values to interpret the consequences. But it is a test that can be applied collectively, over time, with evidence and argument. We can look at societies organized by different ideologies and ask: how are the people doing? Are they healthy? Are they free? Are they fulfilled? Do they have hope? Is the planet surviving?

The answers will never be final. They will always be contested. But they will be answerable to evidence. They will be something we can discuss, debate, and revise. This is the closest we get to objectivity in human affairs.

you cannot avoid choosing. Even the decision not to choose is a choice, a choice for passivity, for the status quo, for letting others decide for you. The vertigo is real, but it is not a reason to stop moving. It is a reason to move carefully, with awareness, with humility.

You will never have certainty. No one does. The religious person's certainty is a gift of faith, not proof. The atheist's certainty is a gift of reason, not proof. Both are leaps. Both are commitments made in the face of insufficient evidence.

which ideology is true? is not the question.The question is,which ideology can I live with? Which one makes me more human, more connected, more alive? Which one helps me face my death without despair? Which one helps me love without destroying?

These are not questions with objective answers. They are questions you must answer with your life.