Ideologies

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I understand an ideology to be taking an act of will or intention as foundational, as a first principle, and building upon that foundation a logical extrapolation about what this implies and what the best path of action is. David Hume might have put it less charitably and said building an ideology involves flinging an ought statement across the chasm to is territory, and building logically from this in the usual fashion, as though the foundational statement were fact and not opinion. Two or more people share an ideology as long as they both share the same foundational intention, even if their logical conclusions that follow are sometimes in dispute, so long as the dispute does not lead to some parties wanting something different instead. I reckon every person warms to one or more ideologies over the course of our lives, because we all have opinions and preferences and acts of will that are not logically founded, but from which we build practical plans and systems of thought that are internally logically consistent. It's only natural that people will share and collaborate on these.

I have no problem with any ideology that doesn't lead inexorably to the conclusion that certain people are to be regarded and treated as subhuman.

I don't have a problem with institutions that espouse an ideology. In fact, I think some philosophers defend the idea that all human institutions and social groups have a unique ideological medley which is a unique profile for that group. In most cases it is largely unspoken and unwritten, and must be intuited (and adhered to somewhat quickly) by newcomers. I do have a problem with an institution that's blatantly secretive about its ideological commitments, though. It's one thing to have to read between the lines to see what kinds of people with what sorts of values institution X is made up of, and serves. It's another thing entirely to have people speaking for the institution claiming they believe in one thing, when their actions and interactions clearly show otherwise.

What are some of the more interesting, well-developed, or just wacky or far-out ideologies you've heard about or had people try to sell you on?

* One of my seniors at work is a hardcore Ayn Rand Objectivist. I'm impressed by how helpful and kind-hearted he is to his patients, despite espousing an ideology that rejects altruism. The idea that selfishness taken to its fullest extent comes full circle and is indistinguishable from pure altruism is mildly mindblowing.
* Animal rights people -- these folks will sometimes come into the emergency department asking for as few drugs as possible, in boycott of animal testing. Engaging them in conversation about their beliefs and activities, which they're usually happy to go on about, is an easy way to take their minds off the physical discomfort they're in.
* I grew up with the deep ecology of writers like Wendell Berry -- my dad was a huge fan and read him aloud to the whole family. Some great writing there and really instills a sense of awe and gratitude toward nature and the land. I think it's more for, and by, people with a rural background than me.
* I was much more impressed than I'd expected to be by the recent thread here on anarchism. I'm still not sold on it, but the idea that government is best avoided generated some pretty heady discussion.
* Transhumanism is about as mind-blowing and controversial as ideologies come. I haven't made up my mind how sold I am, but I follow its discussions and find it fascinating to daydream about.

 

[RobotRipping]

this one is my favourite:

I'm impressed by how helpful and kind-hearted he is to his patients, despite espousing an ideology that rejects altruism. The idea that selfishness taken to its fullest extent comes full circle and is indistinguishable from pure altruism is mildly mindblowing.

though i became aware of a similar ideology in the book the adventures of a reluctant messiah by richard bach.

another one i like is 'do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law' that just perfectly fits with me.

and transhumanism is interesting, i predict evolution is taking us there, of course that is just an intuition but whether humans make it to that point before we all die is my only problem with the idea.

i do not like neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic liberalization, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and decreasing the size of the public sector while increasing the role of the private sector in modern society.

i've recently taken a liking to predeterminism.

Predeterminism is the philosophy that all events of history, past, present and future, have been decided or are known (by God, fate, or some other force), including human actions.

And liebniz's monadology:

a) Everything exists according to a reason (by the axiom "Nothing arises from nothing");

b) Everything which exists has a sufficient reason to exist;

c) Everything which exists is better than anything non-existent (by the first point: since it is more rational, it also has more reality), and, consequently, it is the best possible being in the best of all possible worlds (by the axiom: "That which contains more reality is better than that which contains less reality").

The “best of possible worlds,” then, is that “containing the greatest variety of phenomena from the smallest amount of principles.” See fractal for a strong relationship.

pretty damn interesting if nothing else.

Also always liked Plotinus' ideas:

Plotinus was a major philosopher of the ancient world. In his system of theory there are the three principles: the One, the Intellect, and the Soul.

sorry for all the wiki quotes but it may help some people to get some debate going on what they believe in and what others believe.

 

[ebola?]

Great topic!

To me, an ideology is just a theoretical framework, resting in part on axioms taken a priori, and in most cases also resting on empirical observations, systematic or otherwise. I consider my preferred general ontology (of being as rooted in a logically primary flux of interaction, generative of subject and object set in particular, dynamic relation), my preferred social ontology (of how subject and object to construct themselves as conscious in interaction which constitutes the two mutually), and my political perspective (of the will to strive to allow positive freedom to unfold through anarchic relations) all to be ideological. Another person could begin from alternate axioms, deriving alternate conclusions, perhaps equally valid. It is only when this project bridges into the ethical and political that it bridges into the "ought", and becomes ideological in the way that you describe.

I think that I view all three of these moments of my thinking as ideological, while you might only view the latter as such, because I view cognition itself as a move that imposes an "ought"--I think that people ought to view reality as constituted in a certain way, and society as constituted in a certain way...this is not different in kind from willing that people should do something in particular. All this said, my views are tentative, or I would like them to remain such, and I think that people OUGHT to approach their ideologies open-mindedly in this way, entering into mutual dialogue.

ebola

 

[jam uh weezy]

I've always liked Noam Chomsky's explanation of Anarchism.

Well, anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics. Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just. And, as I understand it, anarchy is just that tendency. It takes different forms at different times."

Admittedly, I haven't dived deep into the readings of anarchist philosophy, but it's always been something I've payed attention to. Systems of hierarchy and power have always interested me, and I've enjoy studying everything from american street gangs to foreign dynasty's.

I wish i had more to add... here is an article on Ideology that i really enjoyed!
http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/ideo8.html

 

[pk.]

I'm feeling quite frustrated in not being able to fully express my thoughts effectively as I have not read the material to be able to dialectically communicate it to you. However, what ebola? has espoused rather eloquently is something I feel as though I can relate to most from what I have read so far.