Why is ideology like a prism?

[coberst]

Why is ideology like a prism?

Webster says a prism is “a medium that distorts, slants, or colors whatever is viewed through it”.

It appears to me that Marx was the first great thinker to have coined the word “ideology”. Ideology is a distinctive form of reasoning about the individual and about the individual in society. Ideology is a systematically biased mode of thinking. Ideologies vary extensively in so far as the idioms used, the extent of bias, the degree of sophistication, the manner in which bias permeates various aspects of theory, and so on.

While ideologies vary widely in certain aspects all ideologies share some common characteristics. An identifiable logical structure is shared by all. This structure includes: 1) a moral dimension, 2) it is biased toward a specific group and is biased against those out side this group, 3) an ideology cannot not directly defend it self because it rests on assumptions that have never been critically examined or even formulated, and 4) Marx believes these assumptions to be “nothing more than the intellectual ‘transcripts’ of the conditions of existence of the social group whose point of view it reflects”.

Like viewing the world through a prism, the ideologue experiences the world in a distorted manner. “What a man does not transcend in reality, he cannot effectively transcend in thought either. The limits of his existence are the limits of his thoughts. His basic assumptions are therefore ultimately nothing but his conditions of existence ‘reproduced’ in thought.”

Quotes from Marx’s Theory of Ideology Bhikhu Parekh

 

[Orangey]

There is no outside of power.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Well, it's like a prism because humankind hasn't been able to ascend to a level that is above idealogy. And most likely never will, but that's beside the point.

What I believe is more important is asking yourself what has more impact on you. The prism with which you view the world, or the 6 billion other prisms with which the rest of the world sees through. You can strive a perfect idealogy, but if you want to co-exist, it's meaningless unless it fits the idealogies of the rest of the world.

 

[coberst]

Well, it's like a prism because humankind hasn't been able to ascend to a level that is above idealogy. And most likely never will, but that's beside the point.

What I believe is more important is asking yourself what has more impact on you. The prism with which you view the world, or the 6 billion other prisms with which the rest of the world sees through. You can strive a perfect idealogy, but if you want to co-exist, it's meaningless unless it fits the idealogies of the rest of the world.

Ideology is one of the world's greatest problems. It can only be diminished by a population that has learned Critical Thinking.

 

[Athenian200]

Ideology is one of the world's greatest problems. It can only be diminished by a population that has learned Critical Thinking.

Unless what we call Critical Thinking is itself an ideology based on the assumption that what our reason comes up with when following that process is the best way to proceed, and then we're back where we started.

Don't you just love how the human mind is limited to relative kinds of awareness?

 

[Sniffles]

It appears to me that Marx was the first great thinker to have coined the word “ideology”.

Actually it was Destutt de Tracy who coined the term in 1801.

I certainly agree that ideology is a major problem of the modern world.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Unless what we call Critical Thinking is itself an ideology based on the assumption that what our reason comes up with when following that process is the best way to proceed, and then we're back where we started.

Don't you just love how the human mind is limited to relative kinds of awareness?

Our relative kinds of awareness open the illusive door to the universe for us, but at the same time, it buries us beneath it.

Pandora's box. :>

 

[coberst]

Unless what we call Critical Thinking is itself an ideology based on the assumption that what our reason comes up with when following that process is the best way to proceed, and then we're back where we started.

Don't you just love how the human mind is limited to relative kinds of awareness?

CT is an acronym for Critical Thinking. Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic principles of reasoning. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no “true” or “false” answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment. Before the recent introduction of CT into our schools and colleges our young people have been taught primarily what to think and not how to think. All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

I am primarily interested in the judgment that adults exercise in regard to public issues. Of course, any improvement in judgment generally will affect both personal and community matters.

To put the matter into a nut shell:
1. Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.
2. CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.
3. CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.
4. Few of today’s adults were ever taught CT.
5. I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.
6. Can our democracy survive that long?
7. I think that every effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they need to study and learn CT on their own. I am not suggesting that adults find a teacher but I am suggesting that adults become self-actualizing learners.
8. I am convinced that learning the art and science of Critical Thinking is an important step toward becoming a better citizen in today’s democratic society.

 

[Orangey]

CT is an acronym for Critical Thinking. Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic principles of reasoning. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no “true” or “false” answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment. Before the recent introduction of CT into our schools and colleges our young people have been taught primarily what to think and not how to think. All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

I am primarily interested in the judgment that adults exercise in regard to public issues. Of course, any improvement in judgment generally will affect both personal and community matters.

To put the matter into a nut shell:
1. Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.
2. CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.
3. CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.
4. Few of today’s adults were ever taught CT.
5. I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.
6. Can our democracy survive that long?
7. I think that every effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they need to study and learn CT on their own. I am not suggesting that adults find a teacher but I am suggesting that adults become self-actualizing learners.
8. I am convinced that learning the art and science of Critical Thinking is an important step toward becoming a better citizen in today’s democratic society.

Hmmm...I think formulating CT into "judgment making" is an interesting idea. Sounds like the rhetorical education program of Isocrates (he thought, like Aristotle, that by habituating students to making judgments in contingent circumstances, they would gain practical wisdom and become more virtuous citizens)! I'm not sure, though, that this would necessarily help one get outside of ideology or dismantle power. It would rather help one to be more active in shaping the system in which one finds his/her self.

 

[Sniffles]

You also cannot forget the importance of geniune human relationships within society. Ideologies tend to thrive in mass atomized societies.

 

[Mole]

Ideology is one of the world's greatest problems. It can only be diminished by a population that has learned Critical Thinking.

A problem is that critical thinking is likely to lead to cognitive dissonance.

And cognitive dissonance is emotionally painful.

Of course cognitive dissonance can lead to discovery or integration.

However it is difficult to sell pain to a narcissistic audience fed on self-esteem.

 

[Sniffles]

And then there's the concept of a paradox; which is the fruit of much philosophical thought.

 

[coberst]

I think that President Bush often spoke the mantra of ideology "you are either with us or against us". This either/or view is the view of ideology. Because high tech has placed extraordinary power into the hands of ordinary people our species is in great danger.

Actually 'ideology is prison' may be a better metaphor than 'ideology is prism'.

 

[Mole]

I think that President Bush often spoke the mantra of ideology "you are either with us or against us". This either/or view is the view of ideology. Because high tech has placed extraordinary power into the hands of ordinary people our species is in great danger.

Actually 'ideology is prison' may be a better metaphor than 'ideology is prism'.

An ideology is -

• Predigested thought,

• It serves interests

• And has a demonology.

And so when President Bush said, "You are either with us or against us", he was defending us from the totalitarian ideology of Islamism.

To turn it around the other way is perverse.

And it is just this kind of perversity that plays into the hands of the totalitarians.

How frustrating it is for me to watch you support the very ideologists who would destroy you.

 

[vince]

An ideology is -

• Predigested thought,

• It serves interests

• And has a demonology.

Strange definition imho. I thought is was "an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation". But I guess it needs more demon.

What's perverse about this Islam-West confrontation is the total negligence of the peaceful people and their opinions on either side of the fence. Wether you kill 3000 people with airplanes in name of Allah or stir up a war that kills 100.000+ people in name of democracy, it's all dumbass ideology to me.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Idealogy stands and falls with power.

If you're looking for scapegoats, don't look for it in idealogy. But look for it in the power people wield, distorting those idealogies.

 

[Mole]

What's perverse about this Islam-West confrontation is the total negligence of the peaceful people and their opinions on either side of the fence.

We now do have opinion polls taken by reputable people of those on both sides of the fence.

And the results on both sides of the fence are very different.

And these polls show quite clearly that to talk in terms of moral equivalence is simply propaganda.

 

[vince]

We now do have opinion polls taken by reputable people of those on both sides of the fence.

And the results on both sides of the fence are very different.

And these polls show quite clearly that to talk in terms of moral equivalence is simply propaganda.

propaganda for what ? peace ? that's new..

 

[Mole]

propaganda for what ? peace ? that's new..

Peaceniks.

Fellow travellers.

Compradors.

They're as old as the hills.

Why, every beauty queen is in favour of World Peace.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Thinking you know everyones intention based on stereo-typing. Now that's propaganda.