Is having no ideology a ideology?

[Tudo]

A famous Brazilian philosopher called Paulo Freire says it's impossible to live without having an ideology.

[Jannes]

Of course. Same with saying that life is meaningness. Well lifes meaningness becomes the new meaning of life now. 

[DocWatts]

I'd argue that it's impossible to live without an ontology (a basic, pre-reflective understanding of people and objects) and a worldview (an embodied framework of meaning that's coupled to the time, place, and circumstances that we're born into).

That said, I would push back a bit against the idea that it's impossible to live without an ideology though, since ideologies are normative (ie this is not only how I see the world and behave, but also how others should see the world and behave).

While the two usually overlap, a worldview doesn't necessarily have to be normative, though for most people and in most circumstances this tends to be the case. Another way to think of an ideology is a vision for how people, society, or the world should be.

A worldview on the other hand is a way of coping with one's circumstances in the broadest sense, and is always descriptive (though it is often normative as well). Worldviews in the broadest sense form the purposive context for all of our activities and interactions (ie it provides the meaning of what our daily habits and social activities are).

*Also since the philosopher in question is most likely referring to adults living in contemporary societies, we'll leave aside instances where human beings are in a State of being pre-differentiated from their environment, ie Spiral Dynamics Beige.

Edited February 18, 2023 by DocWatts

[something_else]

People make it an ideology. But it likely is possible to deconstruct most of your ideologies, it just takes a lot of effort. So most people who are telling you they don’t have one are full of shit

[aurum]

@Tudo you cannot live with a perspective. If you believe otherwise, that is your perspective. But as you grow and evolve, you can become less ideological in your perspective.

Therefore I would make a distinction between having a perspective and being ideological. If you want to know the difference, just look at the stages of ego development. That basically is a masterclass on how one evolves from being dogmatic and ideological to simply owning their perspective and embracing other perspectives.

[Leo Gura]

No

[Eternal Unity]

No, it's freedom. You decide your own rules.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Eternal Unity
Ideology

[Dan502]

 

A teacher is arranging a game of baseball for a school class. A democrat says "we should give each student the opportunity to choose which side they want to play for". A conservative says "the teacher traditionally has the authority to decide the teams, and should do so again this time". Then someone without an ideology comes along. They observe what's being proposed, they consider how the game might turn out if either of the existing proposals were implemented and, if they're feeling bold, they might make a suggestion about the method of team-allocation not being overly important so long as adjustments can be made in order to ensure that the two sides are roughly evenly matched, as this will likely create optimal conditions for a decent practice. 

[DocWatts]

There's no such thing as a 'neutral' paradigm/perspective for doing any sort of meta-analysis.

[Joyboy]

Is having no ideology a ideology?
yes if cling to protect that you don't have one
yes if don't give a fuck but not aware/conscious about it
no

[zurew]

 

[Danioover9000]

@DocWatts

On 2/18/2023 at 2:22 PM, DocWatts said:

I'd argue that it's impossible to live without an ontology (a basic, pre-reflective understanding of people and objects) and a worldview (an embodied framework of meaning that's coupled to the time, place, and circumstances that we're born into).

That said, I would push back a bit against the idea that it's impossible to live without an ideology though, since ideologies are normative (ie this is not only how I see the world and behave, but also how others should see the world and behave).

While the two usually overlap, a worldview doesn't necessarily have to be normative, though for most people and in most circumstances this tends to be the case. Another way to think of an ideology is a vision for how people, society, or the world should be.

A worldview on the other hand is a way of coping with one's circumstances in the broadest sense, and is always descriptive (though it is often normative as well). Worldviews in the broadest sense form the purposive context for all of our activities and interactions (ie it provides the meaning of what our daily habits and social activities are).

*Also since the philosopher in question is most likely referring to adults living in contemporary societies, we'll leave aside instances where human beings are in a State of being pre-differentiated from their environment, ie Spiral Dynamics Beige.

   Nice post, Also, stage yellow-turquoise and beyond, maybe coral, may not have ideologies per say. What makes have a non-ideology an ideology, is when you find yourself clinging to that idea and concept of a non-ideology. For example, if you are agnostic, and you become dogmatic and defensive when agnosticism is questioned, agnosticism and being agnostic is an ideology then.

[Gesundheit2]

If we consider the mind's relationship with the body similar to the relationship between software and hardware, then yes, ideology is inevitable. It's the kernel that runs your operating system, and you can't possibly function without it.

However, that doesn't make all ideologies equal, nor does it say anything about any idea being good or bad, because everything is relative and relationships between things can change at any time.

There's also the difference between entertaining an idea and holding it lightly vs. being dogmatic and closed-minded about it. Rigidity of ideas can be more useful in day to day life, especially if your environment is highly stable. On the other hand, having a fluid mind has its obvious benefits too. Everything has pros and cons.

A funny paradox would be an ideology that demonizes ideology altogether except itself, and/or an ideology that denies that it's an ideology in the first place.

[Gesundheit2]

On 19/02/2023 at 9:13 PM, DocWatts said:

There's no such thing as a 'neutral' paradigm/perspective for doing any sort of meta-analysis.

Does this mean we're always biased with some sort of perspective that colors our worldview? Is everything like a self-fulfilling prophecy?

If so, how to determine the truth of that claim? Cuz if we follow this line of reasoning we will inevitably end up in a strange loop.

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Does this mean we're always biased with some sort of perspective that colors our worldview? Is everything like a self-fulfilling prophecy?

If so, how to determine the truth of that claim? Cuz if we follow this line of reasoning we will inevitably end up in a strange loop.

The gist is that we can never fully abstract ourselves away from our lived experience within Reality, since something as basic as what counts as a fact and what is considered relevant is going to be governed by the paradigm one is operating under. On an even more basic level, due to the biological structure of our bodies and our perceptual system we have a uniquely human ontology (an immediate intuitive understanding of people and objects) that determines what Reality is for us on an experiential level.

But that doesn't mean that we're doomed to what Ken Wilber calls aperspectival madness.

What it does mean is that realizing that any Truth claims are tied to a purposive context. Or to put it another way, Truth always exists for someone with a particular point of view.

Truth discloses something about Reality for that someone, but doesn't exist apart from them. 

That said, different discernments about Reality will be a better or worse fit for a given purposive context. If I want to build an airplane, then working out the laws of aerodynamics which produce lift will be a much better discernment for that purpose than attaching wings to my arms and jumping off a roof.

As to how we know whether or not this understanding of Truth that I outlined is itself truthful, that can be verified by working throughout what's known as the eidetic reduction.  The eidetic reduction involves scrutinizing one's assumptions for a given phenomenon, for instance common sense notions of Truth as something that exists apart from us.

This process, as is also the case for any other validity claims, will if one kicks the can down the road far enough will always end up relying on an intuition that has been built up by our lived experience within Reality, rather than the sort of thing that can be worked out as a logical proof for example. Ie there is a hard limit to what can be formally 'proved' by any verification method.

Edited February 20, 2023 by DocWatts

[Gesundheit2]

@DocWatts Thanks! That was clear and informative. I appreciate you introducing new terms into my awareness.

[DocWatts]

13 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

@DocWatts Thanks! That was clear and informative. I appreciate you introducing new terms into my awareness.

You're welcome!