It's a good point. Yet arguments do fly back and forth between ideologies, even though in principle they do not recognize how radical the break is at this level. However, here's a problem. If a given conceptual scheme is incommensurable with another, not even opposition or rejection are really possible.Common to Wittgenstein’s forms of life and hinges , Heidegger’s worldviews, Foucault’s epistemes and Kuhn’s paradigms is a rejection of the idea that social formations of knowledge progress via refutation. It sounds like your critique of ideology is from the right, which places it as a pre-Hegelian traditionalist thinking. — Joshs
Yes. My only qualification is that the practices are likely not only be based on ideological positions, but will also tend to re-inforce, even enforce, them.On the contrary, scientific, legal, professional reporting practices presuppose supporting ideologies for such practices to thrive and inform social life. Indeed, all these procedures can as well be compromised by ideological struggles. — neomac
Well, people do change their ideological stance from time to time. We're more or less committed to the view that standard rationality does not apply at this level. So the question becomes, what approaches and factors actually work? And, crucially, can we distinguish between fair and unfair ways of doing this. I suspect that, in the end, it will be a matter of teaching and allowing the persuadee to absorb and reflect on what they learn. (Very roughly).Why are these the only two options? Why couldn't I teach someone a different way of looking at world, the way which grounds my own arguments and facts, so that they can understand the basis of my criteria of justification? It would not be a question of justifying the worldview I convert them to, but of allowing them to justify the arguments and views that are made intelligible from within that worldview. — Joshs
Strictly speaking, in my view, it is not really appropriate to call an ideology irrational, because usual standards of rationality do not apply between ideologies. There's also the point that it is misleading to dismiss one's ideological opponents as irrational - unless one is happy to accept that one's own ideology is irrational.he link between “necessity” and “irrationality” of ideological thinking as discussed in the opening post, and distances itself from more psychological understanding of ideologies (evil intentions, stupidity, comforting delusions ) which I find rather misleading (if not even, ideologically motivated!). — neomac
Yes. That's how philosophers will need to think about it. But there's more than thinking involved in ideology. Praxis is also very important in understanding what it means.So ideology is the most basic form of coordination for social grouping to support a given informational flow within a society and political mobilisation. — neomac
Zizek is wrong. Some American PoW's in the Korean War switched sides. I've seen one interview (which doesn't make a summer, I accept, but..) in which an American ex-PoW switched sides because he came to see American ideology through Chinese eyes - no force was required. The fundamental point was that the Chinese treated him better than the Americans. There's more to the story, or course, and I'm sure Google will find it for you if you want. But I don't accept what Zizek is saying. Seeing through one's own ideology is not easy, but it can be done.Zizek, in that video, is giving a psychological explanation for why liberation from one own’s ideology needs to be forced on people — neomac
But there's more than thinking involved in ideology. Praxis is also very important in understanding what it means. — Ludwig V
Zizek is wrong. Some American PoW's in the Korean War switched sides. I've seen one interview (which doesn't make a summer, I accept, but..) in which an American ex-PoW switched sides because he came to see American ideology through Chinese eyes - no force was required. The fundamental point was that the Chinese treated him better than the Americans. There's more to the story, or course, and I'm sure Google will find it for you if you want. But I don't accept what Zizek is saying. Seeing through one's own ideology is not easy, but it can be done. — Ludwig V
That's a rather charitable interpretation of "forced".I don't think Zizek is denying the possibility of changing views. He just remarks how painful it can often be and how often that this change can hardly come by our own intellectual initiative. — neomac
Perhaps I just don't understand the situation very well.I don't think however that any of such considerations clarify the nature of ideological thinking and how it epistemically compels us. — neomac
The interesting question is what makes universal acquiescence impossible — Ludwig V
Insofar as recognition of another ideology as disagreeing with oneself means recognizing (often at the same time as denying) that the other side are also human beings. In a rational world, that should be a basis for working out how to co-exist. But I realize that's somewhat idealistic.Is true coexistence between ideologies even possible when they’re wired to see each other as threats to their own legitimacy? Maybe the real obstacle isn’t just disagreement—but the fact that many ideologies survive by creating an ‘us vs. them’ narrative. If you’re only making room for another worldview because you think yours will still win, is that coexistence... or just strategic tolerance? — Alonsoaceves
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.