On a daily basis this usually equates to a set work week, probably a weekend and non-work hours, maybe retirement on the horizon, educational institutions while growing up, with overlap. There's literally millions of other things to add here but I don't need to list them all. — schopenhauer1
If you don't want this, you have becoming destitute and homeless — schopenhauer1
So is society itself a sort of ideology, a sort of "brand" that we as individuals perpetuate through the gateway of birth? It has a way-of-life. — schopenhauer1
I think it is an ideology, forced in perpetuity on others. — schopenhauer1
A shaitan is assigned to every human (with Jesus as exception), and shayatin are said to move through the blood of human. Sahih Muslim mentiones among the shayatin five sons of Iblis, who bring everyday calamities: Tir, “who brings about calamities, loses, and injuries; Al-A’war, who encourages debauchery; Sut, who suggests lies; Dasim, who causes hatred between man and wife; Zalambur, who presides over places of traffic." — Wikipedia on Shaitan
survival-through-economic-means for example — schopenhauer1
There is no way out of this ideology (of living generally to survive in some sort of economic system), once born, not even suicide. — schopenhauer1
An ideology is a set of beliefs and values attributed to a person or group of persons, especially as held for reasons which are not purely epistemic.[1][2] Formerly applied primarily to economic or political theories and policies, in a tradition going back to Karl Marx and Friederich Engels, more recent use treats the term as mainly condemnatory. — Wikipedia on the term ideology
All of this is interesting, but a bit off the mark as to what I mean by ideology. What you are discussing is INTRA-ideological debates (self-employed vs. employee, bit coin vs. other currency, etc.). My point is that generally speaking, LIVING itself requires a way of life (survival-through-economic-means for example), and that by birthing more people, you agree to force more people into this ideology. There is no way out of this ideology (of living generally to survive in some sort of economic system), once born, not even suicide. — schopenhauer1
Being tributary to biological realities does not make that person subscribe to an ideology. Better examples of ideologies are communism, fascism or democracy. — alcontali
Some people really believe it's possible to subsist without eating and that various gurus have accomplished it. "Eating to live" is very much an ideology; it's more accurate to say we just happen to think it's actually true and dismiss the alternatives. If "living off sunlight" is an ideology, then so too is the alternative of "living off material food". — boethius
The problem is the definition of the term "ideology", i.e. "beliefs held for reasons which are not purely epistemic". There is a legitimate justification for "eating to stay alive". Hence, the belief is not epistemically flawed. Concerning "living off sunlight", it would not be hard to experimentally test that a group of people exposed to sunlight would not survive longer than at most a few months. Hence, "living of sunlight (only)" is even trivially falsified. Therefore, it is a false belief. — alcontali
Unfortunately, the disciplines of psychology and economics and large parts of medicine are simply made up for profit; this behaviour can be investigated, and trust diminished where trust is not earned, but it is a complex task. Is it all false? no, but the best propaganda is mostly true and yet yields a radically different conclusion compared to removing the small amount of lies. — boethius
Nassim Taleb uses medicine as one of his primary examples, arguing that physical stress is good for you, and medicine is, with very few exceptions, bad.
Because antifragile entities benefit from a little stress, he spends a great deal of time belaboring his wariness of “iatrogenic” effects (in which the treatment is worse than the original illness). To a point, most of us would agree. For example, if your blood pressure is only slightly outside of the range of normal, you might be wise not to choose medication as your solution. Slight stresses on the body are indeed natural. I’m not sure I’d agree that your higher reading will make you stronger, but certainly in this case the downsides of the medication may be considerable higher than the benefits it might provide.
Taleb argues that the side effects of medication are unpredictable. We simply don’t have enough history to truly predict outcomes. Medicine is like tobacco, which when it first was introduced was purportedly good for you. There was no “proof ” to the contrary as it took decades for the evidence to accumulate. Thalidomide was prescribed as an antinausea medicine but its side effects on the unborn fetus weren’t clear for a few years. — Derek G. Hennecke on Nassim Taleb's take on medicine
Iatrogenics is when a treatment causes more harm than benefit. As iatros means healer in Greek, the word means “caused by the healer” or “brought by the healer.” Healer, in this sense, need not mean doctor, but anyone intervening to solve a problem. For example, it could be a thought leader, a CEO, a government, or a coalition of the willing. Nassim Taleb calls these people interventionistas. Often these people come armed with solutions to solve the first-order consequences of a decision but create worse second and subsequent order consequences. Luckily, for them at least, they’re never around to see the train wreck they created. — Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes
For instance, calling out the pharmaceutical industry's manipulation of the medical scientific community seems to invite casting doubt on man-made climate change and the urgency to act with respect to it. — boethius
For, if the opium crisis resulted from a corrupt manipulation of the scientific medical community, why can't we assume the climate science community is likewise manipulated? — boethius
People who were told "opiods, totally safe, science says so" by "scientific medical authorities" and live the terrible consequences are entirely valid in doubting the next important thing scientific institutions tell them to believe. — boethius
In otherwords, dismissing alternatives as ideological whereas one's own position is just "clear epistemic givens" is simply to assume one's ideology is correct and the other's are incorrect without any proper examination. — boethius
An ideology is a set of beliefs and values attributed to a person or group of persons, especially as held for reasons which are not purely epistemic.[1][2] Formerly applied primarily to economic or political theories and policies, in a tradition going back to Karl Marx and Friederich Engels, more recent use treats the term as mainly condemnatory.
— Wikipedia on the term ideology
Survival-through-economic-means is just a modern incarnation of survival-through-hunting. The reasons to do these things are purely epistemic. It would even be possible to experimentally test that a person not acquiring any calories at all on a daily basis ("starvation") would prematurely die. Hence, the survival-through-economic-means approach is not epistemically unsound. — alcontali
Your question seems a conundrum if you interpret ideology as "simply ideas that people choose to believe" but ultimately has no justification really in the end. If some ideas in some ideologies, however, are simply true, and at least some truth is needed to live both individually and perpetuate a community, then it's no strange thing that society has a fairly broad consensus of things that just so happen to be true (eating poisonous mushrooms kills you for instance), and people who go outside this ideology (or rather just true things society has learned) die very quickly. — boethius
It is also not strange that entirely categories of tools that have no deducible "true or bestest form" society forms conventions about that get passes from one generation to the next. The typical example is language; we can reason that having words and grammar to express things is useful to have, but we cannot deduce the "best words" and so society picks new words or changes old ones when the want arises in no particularly coherent way. Likewise, some rules of conduct maybe deducible from reasoning or trial and error in a specific form, such as not eating the poison mushrooms or tolerating wanton murdering in the community, while other rules of conduct have no particular justification but are a useful reference point.
This broad ideology anthropologists generally call culture. — boethius
Likewise, the ideology of no ideology is of course itself an ideology. Trying to dismiss world views as ideological and "thus wrong" or "not justifiable really", is simply to claim one's ideology is right without introspection or defense compared to the alternatives. — boethius
What you described might be best defined as the machinery of ideology. These mechanisms and systems essentially run on autopilot regardless of the individuals keeping it running. Many of them have been in place before you or I were born and will likely persist for generations to come, with slight variation.
When we are born into it we must, as a matter of self-preservation, learn to deal with the systems and machinery around us. — NOS4A2
presses me to say, every society has a subconscious just like individuals and from time to time they need psychoanalysis when their behavior indicates the entity is having a serious problem! The US is in desperate need of psychoanalysis because it is not the democracy it defended in two world wars and it is no longer united and ideologically strong but is divided and destroying itself.The "machinery of ideology" is in fact people DECIDING society is good enough to (literally) procreate more people to experience it. — schopenhauer1
What do you mean by saying society is an ideology? — TheMadFool
In the Western world, industrial production/retail consumption/billions of trade partnerships and contracts/government monetary systems and the like pretty much run the backbone of how we survive. On a daily basis this usually equates to a set work week, probably a weekend and non-work hours, maybe retirement on the horizon, educational institutions while growing up, with overlap. There's literally millions of other things to add here but I don't need to list them all. — schopenhauer1
I mean I can imagine a society without an ideology as such, as a simple coexistence of individuals as I presume chimpanzee societies do. — TheMadFool
I think this is where you get off the track. An ideology has ideas behind it. It is doubtful animal societies (even chimps) have ideas underpinning it. But that's not what I want to argue for or against. Rather, I am arguing that even the very basics of a society- its very ways of life, the very activities that a socio-economic system allows for (work, production, consumption, entertainment, etc.) is itself an ideology. Humans assent to this ideology by having more humans be born into it. Thus, PHILOSOPHICALLY, we should be arguing whether this ORIGINARY ideology is itself worth undertaking, not just INTRA-ideological deba — schopenhauer1
Well, in what way does viewing society as an ideology affect our understanding of ourselves? What impact does it have to you, me and everyone? I mean you make your claim in a tone that makes me feel as if something profound has been discovered but it seems so obvious and trivial. — TheMadFool
Anyway, you aren't quite clear on how we "assent to this ideology by having more humans be born to it". I would be especially concerned, given the peculiarities of my circumstances, if an ideology demanded the birth of children just to adopt it. Can you elaborate on that please. — TheMadFool
I know warning their children that the road ahead will be tougher than it was for them (the parents). — TheMadFool
Therefore, it seems to me, that giving birth isn't an assent to an ideology but rather a bold challenge to it. — TheMadFool
So is society itself a sort of ideology, a sort of "brand" that we as individuals perpetuate through the gateway of birth? It has a way-of-life. By constantly birthing people, we are clearly buying into it. Sure, we might want to change parts of how the backbone runs (free health care vs. private, etc) but generally speaking, the whole pie itself of society (work, entertainment, maintenance/increase comfort levels) seems to be shared by all. Thus, birth essentially pushes this ideology unto a new generation. I think it is an ideology, forced in perpetuity on others. More work, more entertainment, more going to die hacking it in the wilderness if you don't like. There is no option for the no option (non-birth). Once born, you're living the ideology out until you don't (that is you die). — schopenhauer1
Would you agree that generally, a society has a "way of life", general patterns that people follow that are more-or-less the same? We generally have things like work, money, exchange, consumption, etc., right? — schopenhauer1
I accept your position that society is an ideology but you seem to think people are unaware of it which is where you're mistaken or so I think. — TheMadFool
You can happily adopt a completely different view and function perfectly well inside that society. In fact, you will most likely do better than people who adopt the mainstream ideology. Well, that has always been my impression. I believe that adopting the standard ideology in society will automatically lead to personal failure. — alcontali
But the debate isn't about which society is best — schopenhauer1
whether it is good to bring someone into any society — schopenhauer1
Life in general seems to be naturally inclined to axiomatize that it is a good thing to have offspring. Otherwise, life would probably not even exist. — alcontali
If you adopt anti-natalist views, then you will not have any offspring, and then this in-existent offspring will not perpetuate your ideas. Hence, the world will be always end up being populated mostly by people who have inherited natalist opinions from their parents. It is just a question of keeping your children away from public-school indoctrination camps operated by anti-natalist cultural Marxists. Therefore, anti-natalism is an "evolutionary dead-end". Still, it is obviously your own choice. — alcontali
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.