Foundations Of Ideology

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

This thread attempts to understand the foundations upon which philosophies are built. To start things off, this post will propose four levels, which perhaps you can add to, improve upon etc.

IDEOLOGY: The surface level is ideology.

One collection of assertions and assumptions declares itself, inevitably attracting a competing collection of assertions etc. Islam vs. Christianity. Theism vs. atheism. Capitalism vs. socialism. Democrats vs. Republicans. Etc, etc.

Most of the discussions operate on the surface level of ideology, as we compare and challenge the assertions of various ideologies.

PSYCHOLOGY: The surface level of ideology arises out of the deeper level of psychology, much the way plants grow out of the soil.

On the psychology level, we shift focus from analyzing specific ideological assertions, to trying to understand our relationship with ideology. Why do we build personal identities out of ideologies, why are we so passionate about promoting and defending our assertions and so on.

THOUGHT: The psychological forces which ideology springs from arise out of the nature of thought.

In this view, thought is seen as an element of nature with certain defining qualities which influence anything made of thought. As example, anything made of water will one way or another wind up being wet.

GENETICS: Thought is defined by genetics, and recreated from the ground up in each human being.

Thus, in theory we might imagine some hypothetical guru that learns how to transcend thought altogether. The gurus children will not inherit this ability, but will be born within the same thought focused experience as anybody else.

SUMMARY:

Genetics => Thought => Psychology => Ideology

In this view, each level arises out of the level below it.

IMPLICATIONS:

What are the implications of this theory?

One thing we can see is that many different ideologies have grown out of the soil of psychology throughout human history, but the same basic pattern remains unchanged.

Ten thousand years in to the history of civilization, we still have one group of people passionately proclaiming one set of ideas, and another group arguing an opposing set of ideas with equal passion. The main difference is that each group is now armed with missiles and nuclear weapons instead of arrows and spears.

Some will conclude from this observation that focusing exclusively at the surface level of ideology is to be trapped within a never ending loop that leads nowhere.

No matter how many dangerous ideological weeds we mow down with our brilliant arguments etc, another crop of dangerous ideological weeds always springs up in their place. The dangerous conflict continues endlessly, only the ideologies and weapons change.

If we see this, we might surrender in despair at the hopelessness of the human condition etc. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we all die etc.

Or, we might redirect our attention to the deeper levels that ideology springs from, psychology, thought and genetics.

Perhaps a good place to end this post would be to ask, can we accomplish anything truly useful at these deeper levels?

2

Useful for who/what ? And how can you measure the usefulness in what kind of sense/perspective?

To me, most ideologies are the attempt to see certain things in positive/affirmative way (usually done with faulty thinking), and moreover, have others to confirm to that idiotic standard (probably to avoid things one doesn’t like much).

I don’t think we are really able to think well. I don;t think we are very aware, either.
So, accomplishing something isn’t very easy for us.
I guess knowing how stupid we are and losing the bad assumption that we can think and we are intelligent might be a huge accomplishment for us.
When we know how silly and insane we are, we won’t try to make an ideology or to force one of them onto others, at least. :slight_smile:

3

It’s a sound idea overall IMO, and quite simple. Though on one subtle point I will disagree. It seems more logical to me that thought would be based on psychology rather than visa-versa. So at the top we have ideology, which in turn is a product/effect of a system of thought, which in turn is a product/effect of the thinker’s psychology, which in turn is a product/effect of the thinker’s genes.

I think this is a very good question, one that needs to be asked more often and seriously considered. I will give my thoughts on what can be accomplished at each level:

  1. ideology: to try and resolve conflict at the level of ideology is more or less what thinkers throughout the ages have been doing already, and as you pointed out, without much success. One ideology pitted against another results more often in escalated tensions and animosity, and ultimately violence.

  2. thought: to try and resolve conlfict at the level of thought (i.e. by focusing on thought qua thought as opposed to the ideology one believes in), there is more of a chance for diplomacy to emerge. At this level, one is more prone to ask “How can I rethink such-and-such ideology (whether mine or my contender’s) so as to come to terms or work in harmony with my contender?” One is more interested in (re)structuring his ideology, or that of his contender (in hopes that the contender will agree), rather than defend his ideology “as is”, such that they can cooperatively form a system that works for the benefit of both.

  3. psychology: at this level, one questions his own motives for defending and clinging to his ideology, and considers whether it is in his best interest to step back and take a good look at himself and his mental state, and how those are affecting his ideology and his reasons for adopting it. The goal is to understand one’s real motives for clinging to his ideology, and whether he is better off changing it or dropping it all together.

  4. genetics: at this level, things become rather crude and even questionable (ethics might even enter the picture). Conflict resolution at this level, at least with respect to ideologies, would proceed according to some manner of genetic engineering. One would deliberately restructure his own or his contender’s (or rather, their offspring’s) genetic profile such that certain psychological (and thus cognitive and ideological) phenotypes emerge, and the hope would be that those phenotypes are conducive to conflict resolution in the sphere of ideological disagreement and tension.

In my personal opinion, I believe level #3 is the best place to do our work. Once we have done all we can at that level, we can work our way up through level #2 to level #1. We could do work at level #4, but I would seriously consider holding off on that one until we can be absolutely sure we know what we’re doing (and even then only if it seems absolutely necessary).

4

Deleuze wrote that all philosophy is ideological, in so far as all philosophy is gounded in the unquestioned Image of thought, in the assumptions of the upright nature of thought and of the upright nature of the thinker. Deleuze identified that even the most basic, skeptical or axiomatic philosophical premises are still grounded upon these assumptions: that thought accurately or at least is inherently capable of accurately revealing reality/“truth” to us, and that the human thinking subject is, at least at the most basic level, not trying to deceive himself.

Deleuze then correctly identified that a truly non-ideological philosophy would begin by assuming the opposite of these premises, and setting out from there. The problem with this, the problem with trying to free philosophy from the grasp of ideology, is that ideology is itself the form under which conception occurs; as humans, ideology is how we form perceptions and ideas of the world. Just as we know that the categories under which sensation occurs are time and space, so too ideology itself is the category under which perception/conception occurs. This is because in order to construct an image of information in the mind, be it a belief or a percept, a rigorous and complex process of selection occurs. Not only is this process structural to how conception works, but it also takes place very much in the non-conscious realms.

‘Everyone knows what it means to think’, or ‘Well maybe most people don’t, but at least the philosopher knows what it means to think’; Deleuze identifies this statement as that which rests at the core of philosophy, even philosophy that takes on the form of skepticism or radical critique. This unquestioned assumption must be counteracted if philosophy is to truly break free from all doxa - and this breaking free from doxa, this becoming authentic is what Deleuze conceives of as the true goal of genuine philosophy.

5

You can’t name genetics without mentioning environment. Our thought processes are not solely from genetics but are greatly influenced by our environment. I’m not sure what exactly separates thought from psychology in your post, your part on psychology also seems to equal thought as well.

You can vaguely categorize things like this which I don’t think offer much support towards understanding ideologies on a profound level. Simply put, the basis of ideologies can be :

Genetics + environment + thought.

That goes for everything else man made.

6

First, thanks to all for your replies, much appreciated. I’m on my way out the door, and apologize for not being able to reply to all your points right now. Did read all comments of course.

Here’s a place to start, as it addresses a few posters observations.

Yes, that can use some clarification.

I’m using the word “thought” to refer to the biological process of electro-chemical transactions in our brain. That is, I’m referring to thought itself, rather than the content of any particular thoughts. Obviously, everybody has thought, whatever the quality of their thoughts may be.

By “psychology” I’m referring to patterns of thought that are unique to an individual. As example, if I was routinely beaten as a child, my psychology will likely be different than yours in some substantial ways, even though we are both experiencing thought.

I’m not attached to the list of foundations I offered above, and am just using them as a place to start a conversation. Clearly, the foundations of ideology could be divided and listed in other ways.

What interests me more is this premise. As we move from the surface level of ideology to deeper foundation levels, we reach points of greater leverage.

Oops, my wife says, time to go. Thank you again for your comments. Keep them coming if it pleases you.

7

Hi Typist. Do you think ideology can effect psychology? Can Psychology effect thought? Can some form of downward causation apply to this scheme?

8

Yes, I think this touches on a deep point, and I’m guessing more to your central point. I think in the great majority of cases of ideological conflict, much can be resolved by suspending those ideologies (at least temporarily) and focusing more on what’s behind them - that is, driving them, motivating them - and I think at that level we discover mechanisms and forces that are more universal across us all (the need to dominate, the need to survive, the need to belong and be loved, etc.). If we work at this level, taking an educated and objective look at it, we are much more likely to find ways to work with each other and get along.

9

I don’t think it would happen in most cases.
It’s because we are not so aware nor able to think well and most of ideology isn’t reached/held by choice but by the psycho-mechanical pressure, so to say.

Ideology is just like love, religion, or other types of mental magnifying fixation in which we are cornered and pinned.
And there in not really an easy way out.
We are stuck and we don’t even know about it, making the situation worse.

If we wrongly presume that we are aware and we can think, some of us might be able to do what you suggest, here.
Although there is nothing wrong with dreaming with rosy presumptions (which is exactly what people do with ideology), it usually doesn’t change us much.
We rather change a lot when silly dreams are shattered, when we wake up a bit, sensing that there is something strange/incoherent/unfounded in the perspectives we are taking for granted.

10

Are you saying that to suspend one’s own ideology is rare if it ever occurs, or that if it were to occur, it would be futile in the way I’m suggesting.

Again, it is unclear to me what you mean to suggest here. Do you think that suspending our ideologies for the sake of resolving conflict is at all effective?

11

Ah, an interesting contribution, thanks!

Hmm…

Yes, good point, it seems downward causation would apply as well. As example, we may someday edit our own DNA, based on whatever ideology we value at the time we acquire that ability.

As others have commented, this is a scary prospect. Applying some of our screwy ideologies at points of greater leverage could be a disaster.

You’ve edited my theory from a simplistic linear conception, in to a more holistic circular system. More environmental, natural, realistic. I like it.

And now I’m really confused. Oh well, that’s what’s supposed to happen, right? :smiley:

12

Yes, right, that would be moving from the surface level of ideology, to the next level down, psychology. Agreed, greater point of leverage, more powerful.

For myself, I’m interested in finding philosophy forums that are willing to shift some focus from what we believe, to why we believe it, from what we want to say, to why we want to say it. The ideological debates are entertaining indeed, and truly great fun, but seem to be a kind of dead end. Round and round we go for thousands of years repeating the same arguments over and over etc.

There seems to be legitimate argument against a psychological analysis too. The more we analyze, the more we tend to find to analyze. The pile grows ever bigger, and the Dr. Phil show runs for the next 34,000 seasons, with no end in sight. :smiley:

Thus, some might suggest we jump over the psychological level, and attack the problem on the next level down, thought.

All ideological and psychological problems are made of thought. Turn the thought off, and all these problems go poof, bye bye, all gone.

This level is an even greater point of leverage. No need to analyze a million things for years, just turn off the analyzer machine for awhile.

13

I think you’ll find this difference across people more than across philosophy forums. There are those who are open to reason and different points of view and then there are those who are obstinantly incorridgeable in their ideological convictions. It’s true that every forum has its own culture, norms, trends, etc., and some may be more conducive to the obstinant type than the open minded type, but generally you’ll find a handful of both types on any forum you go to.

Also keep in mind that the reasons we say what we say (or believe what we believe), though psychological in nature, can easily become philosophies or ideologies themselves, but if they’re right, they can be useful for the reasons we already touched on above. Consider Neitzsche. Consider Wittgenstein.

What would it mean to deal with ideologies at the level of thought? Going by your definition (neuro-chemical brain activity), doesn’t that mean taking drugs or some such? How does one ‘turn off the analyzer machine’? I don’t think turning off the brain is a good idea. Does it mean sedating our thought centers with drugs? With meditation? These seems either dangerous or unrealistic.

14

True, good point. Some day I would like to find or host a moderated philosophy forum, but that is a topic for another day.

I don’t have the answer here, but feel this is a good question to consider, and am hoping to explore it in some depth.

As a place to start, here are some assertions I invite you to examine and review. A case for dealing with ideologies at the level of thought.

  1. Ideology is made of thought.

  2. Like anything else, ideology takes on characteristics of the substance it is made of. As example, anything made of water would one way or another have the quality of wetness.

  3. Thought is inherently divisive. As example, nouns, the heart of language and thought, are used to divide a single unified reality in to a bunch of little conceptual pieces.

  4. Ideology seems to always divide one group of people from another, perhaps because the substance ideology is made of is inherently divisive.

  5. If true, we are trying to use an inherently divisive tool to unite ourselves. If true, a search for a unifying ideology we can all agree on in peace may be doomed to failure, as thousands of years of evidence seems to suggest.

To return to your question (sorry for the side trail)…

How do we manage thought?

It could perhaps, I’m trying to stay open to all kinds of options.

As example, perhaps some day we will invent pill that allows anyone to experience the mental states Buddhist (or other) monks achieve after years of their techniques. If possible and healthy, seems worth exploring.

Well, people have been studying this for thousands of years, and some have become expert at it. Even amateurs can reduce thought rates with simple techniques.

Managing thought is different than turning off the brain.

A simple example, after a hectic day at the office, you might go fishing to chill out (ie. reduce thought rates). After fishing a few hours, you may become fully relaxed, but can still spring in to action at the moment you get a bite.

Also, we should make a distinction between thought and awareness. It’s possible to have very little or no thought, and still be fully alert and aware.

Managing thought doesn’t equal, believe anything anybody tells us.

I would agree both are currently unrealistic in that, as far as I know, there is no widely available safe drug for managing thought. So yes, drugs could be dangerous.

And while meditation is helpful for many, it seems unlikely everybody will become meditators, or that would have happened already.

Basically, the main thing I have so far is that thousands of years of trying to find peace through ideology seems not to be working, so perhaps it’s time to work at deeper levels of the process.

Over to you…

15

Have you considered the possibility that there is actually not that much of a problem with your life as it is, but for thought there seems to be? I’m not saying anything against the use of thought, you have no recourse but to use thought to get what you want in this world. But when you seek to get what does not exist – the ideal life – through thought, you only succeed in pitting one thought against another, creating misery for yourself and the world.

So it is the fantasizing about a non-existent ideal person, society, or state that dooms and fixes one where he is. Your belief in what you are does not determine what you in fact are.

If there is anything that can happen, it must happen now. Since you don’t want anything to happen now, you push it away into something you have named “the future.”

16

Here you seem to be describing thought in subjective terms, in terms of how it typical feels to think, which is different from a description in terms of neuro-chemical events. This makes it somewhat less than clear where thought should fall in your reductive hierarchy. If you want to describe it in subjective terms, I’d feel more comfortable placing it above psychology and below ideology. If in neuro-chemical terms, then perhaps it should between between genetics and psychology.

In any case, I would hope and expect that we can resolve our ideological differences by means other than mass drug inducements. I wouldn’t be too surprised if drugs caused more problems than they are intended to solve. My bets are on diplomacy and pragmatism. This is what politicians and philosophers - enlightened politicians and philosopher IMHO - practice in the hopes of resolving problems that arise out of ideological conflict, and in my opinion it is an application of the principles of thought and how it works. Let me explain. Pragmatism is the view that the value of thought is not so much in how it helps us ascertain truth, but in how it helps us get through the day, to get practical work done. A pragmatist is more interested in how to craft useful ideologies rather than ‘true’ ones (truth is such an elusive term anyway to the pragmatist). A pragmatist - a good pragmatist - is a ‘thought-engineer’ so to speak (or as I like to call them: cognitive programmers). He is not glued to any one ideology or another (unless you consider pragmatism itself an ideology - which you can); he can’t be - how else would he have the flexibility to engineer any ideology that happens to be useful for one or another application. Diplomacy is the art of engaging with another (whose ideology may differ from yours) with the mutual intention to engineering new ideologies in the pragmatic spirit with the goal of resolving conflict. What matters in diplomacy is not that each party arrive at ‘the Truth’ but that they arrive at a concensus that works for both of them. A politician - a good politician - could never practice this unless he was a good pragmatist.

The rest of us mere civilians need to be more like this; then there will be peace.

But of course, this is why I say we need to work through the psychological level first. There is no way one is going to be a good pragmatist or diplomat if he can’t get over all the psychological hang ups that keep him fixated on one ideology or another. One really has to be skilled at compromising and ‘letting go’. This might only be attainable by a practiced Buddhist or meditator, or someone who has really done well in some kind of self-therapy.

It only makes sense then that the work we must do at the level of thought - the kind of work the pragmatist and the diplomat do - would be above the level of psychology. To get a machine working properly, you have to get its underlying infrastructure working first. If the need to administer drugs was evident, we would be in a dire situation indeed. Drugs are typically administered to psychotherapy patients at the beginning of the therapist’s work - not at the end after all the talk-therapy has had its effects. The therapist wants first to put the patient into a stable state of mind with which he can work, and while in that state go ahead with the talk-therapy. When they’ve made enough headway in talk-therapy, then the therapist can consider removing the drugs, and even then there would be much therapeutic work to do. And even after the patient is proverbially ‘cured’, he still must do a lot of work in managing his own thoughts, but at least now he can do so by employing the methods of the pragmatist and, when dealing with others, the diplomat.

17

finishedman, thanks for joining in.

Yes, all the time. This is a great point, thanks, very on topic. Your comment reflects a move away from the surface level (the details of this or that problem) to the underlying source.

Can we divide problems in to:

  1. needs of the body
  2. needs of the mind

For needs of the body, thought seems to be the answer. If I’m hungry, I need to analyze the environment, and find some food. Simple.

For a million years, needs of the body was an all consuming project, and thought was how we addressed it. Has this very old pattern lured us in to a false assumption that thought is the solution to needs of the mind as well?

Or is your comment closer to the truth, the more we think about our problems (of the mind) the more problems we create? It seems helpful to recall, problems are thought.

Right, needs of the body are non-negotiable, and thought is required.

Yes, every ideology seems to promise the ideal life, but after trying an endless list of ideologies, it hasn’t happened. The thought created division interferes at both the personal and social level.

If we think about all this very carefully, we can, um…

Probably turn it in to a giant problem!! :smiley: