Why politics and ideology don't go well with philosophy.

ChatteringMonkey

I'll start by briefly describing what politics and ideology are and what role they play, because that is important for the point I want to get to, which is in the thread title.

I'd say the basis of politics is groups of people coming together and seeking support from the larger population to be able to influence or direct the society they are part of in a certain direction.

Ideology then is the framework of idea's that serve to gather support, unify and hold those groups together under the same banner.

Now I think it is important to fully appreciate that specific function ideology plays and what consequences that has. Because its function is to gather support and unify larger groups of people, it can't be to specific and nuanced, and more importantly it needs to be able to appeal to a host of people on a emotional level.

In practice this usually means that rather simplistic answers are give to complex problems, and those answers usually tap into strong emotional tendencies of people. For instance because we presumably have some tribal inclinations, one such strategy might be to try and blame all the worlds problems on certain groups of people, say "the immigrants" or "the rich".

It doesn't always have to be that simplistic, but I hope the idea is clear, namely that it isn't the primary function of an ideology to look for a better understanding of the world. In fact I think it actively makes getting a better understanding of world more difficult precisely because it offers these more simplistic explanations. If you already know why something is the way it is, you won't necessarily be motivated to look further for better and more nuanced explanations... especially if there is a strong emotional resonance with an explanation.

And since philosophy is about getting a better understanding of the world, and ideology and politics only seem to interfere with that goal, they seem to be at odds with eachother. Therefor I'd say, if you want to do good philosophy, avoid politics and ideology.

Philosophim

Philosophies emphasis should be about logic. Politics and ideology generally emphasize emotion. Its not that emotion isn't useful or helpful in persuading others. Its that emotion is often not a good tool for constructing logical arguments.

Pro Hominem

I refer to this phenomenon as the crisis of Liberalism.

Liberalism champions democratic movements in society. It has been successful over the course of the last 3 centuries in increasing the level of democracy across many countries throughout the world. Unfortunately, the bedrock of liberalism is education and rationality and these factors have not kept pace with democracy itself. The result is that you have huge numbers of people empowered to vote and participate in government with little to no understanding of what government is or how it works or how it should be used to help the human condition. Until a greater percentage of the population is capable of philosophical or at least rational thinking, we will continue to suffer the effects of pop politics and lazy "ideology". Social media has only exacerbated the problem.

ChatteringMonkey

↪Philosophim

I was not so much talking about the method each should use, but more about their different purposes and the consequence that has. But yes I guess in general politics will invariably have to involve some rethorics, which includes appeals to emotions.

ChatteringMonkey

I refer to this phenomenon as the crisis of Liberalism.

Liberalism champions democratic movements in society. It has been successful over the course of the last 3 centuries in increasing the level of democracy across many countries throughout the world. Unfortunately, the bedrock of liberalism is education and rationality and these factors have not kept pace with democracy itself. The result is that you have huge numbers of people empowered to vote and participate in government with little to no understanding of what government is or how it works or how it should be used to help the human condition. Until a greater percentage of the population is capable of philosophical or at least rational thinking, we will continue to suffer the effects of pop politics and lazy "ideology". Social media has only exacerbated the problem. — Pro Hominem

Maybe it has gotten worse over the last couple of decades, yes. But I feel like this is not exactly new, and always to some extend the case, because of the way politics works.

JerseyFlight

Philosophies emphasis should be about logic. — Philosophim

This is the only thing an Analytical Philosopher can say, but it is false, Philosophy's emphasis should not be idealism, although this is probably what most thinkers on this forum unconsciously practice.

Pro Hominem

Maybe it has gotten worse over the last couple of decades, yes. But I feel like this is not exactly new, and always to some extend the case, because of the way politics works. — ChatteringMonkey

Depends on what you mean by "new". It is only a couple hundred years old. What I think you are describing as politics and ideology don't exist in the same way prior to the Enlightenment.

JerseyFlight

↪Pro Hominem

Totally accurate, which means, if Philosophers don't want to live in totalitarian societies, they are going to have to concern themselves with politics, as well as the refutation of ideology. But in order to do the latter one must not be a practitioner of it.

ChatteringMonkey

Depends on what you mean by "new". It is only a couple hundred years old. What I think you are describing as politics and ideology don't exist in the same way prior to the Enlightenment. — Pro Hominem

Yes, i'm mainly talking about politics in democratic systems. But maybe the same thing could be said about ideologies developed in the name of the powers that be before democracies... they were not designed for the purpose of understanding the world.

Pro Hominem

↪JerseyFlight

Agreed, and education as well. The fundamental calling of all philosophers should be to support education. Of what good is wisdom or its pursuit if it is not shared?

Pro Hominem

Yes, i'm mainly talking about politics in democratic systems. But maybe the same thing could be said about ideologies developed in the name of the powers that be before democracies... they were not designed for the purpose of understanding the world. — ChatteringMonkey

True, but in the context of monarchies and oligarchies, it doesn't really matter what "the people" believe.

ChatteringMonkey

True, but in the context of monarchies and oligarchies, it doesn't really matter what "the people" believe. — Pro Hominem

Well it does to some, arguably lesser, extend... because otherwise people would revolt. That's why they did go through all the trouble of justifying their rule with ideologies.

JerseyFlight

-

they were not designed for the purpose of understanding the world. — ChatteringMonkey

Any philosophy you read that lacks this attribute should be discarded and thrown into the trash... so much for formal analytics. Life is way too short to spend it on thought puzzles whose only referent is their own abstraction.

ChatteringMonkey

Any philosophy you read that lacks this attribute should be discarded and thrown into the trash... so much for formal analytics. Life is way too short to spend it on thought puzzles whose only referent is their own abstraction. — JerseyFlight

I don't disagree, I was referring to ideologies, not philosophy.

Pro Hominem

Well it does to some, arguably lesser, extend... because otherwise people would revolt. That's why they did go through all the trouble of justifying their rule with ideologies. — ChatteringMonkey

I think we are straying into history here, and away from your point. In modern times, it is clear that Ideology is useful for capturing the imagination of those that are unwilling or unable to do the heavy lifting of actually thinking about a thing.

ChatteringMonkey

I think we are straying into history here, and away from your point. In modern times, it is clear that Ideology is useful for capturing the imagination of those that are unwilling or unable to do the heavy lifting of actually thinking about a thing. — Pro Hominem

Yes I agree.

But let me ask you the following question then, do you think it is feasible to get enough people to think about these things in a sufficiently nuanced way for democracy to work as it is intended? Maybe they don't have the time, motivation,talent or whatever.... to do that.

And if the answer is no, wouldn't then the problem be that we have a system that relies for it to work on conditions that we can't really expect to happen?

JerseyFlight

it is clear that Ideology is useful for capturing the imagination of those that are unwilling or unable to do the heavy lifting of actually thinking about a thing. — Pro Hominem

Repeat five times and post on every thread please.

Pro Hominem

But let me ask you the following question then, do you think it is feasible to get enough people to think about these things in a sufficiently nuanced way for democracy to work as it is intended? Maybe they don't have the time, motivation,talent or whatever.... to do that.

And if the answer is no, wouldn't then the problem be that we have a system that relies for it to work on conditions that we can't really expect to happen? — ChatteringMonkey

And that is why I call it the crisis of Liberalism. You've stated it very well.

I'm afraid I know the answer, but I'm trying to be optimistic anyway.

Outlander

Without politics we have war and bloodshed. Or more of it at least. Without ideology we have emotion run amok coupled with odd, disjointed beliefs birthed by mere happenstance. Politics, to some, can be reduced to mere civilized mob rule, which has always been in existence since the beginning of language and probably earlier. Ideology can also be reduced to mere opinion, usually one that sounds good or promising as in able to facilitate greater works than an opposing one. Which again shares most of the traits described. These are part of reality and so unless one wants to make the argument that philosophy ignores reality, they're simply part of the philosophical equation.

Again, you use restrictions or "what is" as guides or supports to bolster productive discussion as opposed to limits that restrict it. Floors not ceilings.

NOS4A2

I’m not sure they are at odds with each other since a great deal of philosophy goes into forging ideology. But perhaps one should begin with philosophy before venturing into politics.

ChatteringMonkey

Without politics we have war and bloodshed. Or more of it at least. Without ideology we have emotion run amok coupled with odd, disjointed beliefs birthed by mere happenstance. Politics, to some, can be reduced to mere civilized mob rule, which has always been in existence since the beginning of language and probably earlier. Ideology can also be reduced to mere opinion, usually one that sounds good or promising as in able to facilitate greater works than an opposing one. Which again shares most of the traits described. These are part of reality and so unless one wants to make the argument that philosophy ignores reality, they're simply part of the philosophical equation. — Outlander

Well some philosophy seems to ignore reality :-), but yes, that is not exactly my intention. And it's also not my intention to do away with politics and ideology, because well, it is what it is, and a necessary part of the world as you say. What i'm suggesting however is that maybe as a matter of personal choice, one should possibly make a decision for one or the other.

Again, you use restrictions or "what is" as guides or supports to bolster productive discussion as opposed to limits that restrict it. Floors not ceilings. — Outlander

This sound like it could be interesting, but I don't quite understand what you mean. I"m not trying to be dismissive here, just curious as to what you mean.

ChatteringMonkey

I’m not sure they are at odds with each other since a great deal of philosophy goes into forging ideology. But perhaps one should begin with philosophy before venturing into politics. — NOS4A2

Perhaps Plato would agree :-)... but I'm not so sure, I think to be a successful politician you need good instincts as to what speaks to people in the first place. Maybe you need some philosophy to be a 'good' one, but then you probably won't be a successful one.

NOS4A2

↪ChatteringMonkey

Perhaps Plato would agree :-)... but I'm not so sure, I think to be a successful politician you need good instincts as to what speaks to people in the first place. Maybe you need some philosophy to be a 'good' one, but then you probably won't be a successful one.

It’s true, a fair amount of demagoguery and sophistry goes into political campaigning, which is we know is antithetical to some philosophers. But in their defense, I think going over the heads of intellectuals in order to appeal to the masses is an important skill. For me, the problem of an ideology is not whether it is put forth in an emotional manner, but whether or not the ideology is correct.

JerseyFlight

I think going over the heads of intellectuals in order to appeal to the masses is an important skill. For me, the problem of an ideology is not whether it is put forth in an emotional manner, but whether or not the ideology is correct. — NOS4A2

This is totally false. I have proven*, in your case, that this is exactly not the thing that matters: you are the kind of thinker that is ONLY after confirmation bias, which means, for you, your core beliefs are not falsifiable. Anything that contradictions them, no matter how "correct," will be denied and distorted, overrided by your emotional commitment.

*https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9011/marx-and-the-serious-question-of-private-property/p3

ChatteringMonkey

And that is why I call it the crisis of Liberalism. You've stated it very well.

I'm afraid I know the answer, but I'm trying to be optimistic anyway. — Pro Hominem

John Dewey, which I think is one of the most underrated philosophers, was a big proponent an educational system that actually sought to educate people so that democracy could work. That seems to be at least a minimal condition to it, if it is possible at all. People won't magically turn into educated democratic citizen, but maybe it's possible if a real effort was put into it. That's me trying to be optimistic.

Outlander

Well some philosophy seems to ignore reality — ChatteringMonkey

Like what? Solipsism? Lol. I do doubt it completely but technically .. technically .. we don't absolutely know with omniscient certainty that say we're not all figments of say @NOS4A2 's imagination or something. Again I don't think there's any productive discussion to be had along the lines of solipsism but I think the core idea can be redeemed by saying "all we know is that we exist" is a starting point to expand instead of stop. Again, floors not ceilings.

Reality is constant. However our perception of reality is 9 times out of 10 just our interpretation of observable circumstance ie. geocentricism, men being able to fly through the sky being impossible, same with space travel, etc. Who knows one day the Earth could lose it's gravity and we'll all have to live a weird upside down life in buildings using ceilings as floors, tethering ourselves when we want to go outside to get some Sun. It's not reality that changes, it's our understanding of it- rather the circumstances which defined our observable conclusion of it. Which has from the beginning of time and probably will until the end of it.

This sound like it could be interesting, but I don't quite understand what you mean. I"m not trying to be dismissive here, just curious as to what you mean. — ChatteringMonkey

Neither politics nor ideology has to stifle philosophical thought intrinsically I'd say. Sure, any one current political system or prevailing ideology may present ideas that seem to hinder or restrict productive philosophical thought (as in how to best go about creating positive change in the world in which we live as opposed to simply learning about it). Essentially you use these things that largely and in part control most peoples lives and actions (politics/the law defining what you must do and ideology defining what people believe they should/want to do), see the benefits of them, the drawbacks, and mayhaps figure out how the benefits can be improved and the drawbacks can be mitigated. Not a great explanation but post some examples of how politics/ideology can harm philosophical thought. Aside from dogmas. I get that.

ChatteringMonkey

Like what? Solipsism? Lol. — Outlander

It was not really a serious comment, I was just taking a cheap shot at philosophies I don't like, like say rationalism.

Neither politics nor ideology has to stifle philosophical thought intrinsically I'd say. Sure, any one current political system or prevailing ideology may present ideas that seem to hinder or restrict productive philosophical thought (as in how to best go about creating positive change in the world in which we live as opposed to simply learning about it). Essentially you use these things that largely and in part control most peoples lives and actions (politics/the law defining what you must do and ideology defining what people believe they should/want to do), see the benefits of them, the drawbacks, and mayhaps figure out how the benefits can be improved and the drawbacks can be mitigated. Not a great explanation but post some examples of how politics/ideology can harm philosophical thought. Aside from dogmas. I get that. — Outlander

Well it's essentially a psychological point I'm making. People usually want some amount of certainty about questions they have and typically want to avoid cognitive dissonance. If you're uncertain about something you tend to keep looking for answers until you find something that satisfies you. Ideologies present easy, all to easy, answers and so psychologically you are less motivated to keep looking for better answers. Adding to that, because we don't like cognitive dissonance and the uneasiness that comes with that, it can become very difficult to get away from these answer, especially since they typically speak to something with a lot of emotional valance. Ideologies are like thought traps that can be hard to escape from... And naturally that is bad for philosophy since that is I think all about retaining some mental agility and being able to do away with bad ideas for better ones.

As for examples, I don't know if you're american, but just look at the political debate there and how heated it has become. People seem unable to think straight when it comes to debating issues. They constantly seem to be triggered into party-line talking points... that's not thinking and evaluations of things on their merits anymore, but merely regurgitating.

Pro Hominem

Ideologies present easy, all to easy, answers and so psychologically you are less motivated to keep looking for better answers. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes. In many ways, they are the anti-philosophy.

Outlander

Ideologies are like thought traps that can be hard to escape from... And naturally that is bad for philosophy since that is I think all about retaining some mental agility and being able to do away with bad ideas for better ones. — ChatteringMonkey

What is ideology but a belief you stand by? Even anti-ideology is an ideology in and of itself. Lol. Is it not?

Sure, that's a point I like to make often. Just because something works today or has worked in the past doesn't mean it's the one and only truth. Skepticism is vital to knowing and preserving truth. Same with what works or rather is fruitful in the short term vs. what isn't but may be in the long term. This is probably a major source of division. Each position having their own unique benefits and drawbacks.

They constantly seem to be triggered into party-line talking points... that's not thinking and evaluation things on their merits anymore, but regurgitating. — ChatteringMonkey

Supposedly, rather hopefully, people did adequate research into positions they hold beforehand and have weighted the benefits and consequences. Republicans seem to want to deregulate and develop more and also allegedly believe in God and the traditional family unit. That last part aside, sure, you become more successful in the short term- bearing in mind resources are limited there are very clear drawbacks to this. Democrats seem to .. I don't even know what they're into but from what I've heard are more open to immigration, personal freedom, abortion, etc. Too many immigrants who aren't vetted properly could lead to a problem. I hold a belief that abortion may or may not be .. "not right" or whatever so that's a biased view I'll reserve for this reply but, yeah. Every position has it's pros and cons. The two party lines generally encompass (more or less) what the individual believes in and so they're in a sense fighting for what they believe is right. There's always going to be lines people draw between themselves and others. From the personal, individual level say providing for basic needs like food and water.. the individual obviously wants enough to survive (or more) and will oppose a neighbor to get it. These divides can be larger as they were in the past encompassing things like religion or race. That in mind, a political divide is the lesser of (many) evils and so should be tolerated if not favored.

ChatteringMonkey

What is ideology but a belief you stand by? Even anti-ideology is an ideology in and of itself. Lol. Is it not?

Sure, that's a point I like to make often. Just because something works today or has worked in the past doesn't mean it's the one and only truth. Skepticism is vital to knowing and preserving truth. Same with what works or rather is fruitful in the short term vs. what isn't but may be in the long term. This is probably a major source of division. Each position having their own unique benefits and drawbacks. — Outlander

I use ideology here as I described in the opening post specifically, as a set of ideas to gather support, unify and hold those political groups together. I do have my beliefs about society, but don't fully subscribe to any of the actual ideologies proposed by political parties. I'm mostly a-political in that sense. But beliefs are fine, you can't do without.

Supposedly, rather hopefully, people did adequate research into positions they hold beforehand and have weighted the benefits and consequences. Republicans seem to want to deregulate and develop more and also allegedly believe in God and the traditional family unit. That last part aside, sure, you become more successful in the short term- bearing in mind resources are limited there are very clear drawbacks to this. Democrats seem to .. I don't even know what they're into but from what I've heard are more open to immigration, personal freedom, abortion, etc. Too many immigrants who aren't vetted properly could lead to a problem. I hold a belief that abortion may or may not be .. "not right" or whatever so that's a biased view I'll reserve for this reply but, yeah. Every position has it's pros and cons. The two party lines generally encompass (more or less) what the individual believes in and so they're in a sense fighting for what they believe is right. There's always going to be lines people draw between themselves and others. From the personal, individual level say providing for basic needs like food and water.. the individual obviously wants enough to survive (or more) and will oppose a neighbor to get it. These divides can be larger as they were in the past encompassing things like religion or race. That in mind, a political divide is the lesser of (many) evils and so should be tolerated if not favored. — Outlander

What you are describing here is part of it, I won't completely deny that, but the part I feel you are missing is the marketing aspect of it. Part of what they say is for marketing purposes predominately, and as such not something they really believe in or look to actually implement.... but whatever they think convinces the most people and keeps them in power.

Tzeentch

If I could add to that;

Philosophy should teach one how little we know for certain. Once one gets that insight, one generally becomes a lot more reserved about telling others what to do.

Why politics and ideology don't go well with philosophy.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions