I read an article by Roger Ebert that might have something to do with this point. You may as well read the whole thing to get some context, but here is what interested me most:
How come?
AMC
ideology vs humanity
- Thread starter AMCrenshaw
- Start date
- Status
I read an article by Roger Ebert that might have something to do with this point. You may as well read the whole thing to get some context, but here is what interested me most:
How come?
AMC
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
Well of course we do have huge patience and consierable adoration for the CEO, so long as it is a widely held ancient superstition we happen to hold ourselves....
Because through the evolution of morality, scientific discoveries and technological advancements, changes in philosophical thought and how we percieve the world around us, we are now a vastly different society to that which existed at the time the 'holy texts' were written. Policy should be formed based on who we are today, not who we were centuries ago.
But I at least think it's more than being modern with our thought. It might be about what is beneficial over what is believed, in a general sense. There's no reason to believe in Creationism or ID for that matter, except, I think, because of an already established ideology.
I for one am very skeptical of any belief, since facts are things which require no belief whatsoever to hold them as true. And in the face of ethical considerations - of any kind - I would sooner hold to something that is factual than ideological, for the simple sake of everyone around me. Because of that very standard I hold myself to -- one which is from my perspective rooted in the idea of compassion or understanding, I would want to hold accountable or keep in check those who do not hold such a standard of ethics (that is, I would want to keep in check those who would prefer the doctrine of their ideology over demonstrated facts). I also think that facts - more so than any ideology - are a binding or otherwise common ground for human thought. We can argue about the facts, but if we hold ourselves to a common method that is not sentimental about its own findings, we will always abandon what is no longer useful.
AMC
I for one am very skeptical of any belief, since facts are things which require no belief whatsoever to hold them as true. And in the face of ethical considerations - of any kind - I would sooner hold to something that is factual than ideological, for the simple sake of everyone around me. Because of that very standard I hold myself to -- one which is from my perspective rooted in the idea of compassion or understanding, I would want to hold accountable or keep in check those who do not hold such a standard of ethics (that is, I would want to keep in check those who would prefer the doctrine of their ideology over demonstrated facts). I also think that facts - more so than any ideology - are a binding or otherwise common ground for human thought. We can argue about the facts, but if we hold ourselves to a common method that is not sentimental about its own findings, we will always abandon what is no longer useful.
AMC
Last edited:
Ruv Draba
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,114
- Reaction score
- 1,322
Thanks to AMC for kicking this off. Here's my promised contribution.
My problem with ideology-as-policy is that it adapts itself to fit whatever facts come along. It takes a lot to check a zealot of whatever stripe; mere facts aren't enough. I'm not sure what is.
I much prefer methods to ideologies. A method is an approach that we can monitor, learn from, adapt and reuse. Methods are agnostic; they belong to everyone.
For example...
Suppose there's a study to show that prayer in schools encourages kids to get on better and learn better. (I'm not aware of such a study, but if there were it wouldn't surprise me, so let's say that there is).
Ideology might insist that only prayer can achieve this effect, and only prayer of a particular faith. Method explores whether prayer is better than singing or meditation or breathing exercises, say... and how long a prayer, and what kinds of ideas need to be in the prayer. Ideology uses discoveries to support its own supremacy; method says 'how interesting -- what might we do with that'.
To compound the problem, if ideology appropriates a result then everyone offended by that ideology will oppose the result even if the result itself is in their interests.
In this way does ideology claim the terrain of human thought until every idea and piece of knowledge ends up carrying some tribal brand, instead of the ideas belonging to everyone, to use as they see fit. Even when we're not predisposed to having an ideological view about a matter, the presence of strident ideology often induces us to take a position.
Politics are seldom about accuracy, and much more about influence. If a candidate can gain influence by professing faith in the absurd then he will generally at least acknowledge that the absurd is a possibility. If supporting the absurd is necessary to gain office then he'll at least attack the anti-absurdists for being intolerant. And it's in this way that a position of 'reject absurdity' suddenly becomes ideology -- even though common sense tells us that rejection of absurdity is not an ideological position; it's simply human pragmatism.
My problem with ideology-as-policy is that it adapts itself to fit whatever facts come along. It takes a lot to check a zealot of whatever stripe; mere facts aren't enough. I'm not sure what is.
I much prefer methods to ideologies. A method is an approach that we can monitor, learn from, adapt and reuse. Methods are agnostic; they belong to everyone.
For example...
Suppose there's a study to show that prayer in schools encourages kids to get on better and learn better. (I'm not aware of such a study, but if there were it wouldn't surprise me, so let's say that there is).
Ideology might insist that only prayer can achieve this effect, and only prayer of a particular faith. Method explores whether prayer is better than singing or meditation or breathing exercises, say... and how long a prayer, and what kinds of ideas need to be in the prayer. Ideology uses discoveries to support its own supremacy; method says 'how interesting -- what might we do with that'.
To compound the problem, if ideology appropriates a result then everyone offended by that ideology will oppose the result even if the result itself is in their interests.
In this way does ideology claim the terrain of human thought until every idea and piece of knowledge ends up carrying some tribal brand, instead of the ideas belonging to everyone, to use as they see fit. Even when we're not predisposed to having an ideological view about a matter, the presence of strident ideology often induces us to take a position.
Politics are seldom about accuracy, and much more about influence. If a candidate can gain influence by professing faith in the absurd then he will generally at least acknowledge that the absurd is a possibility. If supporting the absurd is necessary to gain office then he'll at least attack the anti-absurdists for being intolerant. And it's in this way that a position of 'reject absurdity' suddenly becomes ideology -- even though common sense tells us that rejection of absurdity is not an ideological position; it's simply human pragmatism.
Last edited:
I've watched various relatives reject Christianity only to fall prey to New Age hogwash. It isn't pretty. Such people tend to be just as defensive of their irrational beliefs as anyone who believes in the Judeo-Christian monogod. I don't know why this happens; perhaps that's a topic for yet another thread.
Ideology is a more general thing. I think ideology wouldn't be so bad if the axioms on which a particular ideology is based would be eliminated when shown to be ineffectual, but ideologues do not do this. They cling to their ideas, come hell or high water. That's the whole point, after all: ideologies are based on belief, not on fact.
So, naturally, I'd say facts are better. Facts don't care whether you believe in them or not. Toward that end, we have developed a number of systems for using facts and reasoning to understand the world. We ought to use these systems to the exclusion of belief, but we don't. Ideology, especially in a political context, loves to stick its nose into, e.g., science, and the results from such systems may therefore become warped to fit the belief influencing them. This can have all sorts of nasty consequences.
Do I trust chief executives who admit that superstition guides policy? No, of course not. But the US won't be getting over that problem for a while.
Ideology is a more general thing. I think ideology wouldn't be so bad if the axioms on which a particular ideology is based would be eliminated when shown to be ineffectual, but ideologues do not do this. They cling to their ideas, come hell or high water. That's the whole point, after all: ideologies are based on belief, not on fact.
So, naturally, I'd say facts are better. Facts don't care whether you believe in them or not. Toward that end, we have developed a number of systems for using facts and reasoning to understand the world. We ought to use these systems to the exclusion of belief, but we don't. Ideology, especially in a political context, loves to stick its nose into, e.g., science, and the results from such systems may therefore become warped to fit the belief influencing them. This can have all sorts of nasty consequences.
Do I trust chief executives who admit that superstition guides policy? No, of course not. But the US won't be getting over that problem for a while.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 2,139
- Reaction score
- 429
Initially, I read the title of this post as idiotology vs humanity. The reason I read it this way is because my brain has been working overtime sorting through mounds of idiotic ideology and moronic human behavior. There are times, like now, when I begin to wonder if the ideological concept is logical thought and rational action.
Rhys Cordelle wrote that, "Policy should be formed based on who we are today, not who we were centuries ago."
Would doing so make enough of a difference? In my opinion, a majority would continue to behave as if they were from some uneducated civilization, centuries ago.
Take for example my comment in another post where I pointed out that it may take an act of God to get hand washing statistics up. In this case, and regardless of solid scientific proof, masses of people continue to disregard doing what needs to be done. When there is a great deal of difficulty in compliance with something as basic as hand washing, I have to ward off the development of cynical attitudes about humanity where the capacity to do the right thing, scientifically, is concerned.
If we base policy on the concept of who we are today, would it include hand washing? No, not if who we are is defined by the realistic what is of a majority. In the case of hand washing, as it currently stands, that which is logical and rational is ideal as opposed to real.
It is not the chief executive who professes the value of ancient superstitions in the forming of policy that I have issue with. What Roger Ebert proposes to be new is not new. I ask you to consider what is new about competition, scientific struggle and the maintenance of ancient superstitions?
The emerging, which is not new, is a foundational issue within the scientific community. The issue being hypocrisy and not that hypocrisy is only now rearing its ugly head in opposition to science. Instead, our focus now allows us to see the Nessie (Loch Ness Monster) lurking within evidence based waters.
Gehanna
Rhys Cordelle wrote that, "Policy should be formed based on who we are today, not who we were centuries ago."
Would doing so make enough of a difference? In my opinion, a majority would continue to behave as if they were from some uneducated civilization, centuries ago.
Take for example my comment in another post where I pointed out that it may take an act of God to get hand washing statistics up. In this case, and regardless of solid scientific proof, masses of people continue to disregard doing what needs to be done. When there is a great deal of difficulty in compliance with something as basic as hand washing, I have to ward off the development of cynical attitudes about humanity where the capacity to do the right thing, scientifically, is concerned.
If we base policy on the concept of who we are today, would it include hand washing? No, not if who we are is defined by the realistic what is of a majority. In the case of hand washing, as it currently stands, that which is logical and rational is ideal as opposed to real.
It is not the chief executive who professes the value of ancient superstitions in the forming of policy that I have issue with. What Roger Ebert proposes to be new is not new. I ask you to consider what is new about competition, scientific struggle and the maintenance of ancient superstitions?
The emerging, which is not new, is a foundational issue within the scientific community. The issue being hypocrisy and not that hypocrisy is only now rearing its ugly head in opposition to science. Instead, our focus now allows us to see the Nessie (Loch Ness Monster) lurking within evidence based waters.
Gehanna
Last edited:
- Status