Can a sophisticated individual rise above ideology?

coberst

Well-Known Member
Messages
427
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Can a sophisticated individual rise above ideology?

All thought is saturated with egocentric and sociocentric presuppositions. That is, all thought contains highly motivating bias centered in the self or in ideologies such as political, religious, and economic theories. Some individuals are conscious of these internal forces but most people are not.

Those individuals who are conscious of these biases within their thinking can try to rid their judgments of that influence. Those who are not conscious, or little conscious of such bias, are bound to display a significant degree of irrational tendencies in their judgments.

“Can the intellectual, who is supposed to have a special and perhaps professional concern with truth, escape from or rise above the partiality and distortions of ideology?”

An intellectual might be properly defined as those who are primarily or professionally concerned with matters of the mind and the imagination but who are socially non-attached. “The intellectual is thought of not as someone who displays great mental or imaginative ability but as someone who applies those abilities in more general areas such as religion, philosophy and social and political issues. It is the involvement in general and controversy outside of a specialization that is considered as the hallmark of an intellectual; it is a matter of choice of self definition, choice is supreme here.”

Even anti-ideological is ideological. If partisanship can be defended servility cannot; many have allowed themselves to become the tools of others.

We have moved into an age when the university is no longer an ivory tower and knowledge is king but knowledge has become a commodity and educators have become instruments of power; the university has become a privately owned think-tank.

“A profound change in the intellectual community itself is inherent in this development. The largely humanist-oriented, occasionally ideological minded intellectual dissenter , who saw his role largely in terms of proffering social critiques, is rapidly being displaced either by experts and specialist, who become involved in special government undertakings, or by generalist-integrators, who become house-ideologues for those in power, providing overall intellectual integration for disparate actions.”

The subordination to power is not just at the individual level but also at the institutional level. Government funds are made available to universities and colleges not for use as they deem fit but for specific government needs. Private industry plays even a larger role in providing funds for educational institutions to perform management and business study. Private industry is not inclined ‘to waste’ money on activities that do not contribute to the bottom line. ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’



Thomas Kuhn, in his famous book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, explains the difficult we have with recognizing and accepting experiences that contradict our anticipations.

As Kuhn observed:
“Novelty emerges with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a back drop provided by expectation. Initially, only the anticipated and usual are experienced even under circumstances where anomaly is later to be discovered…Further acquaintance, however, does result of awareness of something wrong…[which] opens a period in which perceptual categories are adjusted until the initially anomalous has become the anticipated.”

He concludes: “What a man sees depends upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see.”

Kuhn provides us with an experiment performed by Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman undertaken to illuminate this human characteristic of seeing only what we are prepared to see.

Subjects were shown standard playing cards mixed with the anomalous card a red six of spades and a black four of hearts. Subjects repeatedly and erroneously identified the anomalous cards as a six of hearts or a four of spades. Some, even after the experiment was over, displayed confusion and even anger at the experiment. Only after repeated exposures to the cards did the subjects slowly feel something was askew here. Only after forty exposures did the subjects correctly identify the cards.

Quotes and ideas from “Knowledge and Belief in Politics” Bhikhu Parekh
 
Hi Coberst, I was actually thinking of starting a thread on a similar theme. When I first read Louis Althusser in university about a decade ago I became interested in the struggle to become free of ideology. It is a rather confusing notion though, especially as each thinker defines ideology/power/discourse differently. I don't think it is necessarily intellectuals who are able to free themsleves from the forces that mold our personalities.
An abiding concern of mine is to understand what is involved in being an authentic individual. What does it mean to be true to oneself if all of our personalities are determined by discourses, ideologies, or power holders? I want to expose the stark contrast between a world where being true to oneself means acting the way one has been taught to act, and a world where being true to oneself means connecting with the core of one's being. It is my hope that the world we are living in is one where each of us does have an inner core that transcends the power struggles of society. And I believe that if each of us has a transcendent inner core, all of our spiritual centers must connect to each other and to the spiritual center of reality.

For me it is a matter of turning inward and connecting with this spiritual core that allows for the possibility of freedom. Also, I believe that becoming any kind of a genuine artist involves this inward turn away from these forces that mold us.
 
Sancho

Amen brother/sister, we speak the same language.

I would like to read what ever comments you might wish to make regarding the following message.

We have many problems bearing down upon us that have the strength to destroy our civilization and perhaps even worse. Just to mention a few obvious ones: WMDs, global climate change, consuming our natural resources at a rate way beyond the planet’s ability to replace them, a population that is already too large for the planet and growing, an ever increasing percentage of the population in old age, health care constantly rising in cost due to old age of population and increases in medical technology, our financial house of cards facilitated by technology, technology uncontrolled by socially sophisticated analysis, etc.

Our educational system prepares us only to become good producers and consumers. Our culture encourages only that which will maximize consumption. Our educational system does not prepare us for the intellectual sophistication required to comprehend and solve the problems that we face.

The only solution that I see is that adults must take it upon themselves to become more intellectually sophisticated. To become more sophisticated, Americans must become self-actualizing self-learners.

Our culture represents as alien any intellectual activity not directed toward making money or worshiping God. I post on the Internet in an attempt to convince readers of these facts and to present a role model for any individual who might consider becoming a self-actualizing self-learner.

"When you are right, you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
Coberst,

I think you could have also called this thread: "A sophisticated individual must rise above ideology".

I heard a quote some time ago, "If two people think alike all the time, one of them is doing all the thinking".

I have thought of this quote many times in the ensuing years because how often do we meet two people or even groups who all seem to think alike. And I often thought differently. :confused:

Surprisingly, this quote was attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson. He was a feisty old guy :D
 
Coberst,

I think you could have also called this thread: "A sophisticated individual must rise above ideology".

I heard a quote some time ago, "If two people think alike all the time, one of them is doing all the thinking".

I have thought of this quote many times in the ensuing years because how often do we meet two people or even groups who all seem to think alike. And I often thought differently. :confused:

Surprisingly, this quote was attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson. He was a feisty old guy :D

I have discovered that young people often think alike. For some reason they think that being negative is being cool. If I post X is false they will answer with X is true. Even though it is evident that they do not know X from O.
 
Can a sophisticated individual rise above ideology?

Given that ideology is the "science of ideas" I think that such is not possible.
The best we can hope for is that as an individual evolves into a greater sophistication, their ideas will evolve along with them.
But what you are asking really depends on how you define ideology.
You seem to define it in a negative context which implies that it is a handicap in thinking to have an ideology and it needs to be put aside.
But that is just another idea.
 
Hello all.

My first remark is to say that I don't like the highfalutin connotations around the words 'sophisticated' and 'intellectual'. As for the word 'ideology', I believe I know what you, coberst, mean by it. It is a very problematic word, however, as it leads to more confusion than clarity.

I will try to rephrase the problem that this thread addresses. The common understanding of how each of us forms a sense of self is that we are born with a certain genetic make-up which contributes to a personality that is then shaped by parents, schools, churches, and the wider community we grow up in. At a some point, each teenager is expected to become an autonomous individual who can form her own opinions about the world and make sound decisions about her own life and about how the world should should be.
Some more recent approaches to self-hood in philosophy and cognitive science see our minds as not merely contained in our brains but spread throughout our fields of perception. Everything in my apartment is a trigger that re-enforces my sense of self in some way, and signals me to certain actions. For example when I get up in the morning and stumble over to my stove in a fog, the presence of my kettle is signal that I should fill it with water, turn on a burner, and rinse out my tea pot. That kettle serves as part of my mind not only in signaling my morning actions, but its connotations remind me of certain family traditions and re-enforces a particular self-image. Alternatively, if I had left my Italian stove-top espresso pot on the stove (which I haven't been using because of a burnt out washer) it would signal a slightly different action and remind me of the time I spent in Italy, re-enforcing a slightly different self-image.
When I walk down the street, the architecture, the fashion styles of people I encounter, the body language of those people, the litter on the sidewalks, the messages on billboards all serve as symbols that affect my sense of self in some way and so enter my mind --that is, my mind meshes with everything I see, hear, touch, taste, and smell.
When powerful corporations take an interest in shaping the community I live in they are in effect shaping my mind, shaping the way I think, talk, and make life decisions. Affecting desire is the main objective of the advertising industry afterall. To be free, something has to be done to counter this shaping.
Certianly raising awarness is key to becoming free of the forces that attempt to make us into who they want us to be. Introspection, a particular kind of awarness, is important for analyzing what has shaped my sense of self to this point and what could be intrinsically me --what is native to my soul. I believe that along with trying to connect with my soul and reject whatever outer influences are oppressive, it is also important to be continually re-creating myself --bringing out more of my soul, sheding more of what has affected me that I no longer want to be affected by, and choosing random outer influences that I do want to identify with and be changed by.

Also, I believe that developing a genuine sense of conscience is key to being free of forces that want to wash our brains with their brandname soap. So long as there is someone who will stand up to injustice there is hope of freedom.
 
Can a sophisticated individual rise above ideology?

Given that ideology is the "science of ideas" I think that such is not possible.
The best we can hope for is that as an individual evolves into a greater sophistication, their ideas will evolve along with them.
But what you are asking really depends on how you define ideology.
You seem to define it in a negative context which implies that it is a handicap in thinking to have an ideology and it needs to be put aside.
But that is just another idea.

What is an ideology? American politics is often ideological. Often social theories become ideologies because few people have the ability to think critically and thus become mere ideologues. The ideologue is a spinner, either because s/he knows no better or because it serves their interest.
 
Can a sophisticated individual rise above ideology?

Define "sophisticated." Seems to me one must be immersed in ideology in order to claim any significant degree of "sophistication."

Kuhn provides us with an experiment performed by Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman undertaken to illuminate this human characteristic of seeing only what we are prepared to see.

Subjects were shown standard playing cards mixed with the anomalous card a red six of spades and a black four of hearts. Subjects repeatedly and erroneously identified the anomalous cards as a six of hearts or a four of spades. Some, even after the experiment was over, displayed confusion and even anger at the experiment. Only after repeated exposures to the cards did the subjects slowly feel something was askew here. Only after forty exposures did the subjects correctly identify the cards.

Quotes and ideas from “Knowledge and Belief in Politics” Bhikhu Parekh

I read Kuhn's work, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." I wrote an essay based on that seminal work. It still resides in my personal library.

I don't recall this experiment...would you mind citing chapter and page please? It seems to me an experiment using off colored playing cards is more the purview of psychology, not the "hard" sciences Kuhn wrote about in his book.
 
I think you could have also called this thread: "A sophisticated individual must rise above ideology".

I heard a quote some time ago, "If two people think alike all the time, one of them is doing all the thinking".

I have thought of this quote many times in the ensuing years because how often do we meet two people or even groups who all seem to think alike. And I often thought differently. :confused:

Surprisingly, this quote was attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson. He was a feisty old guy :D

I'm inclined to go along with Shawn on this one though, in that sophistication necessarily demands immersion in one or another ideology. I like your quote, and there is a ring of truth to it. But we must also be prepared to accept that many of "our" thoughts are indeed not actually ours at all. And this is not a bad thing...otherwise we would have to reinvent the wheel at every turn. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" I believe is a phrase I recently heard around here somewhere, but I am at a loss who to attribute to just now.

I think perhaps the concept might be better formulated, taking into consideration that ideology is not inherently a bad thing, indeed it is a necessary thing. The choice then is *which* ideology to build a sophistication from.

I have discovered that young people often think alike. For some reason they think that being negative is being cool. If I post X is false they will answer with X is true. Even though it is evident that they do not know X from O.

There are contrary people of every age, some because of teenage angst, some by brain injury or disease process. Regardless, reverse psychology works on some individuals.

Given that ideology is the "science of ideas" I think that such is not possible.
The best we can hope for is that as an individual evolves into a greater sophistication, their ideas will evolve along with them.
But what you are asking really depends on how you define ideology.
You seem to define it in a negative context which implies that it is a handicap in thinking to have an ideology and it needs to be put aside.
But that is just another idea.

I see this the same. The OP wishes only to insert a substitute ideology in the place of what s/he perceives is a faulty ideology, but fails to note their own ideology because effort is expended in casting an unfavorable light on ideology, and since the usurping ideology cannot be seen in an unfavorable light, we dare not call it what it is...I sense something Orwellian rather than profound.

As for the word 'ideology', I believe I know what you, coberst, mean by it. It is a very problematic word, however, as it leads to more confusion than clarity.
Agreed.

I will try to rephrase the problem that this thread addresses. The common understanding of how each of us forms a sense of self is that we are born with a certain genetic make-up which contributes to a personality that is then shaped by parents, schools, churches, and the wider community we grow up in. At a some point, each teenager is expected to become an autonomous individual who can form her own opinions about the world and make sound decisions about her own life and about how the world should should be.

This is a natural and normal process...indeed, when this process goes haywire it denotes a mental illness.

When powerful corporations take an interest in shaping the community I live in they are in effect shaping my mind, shaping the way I think, talk, and make life decisions. Affecting desire is the main objective of the advertising industry afterall. To be free, something has to be done to counter this shaping.

Certianly raising awarness is key to becoming free of the forces that attempt to make us into who they want us to be.

Interesting thing about corporations shaping communities...they use Behavioral psych. And in Behavioral psych, they can't *make* you do anything you don't already want to do. They do not instill a desire that does not already exist, they merely fan the flames of an existing desire. They don't shape communities per se, they just tell communities that their wanton and hedonistic desires are not only OK, but that they can fulfill them. And then they do fulfill them, until next time... John B. Watson is the name to look for in this.

Introspection, a particular kind of awarness, is important for analyzing what has shaped my sense of self to this point and what could be intrinsically me --what is native to my soul. I believe that along with trying to connect with my soul and reject whatever outer influences are oppressive, it is also important to be continually re-creating myself --bringing out more of my soul, sheding more of what has affected me that I no longer want to be affected by, and choosing random outer influences that I do want to identify with and be changed by.

Also, I believe that developing a genuine sense of conscience is key to being free of forces that want to wash our brains with their brandname soap. So long as there is someone who will stand up to injustice there is hope of freedom.

Sure, but that is an ideology unto itself, no?

Such self disciplined introspection helps one to come to terms with outside influences, to see them for what they are. Knowing is half of the battle. Forewarned is forearmed, and all that. But included in that is the realization that advertising psych works not because of some voodoo witchcraft, but because we have hedonist tendencies to fulfill our fantasies, wants and desires...*ours*...we already possess. We have to learn to see these tendencies in ourselves for what they are, and discipline ourselves accordingly.

What is an ideology? American politics is often ideological. Often social theories become ideologies because few people have the ability to think critically and thus become mere ideologues. The ideologue is a spinner, either because s/he knows no better or because it serves their interest.

Is this not spin? Is this not evasion of the simple, basic question? ;) :D If I may ask again outright...what is an ideology? Better yet...what is your definition of ideology? And how is your ideology *not* an ideology?
 
Define "sophisticated." Seems to me one must be immersed in ideology in order to claim any significant degree of "sophistication."



I read Kuhn's work, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." I wrote an essay based on that seminal work. It still resides in my personal library.

I don't recall this experiment...would you mind citing chapter and page please? It seems to me an experiment using off colored playing cards is more the purview of psychology, not the "hard" sciences Kuhn wrote about in his book.


I think that we can usefully use the handyman and his tool box as an analogy for communicating my meaning for the word “sophistication”.

If we think of the contents of the handyman’s toolbox as indicating his intelligence and the number of tools that he has the experience and skill to use well as an indication of his sophistication you can see what I mean by sophistication.

Each handyman is born with a box full of tools, some handymen have more tools and some have less. It is the case that no handyman has developed the experience and skill to use all the tools in the box. If the handyman has only learned to hammer stuff then he is very unsophisticated and will hammer any job he tries to do. The more tools that he is experienced and skilled with the more jobs he can do well.


I shall try to find that reference.

See my new post, which will clarify the meaning of ideology.
 
I think I see where the OP is going here, and yes, in deconstructing the content we see ideas turning into more ideas, soon we will be awash in more thought.
But turning aside from the pointing signs that ideas are, what is it we are looking at? And who is doing the looking?
Obviously looking is happening, there is awareness, and the more complete the more comprehensive the looking is, the more is seen.
Then there is awareness that ideas spawn more ideas, there is awareness that what is called me is engaged in "thinking"
But the very fact that a "me" is seen describes it as an object, no?

All this is very obvious, so much so that it is overlooked, dismissed out of hand because it lacks the complexity of interweaving thoughts. And yet it remains, the deeper and more accurate is the looking, the more awareness sees what is really happening, this is how it it known that "I" am engaged in ideology, and that there might be some advantages and disadvantages in doing so.

Kind of like the old saying, before enlightenment I was a total ass, now after enlightenment, I'm an ass but there is awareness of it! ;)

BTW Juan, "I stand on the shoulders of giants" -Newton
 
Kind of like the old saying, before enlightenment I was a total ass, now after enlightenment, I'm an ass but there is awareness of it! ;)

This is a key element of consideration, one I think few care to consider.

BTW Juan, "I stand on the shoulders of giants" -Newton

Thank you for that, I thought it was you who brought it forward some time ago.
 
Back
Top