nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Ideology vs. Free Thought?

Denerick

Not that this thread should descend into another battle in the eternal libertarian/social democrat wars, but I've always found that people of certain ideological extremities of thought (Be they right or left wing) lack an ability to think outside the box, or consider ideas that may offend their natural ideological instincts. One of the reasons I love Orwell so much is that he was never afraid to tell his own socialist bedfellows to 'bugger off' from time to time.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

johnnyskeleton

Denerick wrote: »

Not that this thread should descend into another battle in the eternal libertarian/social democrat wars, but I've always found that people of certain ideological extremities of thought (Be they right or left wing) lack an ability to think outside the box, or consider ideas that may offend their natural ideological instincts. One of the reasons I love Orwell so much is that he was never afraid to tell his own socialist bedfellows to 'bugger off' from time to time.

Again not to derail the thread, but the battle is not between liberal and social democrats, but between ideologues and free thinkers. That's what leads to the "you've pointed out a flaw in my argument, therefore you must hate freedom" type nonsenses.

Denerick

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Again not to derail the thread, but the battle is not between liberal and social democrats, but between ideologues and free thinkers. That's what leads to the "you've pointed out a flaw in my argument, therefore you must hate freedom" type nonsenses.

I agree with you, but your supposed 'freethinker' is a form of ideology in itself. Being politically moderate is an ideological position, as is centrism (Being a centrist in Greece and being a centrist in the USA are two radically different positions)

Ideology defines everything. By free thinker I assume you mean somebody who takes a rational approach to problem solving and is unencumbered by ideological fixations. But that very lack of what could be described as 'base political principle' is in itself ideological and could make you an ideologue.

KyussBishop

By definition, anything that is a set of ideas, is ideological; so pretty much everything is ideological.

The standard to which all ideologies are judged though, is usually through empiricism (evidence) and scientific-reasoning/critical-thinking (which are ideologies themselves); so when something is labelled ideological, it's mainly judged that it doesn't adhere to these scientific ideologies (which isn't a bad thing, as nobody can seriously contest these basic scientific ideologies, as they are so well proven).

So, my connotation of ideological, would be that something doesn't follow the above scientific/critical evidence-based principals (often is promoted despite them), or where such principals/skepticism are only selectively used against competing ideologies, never against the promoted one (only to promote it not criticize it).

Eliot Rosewater

I think it's naive to suggest than anyone is a true "free thinker". Everyone operates under a certain set of assumptions and fixed beliefs. The "free thinker" approach used to be championed on this site by Amhran Nua under the banner of "aggressive centrism" and "pragmatism". But the "pragmatist" is not immune from ideological bias. Amhran Nua used to argue for the government to set up a Taitlean Games, a kind of Irish mini-Olympic games. They believed that they were being completely objective, almost scientific, and that the Games stood wholly on their own objective merits. But clearly there are ideological beliefs underlining those kind of policies, primarily that the government should make all taxpayers promote and engage with a particular brand of Irish culture. How is that not ideological?

I find on this site that sometimes people who have a moderate position, defined as some position near the status quo, think their views are somehow objectively correct because there are not that many people attacking their overall position (by the definition of moderate). The safe feeling of mostly only being challenged by "extremists" seems to create a little arrogance. Some of my views - such as my opposition to free third level education - throw me outside the status quo of my peer group, in this case third level students, and so, I think, allow me to see some of the hidden assumptions underlying certain moderate views than people with those views can't themselves see.

I think everyone should be aware of the ultimate premises that they base their beliefs on. Swinging back into the thread topic, I think that this can come about by reading opposing views honestly and realizing, perhaps, that views started from alternative premises to yours have a lot of merit, too.

I also think that the internet wars sort of prevent this. If you're reading alternative literature for the purposes of some internet war, as many here seem to do, then you're not going to be reading that literature honestly, full stop. (In my opinion

) Forums like Boards provide a good ground for learning about new views and having some of your preconceptions challenged, but I think ultimately that judging political philosophy is a solitary exercise.

KyussBishop

Ya immersing yourself in challenging views is good at uncovering some of your own biases and spurs thought/learning, which is why I find a lot of the debates here interesting to participate in, as it's lead me to read up on a lot of things I wouldn't otherwise have had an interest in.
It's nice when those discussions stay well grounded in debating competing facts, rather than asserting the validity of one system of ideals over another (or entering trenches), or selectively applying skepticism to only competing ideas.

As good as it is to stay relatively open minded to different ideas, it's pretty essential to apply a heavy dose of skepticism to all viewpoints, and have viewpoints prove themselves on their own merits (or fall on their demerits); important to acknowledge problems too.
This would include determining the reputation and credibility of sources of information before accepting the material; this bit, as I mentioned earlier (spinning off this side discussion), seems to lead to a lot of selective application of skepticism

johnnyskeleton

Denerick wrote: »

I agree with you, but your supposed 'freethinker' is a form of ideology in itself. Being politically moderate is an ideological position, as is centrism (Being a centrist in Greece and being a centrist in the USA are two radically different positions)

there's nothing wrong with ideology. The problem I have is with idelologues ie people who follow an ideology dogmatically and often without any thought or flexibility. In particular those who start with a fixed position eg the state should run everything or nothing, and then shape all views and situations to fit into this narrow construct.

You can't be a freethinking or centerist ideologue unless I suppose you obtusely refuse to accept obvious and uncontradicted views or you deliberately eschew leading towards one extreme or another in any circumstance.

But that very lack of what could be described as 'base political principle' is in itself ideological and could make you an ideologue.

It could make you an idealist but not an ideologue. I don't think the word ideologue, as commonly uderstood, could apply to someone who follows only their own political compass and is constantly open to change.

@Elliot Rosewater - what made Amhrain nua a free thinker is that he would think up an idea, challnge it and if it didn't stand up discard it. If he was afraid to suggest government should or should not act for fear that that would be seen as being ideologically driven then he wouldn't be able to have any ideas at all. To be an independent thinker you dot have to eschew the views and beliefs of others, you just have to carry out your own analysis and see what you agree with or not.

Which is why I hate people self describing as libertarians. It screams "I am vaguely against a lot of government waste and have read some Hayek and need a cool dousing name that will express my views so that I don't have to think about it". Ditto communist, anarchist etc, but libertarian is the Internet flavour of the moment. I have serious suspicions about people who feel their entire political views can be expressed by a label, even more ao those who try to redefine that label whenever it suits the debate.

As to the Internet wars, if you banned labels such as libertarian, communist etc I'm sure the quality of debate would rise immeasurably. People would have to say what they actually believe and why.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

With permission from the OP, I've pulled these posts out of the recommended book thread - this topic is worthy of discussion in and of itself.

[Deleted User]

Max Weber contended that no one was value free, consequently even those claiming "free thought" were value laden.

KyussBishop

Ya it's a good topic for a thread; the one issue I have, which I didn't explicitly touch on in my previous posts, is the idea that seems to imply everyone may be ideological, and that being a free thinker may not be possible due to unavoidable internal biases/assumptions.
Paraphrasing somewhat there, in a way I know may not accurately reflect what people meant in their posts, so please excuse if inaccurate; it's just the hint of an angle I felt may have been alluded to in these posts

There are a few issues with this, such as what you define as ideological (what my previous posts were about), and whether or not inaccurate assumptions/biases you hold can be judged as ideological, if you are open to challenging these assumptions/biases.
In my view, you could be on the extreme end of Libertarianism (even Anarchism) or Socialism, yet if you're willing to challenge your own assumptions/biases, and recognize when some of your beliefs are potentially emotionally or otherwise invested, and are able to admit that to yourself and others (i.e. are able to engage in critical thinking), you don't really have an ideological position.

Granted, you have to make a lot of assumptions and accept things on faith to get to those points of view in the first place (and it's a pretty big bias to put the burden of proof on disproving and ideology than proving it), but to me the judge of whether or not it (i.e. the person) is ideological is basically how much critical thinking is (or isn't) applied, and whether views are inflexibly held onto without skepticism, particularly if there's rejection or selective application of scientific/empirical study.

It's true though that nobody is free from hidden biases/assumptions, lots of which they aren't even aware of, and that when you accept any political (or other) set of ideas, there's always some amount of assumption/faith that it's groundwork is solid, but that doesn't disqualify the idea of free thinking in my view.
It depends on how much you apply skepticism and critical thinking to your own views and ideas, and how much you use the same plus research and evidence to judge the groundwork of your ideas.

Valmont

I take considerable interest in this issue, having been called an ideologue or an extremist numerous times here during many debates. (My feelings are hurt easily).

The issue, as I see it, is a misunderstanding of the nature of objective knowledge and, by extension, the scientific method (bear with me here!).

Those attacking other posters on the grounds that they are ideological (which happens a lot here) and not pragmatic or rational assume that each individual must be self-containedly rational, scientific, and detached from their personal beliefs or ideals; they must self-analyse in order to rise above their partialities. So regardless of the veracity of various libertarian or social-democratic positions, posters being forthcoming about their ideological influence are attacked exclusively for having those influences. JohnnySkeleton, for example, seems to take this essentially Hegelian position. (Which he has in common with Marxism and National Socialism, two ideologies built around supposedly transcending bias on the individual level in that they are the one true objective knowledge system, having looked closely at their own biases)

This approach ignores the huge role of the social aspect of the scientific method and its role in establishing greater and greater approximations to objective truth. We must always assume that each scientist, philosopher, or poster has biases and ideological factors influencing their positions at all times -- this is no less true of the natural sciences. Crucially however, it is the critical scientific approach each of us applies to another's position that determines the scientific character of our accumulated knowledge -- negating, if you will, the individual's bias by attacking their position rationally and critically. This is closely related to the method of falsification, and Popper's idea of conjecturing and refuting.

Denerick can't and shouldn't trust that I have looked objectively at my own positions, identified the biases, and proceeded to my libertarian position in a pure manner; much the same way I can't trust that he has done the same towards his position. What we can do however, is simply criticise each other's positions as rationally and critically as possible and in conjunction with everybody else doing the same, we know we are making scientific progress. For example, look at Permabear's influence on boards.ie in four short years.

What does this mean? Attacking posters for simply having an ideology or having a view that is different gets us nowhere. We need to stick to critical discussion of the issues in question and remember that painting someone as incorrect simply because they have expressed an ideological bias, but not on logical or critical grounds, assumes that we are above ideology which is probably the surest way of falling prey to an inflexible one.

This argument is contained in an essay by Sir Karl Popper (no libertarian, I can tell you that) called Against the Sociology of Knowledge for those interested. I only care so much because the usual nonsense of "oh you are just an ideologue or an extremist" doesn't get anybody any closer to any measure of truth but simply undermines the principle of critical rationalism which allows us to make progress in the first place!

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Valmont, there is a difference between people getting their backs up because they disagree with you and getting their backs up because you are taking what they see as potshots at them. Telling someone that they are an "angry Hegelian" or, as in previous threads, a Marxist, is not the way to encourage rational debate! Let people stake out their own positions, rather than labeling them as you see fit.

AngryLips

Is this possibly a mute discussion in the context of Irish politics when there is a total absence of idealogy in this country? In the history of the state we haven't exactly seen wild swings towards facism, communism etc that has dominated politics in modern European history that we see in some of our neighbours.

KyussBishop

While the social aspect inherent in criticism through the scientific community is important, the most important aspect of it is (from my point of view) the ability and willingness to apply that to yourself, constantly, and be able to be forthcoming in acknowledging faults etc.; that self-critical nature (or lack of) I think is one of the core separations defining ideologues.

That kind of self-criticism also extends to determining how much credibility to put in sources and their writing/research which support your views, particularly checking past reputational issues and such which would warrant requiring a higher burden of proof for their claims/writing (this goes for scientific research, individual authors, think tanks, even entire academic institutions; if a source has reputational issues it deserves very high scrutiny).

A lot of politically-motivated ideologies tend to have a selective attitude towards this, tending to only apply such critical/skeptical standards against views/sources that oppose them, and to have a selective attitude to supporting sources which negates reputational issues, prioritizing the supporting voice over reputational concerns.

Reputational issues don't immediately disqualify a source, and their arguments can still stand on their own merits of course, but the enhanced burden of proof required of such sources usually tends to come secondary to having the supporting voice, when it comes to politically motivated ideologies.

So, getting back to the point after that mini-tangent

The social side of the scientific process is still obviously important, but when lacking the individual self-criticism above (whatever the motive, be it political or simply some form of cognitive dissonance), the social side of the scientific process does not necessarily make any progress (as many discussions on Politics show, heh); things can get stalled in circular arguments, the debate can get muddied, and inflexible positions can get taken without much interest in resolving issues.

I've done a lot of reading on economics over the last half year, and the entire economics profession is a great example of this; much of it is very well grounded and very worthwhile, but there are key parts underpinning modern mainstream economic theory that are simply inaccurate/wrong, and which is resisting reform for many politically (and academic-career) motivated reasons, and it's taking decades to get over this.

Interestingly, the same thing can happen in the natural sciences as well, such as string theory in physics right now; there is absolutely no evidence backing string theory, and it is so complicated and undeveloped that it is highly unlikely there will be any way of testing or trying to disprove it within our lifetimes, but it is sucking up a disproportionate amount of theoretical physics research because a lot of people have invested so much of their academic careers (and lives) in researching it, and are still holding onto it at the expense of researching other potentially more fruitful theories.

Even one of the most fundamental and successful natural sciences is mired in that kind of politics, with the open question of whether or not string theory qualifies as science anymore, seeing as it's simply not falsifiable (and does not look like it will be anytime soon).

So anyway, what this shows is that while the social side of the scientific process is important, it is also mired in politics, and the core underpinning of it all starts with a willingness for open individual self-criticism; in order to make any progress in science (and most debates), the most important part is being able to self-criticize and openly acknowledge problems (and it's precisely the lack of that which tends to highlight ideologues).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Debtocracy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Marx – 6, Lenin - 2, Communism – 2, Soviet Russia – 1, North Korea – 1

Surely Stalin had a role to play somewhere?

It is true that there is no such thing as free thought. However, the real question is where one stands on the continuum between ideology and free-thought, between cognitive rigidity and flexibility.

There are four general barriers that I can see which impede rational thought and free thinking with regard to politics.

1) It is cognitively tiring. To be constantly rational would be equivalent to running everywhere instead of walking. It is more efficient to just consider oneself a member of political group X and extrapolate your views based on the core values rather than making rational judgements about every situation.
2) Our political views are an expression of our social identity and when they are attacked our status is attacked. We therefore have a drive to protect our political viewpoints in order to protect our status.
3) Humans have a drive towards cognitive consistency. It would feel very strange and confusing if our values and beliefs were constantly fluctuating day to day based on the evidence we receive (Socialist Thursday, Libertarian Friday). We usually require an excessive quantity of disconfirming evidence before we change our views.
4) There is no clear criterion to judge the value of a political view. Should it be evaluated in dollars, the physical well-being of people, the mental/subjective well-being of people, social cohesion etc. In such a context, I can pick and choose the criterion that my viewpoint performs best on.

Valmont

Debtocracy, I'm confused as to what point you are trying to make?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You have got to be joking. I've witnessed you on these very boards argue against scientific fact, all because libertarian think tanks peddle dodgy science. What happened there then? Did this much vaunted libertarian logic desert you? I'll give you consistency though, you have that one pretty much nailed.

Also, I enjoyed it when you talked about emotive rhetoric and then descended into an orgy of the very same.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

You seem to claim your and the Libertarian movements position as one of unimpeachable rationality, despite your repeated generalizations of other peoples views to such a high degree, and when there are massive reputational concerns throughout the Libertarian movement; doesn't matter how widely read someone is, what they have a Ph.D in, or how well versed in logical fallacies they are, if they (knowingly or unknowingly) routinely apply fallacious reasoning themselves.

You seem to, a priori, discard everything that can be remotely associated with Marxism or socialism in general, as if those philosophies (in whole) underlie the core motivations behind every policy you associate with them; that's fallacious in itself, and is a big (and often repeated) misrepresentation of peoples views.

That's far from the highly rational/logical position you claim to hold; there seems to be a lack of self-criticism there, towards your own views and to Libertarianism itself (particularly sources supporting it), like what I elaborated on earlier in my previous posts.
Critical standards applied to other peoples arguments/views, don't seem to be applied to yourself or your own views.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Supporting the right to spread what amounts to (and let us be honest about it) lies, in the face of cold hard scientific fact is not rational.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You got a match?

edit: I'm also not arguing that religion is rational, you are however pushing the line that libertarianism is rational.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That is a good example, of tenuously connecting stuff to Marxism, and just saying "yep, that's all wrong" and then try to frame me into a position of defending Marxism/Socialism wholesale; there's isn't any logic to that, it's entirely fallacious.

Every policy, whether it can be tied to Marxism/Socialism or not, either stands or falls on its own merit; you can't take something like the minimum wage, and say "that's Marxist; next.", you need to evaluate it's purpose, whether it successfully fills that purpose, and whether or not it's desireable over alternatives; all of that is usually decided by collecting evidence/data and evaluating it, not by trying to a-priori 'disprove' it by associating it with flawed political/economic ideologies.

There's an extremely wide range of individual policies associated with Marxism/Socialism, many of them independant of the flawed aspects of Marxism, so it really doesn't make any logical sense to discard them all wholesale like that; simple fallacy of guilt by association.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Because the issue of linking people's political positions to theorists that they do not affiliate with seems likely to spill over into more squabbling, I'd like to highlight the discussion on this thread:

Scofflaw wrote: »

Your problem - or the problem other posters are having with you - isn't complicated. By and large, the problem is one of self-identification. I don't object to someone pointing out that I'm a Green, or a social democrat, because I self-identify as both of those things.

But I could well find you telling me that such and such an idea of mine is 'Marxist' or 'Hegelian' annoying, even if the ideas in question have been expressed by those thinkers. I would also object if you told me my ideas were derived from Monbiot.

It's irrelevant to me whether those ideas have been expressed before and by whom unless I have picked them up from those thinkers and am aware of that fact - otherwise, it's just going to annoy me, because you are implicitly assigning to me a whole raft of other ideological ideas derived from those sources, as well as an admiration for those sources.

That's why the posters concerned claim to be free of ideology - because they are. Their espousal of an idea you identify as Hegelian isn't part of a Hegelian ideological stance, but simply an isolated idea that they approve of. You have no right to expect them to espouse other facets of that ideological opinion, and your belief that they're contradicting themselves by not doing so, or by espousing ideas from another ideological stance, says that the confusion is on your part. You're trying to label people neatly by ideological stance, and since the people concerned genuinely don't have an ideological stance but a grab-bag of ideas - often contradictory - it annoys them, and rightly so.

So there's no point, either, in refuting what the thinker you associate the idea with said about the idea, because the poster in question is not espousing their position but their own - spending your time attacking what Marx said about control of the means of production is of no relevance to someone who happens to think more worker co-ops are a nice idea but didn't derive the idea from Marx. I like the idea myself, but don't derive it from Marxist ideas about control of production - I like it because I believe people should be self-guiding and responsible, and it would annoy the hell out of me for someone to call my view 'Marxist' or to ascribe to me a Marxist ideological stance simply because at a very shallow level an idea I like happens to parallel one of Marx's ideological principles.

Further, there's no particular point pointing out how their espousal of idea A conflicts with their espousal of idea B. The whole point of ideologies is to provide a set of non-conflicting and ideally mutually reinforcing ideas based on a principle - but without an ideological stance to maintain, there is simply no requirement for people to have consistent or non-conflicting ideas.

The remedy is simple enough from a modding point of view - you should refrain from telling people they're Hegelians or Marxists based on the idea they espouse unless they self-identify as those things, because it's inaccurate and annoying.

Take people's ideas as presented by them, don't ascribe them to someone else unless they do, don't waste everyone's time attacking positions you ascribe to people on the basis of your attribution of their ideas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Please be mindful of this when posting.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.