Can you reason with the ideological?

[Satya]

Is it possible to reason with those that are driven by ideology?

Is it a fool's errand to try to persuade those who intuitively follow a political or spiritual dogma rather than logic and critical thought?

Can some people imagine ideas so beautiful that they seem worthy or self evident in themselves even if they are impractical, false, and unrealistic in reality? If so, how can someone persuade an individual to look past the superficial beauty of an idea to the pragmatics of it?

 

[dream echo]

Can some people imagine ideas so beautiful that they seem worthy or self evident in themselves even if they are impractical, false, and unrealistic in reality?

Absolutely.

If so, how can someone persuade an individual to look past the superficial beauty of an idea to the pragmatics of it?

People see what they want to. I don't think you can make someone see anything else until they're ready to, particularly when they don't want to acknowledge it.

I admit I'm curious to know what events brought these questions to mind, [MENTION=20]Satya[/MENTION].

 

[Satya]

I admit I'm curious to know what events brought these questions to mind, @Satya .

It is simply the bane of my day to day existence as a frustrated, pragmatic individual living in a world filled with people making important decisions based on intuitively accepted dogmas.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Is it possible to reason with those that are driven by ideology?

Is it a fool's errand to try to persuade those who intuitively follow a political or spiritual dogma rather than logic and critical thought?

Can some people imagine ideas so beautiful that they seem worthy or self evident in themselves even if they are impractical, false, and unrealistic in reality? If so, how can someone persuade an individual to look past the superficial beauty of an idea to the pragmatics of it?

It is probably first necessary to come to terms with one's own ideology.

If that first step is not taken, it will always be impossible to logically reason with anyone who does not completely share your world-view.

As for the difference between the practical and speculative sciences - the more practical always relies on the more speculative. If this were not the case, engineering would only ever operate under the assumptions of newtonian physics and would not have advanced beyond it.

 

[Satya]

It is probably first necessary to come to terms with one's own ideology.

If that first step is not taken, it will always be impossible to logically reason with anyone who does not completely share your world-view.

As for the difference between the practical and speculative sciences - the more practical always relies on the more speculative. If this were not the case, engineering would only ever operate under the assumptions of newtonian physics and would not have advanced beyond it.

I'm not arguing that intuition has no value. It is the source of creativity and inspiration. However, the ability to imagine relationships and connections does not mean they always exist. And once an individual chooses a purely intuitive concept by which to dictate their course through life, they have forsaken reason. At that point reason only exists to rationalize the affect they have attached to their intuitively accepted dogma and to protect it from doubt.

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

I'm not arguing that intuition has no value. It is the source of creativity and inspiration. However, the ability to imagine relationships and connections does not mean they always exist. And once an individual chooses a purely intuitive concept by which to dictate their course through life, they have forsaken reason. At that point reason only exists to rationalize the affect they have attached to their intuitively accepted dogma and to protect it from doubt.

But you have chosen a purely intuitive concept to live your life. Ideology is inescapable as much for you as anyone else. I'm not just being cheap here, I think I just don't know what you're getting at. Can you offer examples?

 

[randomsomeone]

To me logic always seems an ineffective way to approach such things. Whose logic...based on whose assumptions (these are often not fully formed)? Logic does not go far enough when ideas are based on life experiences and matters that stem from within. We may not understand something logically, but our heart and experience may tell us something is there, even though we cannot articulate or analyze it systematically.

 

[Satya]

But you have chosen a purely intuitive concept to live your life. Ideology is inescapable as much for you as anyone else. I'm not just being cheap here, I think I just don't know what you're getting at. Can you offer examples?

Could you first explain what purely intuitive concept I have chosen to live my life by? I like to play with intuition and sometimes even joke at starting my own religion but I'm not driven by any dogma.

 

[Satya]

We may not understand something logically, but our heart and experience may tell us something is there, even though we cannot articulate or analyze it systematically.

That is intuition. It is always going to tell us there is something else. That is what evolution designed it to do. Intuition is a survival mechanism that allows us to quickly recognize patterns. A noise in the brush could just be the wind, but for those who recognized that it could also be a tiger, they were able to survive and reproduce thereby ensuring genes survived that allows us to make connections that may or may not exist. Those who didn't have that ability were eaten.

It also allowed us to be creative and to innovate new ways to use things in our environment. We could intuit ways to invent new tools and machines. We could even use it to speculate about abstract concepts and look for ways to connect seemingly unrelated concepts and formulate entirely new philosophies.

However, intuition has a downside. It is heavily confirmation biased. It doesn't matter if 99 times out of a 100 there is no tiger in the brush, we will only remember the 1 time there actually was a tiger. It also utilizes the imagination which means we can create concepts that don't actually exist and believe that they actually do. Through history there have been people who really did believe in unicorns, Gods, dragons, wizards, and so forth simply because our imaginations created those concepts out of our intuition.

Whenever we have trouble understanding any concept, out intuition tries to find a suitable answer. But intuition alone is a poor substitute for reasoning and logic. For example, out of intuition Hippocrates argued that there were four humors that needed to be balanced for good health. That became the philosophy for medicine for hundreds of years and bleeding and leaching were the treatments that resulted. Our 1st president was bled to death under this form of medicine. But with reasoning and logic we were able to move from the purely intuitive humor idea to antibiotics, pain killers, and surgeries that are saving lives by the thousands today.

The problem I have is the one faced by all pragmatic people. How do you take people from traditional ideas or ideas of their own invention to ideas based on sound and valid reasoning and evidence?

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

Could you first explain what purely intuitive concept I have chosen to live my life by? I like to play with intuition and sometimes even joke at starting my own religion but I'm not driven by any dogma.

We are all driven by dogma.

It depends how you use the word. We are nothing without our ingrained belief system but that belief system isn't ours, it's come from the outside, possibly from many different sources so that it can appear to be personal but everybody is following a dogma. None of it is real, none of it is true, it is pure consciousness - which is inaccurate and bigoted. I'm not talking about you when I say inaccurate and bigoted and I am not using words like dogma to refer to religion or such things, nor bigoted to refer to the way you think about people. We are all inaccurate and we are all bigoted in that we assume our worldview is right, but none of our worldviews is right. I'm finding this concept very hard to put into words. But this is the point - words themselves are part of the system, so you cannot escape it.

This is what ideology is. Ideology itself is an intuitive concept - as in it is unconscious, it appears to be naturally true and it is the result of the (collective) unconscious. In that way we are all living our lives by an intuitive concept. Simply knowing that that concept is arbitrary does not help us step outside of it because there is no "outside" - not in human experience. Human experience is the false concept to start with.

Sorry, this is impossible to explain. Just believe me when I say I did not mean anything offensive by it.

 

[Satya]

We are all driven by dogma.

It depends how you use the word. We are nothing without our ingrained belief system but that belief system isn't ours, it's come from the outside, possibly from many different sources so that it can appear to be personal but everybody is following a dogma. None of it is real, none of it is true, it is pure consciousness - which is inaccurate and bigoted. I'm not talking about you when I say inaccurate and bigoted and I am not using words like dogma to refer to religion or such things, nor bigoted to refer to the way you think about people. We are all inaccurate and we are all bigoted in that we assume our worldview is right, but none of our worldviews is right. I'm finding this concept very hard to put into words. But this is the point - words themselves are part of the system, so you cannot escape it.

This is what ideology is. Ideology itself is an intuitive concept - as in it is unconscious, it appears to be naturally true and it is the result of the (collective) unconscious. In that way we are all living our lives by an intuitive concept. Simply knowing that that concept is arbitrary does not help us step outside of it because there is no "outside" - not in human experience. Human experience is the false concept to start with.

Sorry, this is impossible to explain. Just believe me when I say I did not mean anything offensive by it.

You are arguing that reality is a mental construction or "hologram" that our minds have developed. That is a post modern concept. Many people reject the idea of reality altogether given that we can't prove that we exist outside of our own consciousness. However this issue has a firm challenge.

"I think therefore I am" was proposed by Rene Descartes as proof of our existence. We exist because we think. We can reason and judge and that forms the basis of our existence. An existence without reason and judgement is a nonexistance.

While I can't say with certainty which idea is better, I will propose that it is irrelevant to this thread.

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

That is intuition. It is always going to tell us there is something else. That is what evolution designed it to do. Intuition is a survival mechanism that allows us to quickly recognize patterns. A noise in the brush could just be the wind, but for those who recognized that it could also be a tiger, they were able to survive and reproduce thereby ensuring genes survived that allows us to make connections that may or may not exist. Those who didn't have that ability were eaten.

It also allowed us to be creative and to innovate new ways to use things in our environment. We could intuit ways to invent new tools and machines. We could even use it to speculate about abstract concepts and look for ways to connect seemingly unrelated concepts and formulate entirely new philosophies.

However, intuition has a downside. It is heavily confirmation biased. It doesn't matter if 99 times out of a 100 there is no tiger in the brush, we will only remember the 1 time there actually was a tiger. It also utilizes the imagination which means we can create concepts that don't actually exist and believe that they actually do. Through history there have been people who really did believe in unicorns, Gods, dragons, wizards, and so forth simply because our imaginations created those concepts out of our intuition.

Whenever we have trouble understanding any concept, out intuition tries to find a suitable answer. But intuition alone is a poor substitute for reasoning and logic. For example, out of intuition Hippocrates argued that there were four humors that needed to be balanced for good health. That became the philosophy for medicine for hundreds of years and bleeding and leaching were the treatments that resulted. Our 1st president was bled to death under this form of medicine. But with reasoning and logic we were able to move from the purely intuitive humor idea to antibiotics, pain killers, and surgeries that are saving lives by the thousands today.

The problem I have is the one faced by all pragmatic people. How do you take people from traditional ideas or ideas of their own invention to ideas based on sound and valid reasoning and evidence?

Ah, now I understand what you mean.

Ok, well first you need to consider why you would want people to be rational. Often there isn't much point in the end.

Secondly, you must realise that all those intuitive answers that led to the leaching were the science of their day. Just because we have measuring instruments it does not take away the problem of intuition, for we need to use our intuition to transform our measurements into meaning. That is not to say that "nothing is known" because the likelihood is that science has now got quite a lot of things right. The parts that are right are probably those that have been around for centuries and have not been disproven - they are often intuitive concepts like gravity. Of course there is evidence for gravity all around us but it is still an intuitive concept we use to understand a force on the world. I would be careful to assume your accurateness. While it would be immensely foolish to assume we are accurate about nothing, any kind of discourse has major flaws. To use the discourse of science means to look at the world through a particular model, and models always leave out the details out of necessity. That's not to say you are not someone who understands and appreciates details, I am sure you are, but we are talking about the psyche itself, which cannot be removed from the equation.

 

[Nixie]

The problem I have is the one faced by all pragmatic people. How do you take people from traditional ideas or ideas of their own invention to ideas based on sound and valid reasoning and evidence?

I believe the tool you are looking for is called "manipulation".

It is illogical to assume that one must convince others to fundamentally change or alter their core ideals and beliefs and manner of being to fit into one's own set of criteria.

Much better strategy is to become good at "persuasion"
Most effectively achieved when you convince others to initially accept your definition of the problem--then all outcomes solve the problem as you have identified it.

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

You are arguing that reality is a mental construction or "hologram" that our minds have developed. That is a post modern concept. Many people reject the idea of reality altogether given that we can't prove that we exist outside of our own consciousness. However this issue has a firm challenge.

"I think therefore I am" was proposed by Rene Descartes as proof of our existence. We exist because we think. We can reason and judge and that forms the basis of our existence. An existence without reason and judgement is a nonexistance.

I don't believe you can refer to this as an "ideology" by any widely accepted definition. If you wish to invent your own words to rationalize your own dogma, then you can, but the purpose of this thread is to actually find ways to challenge it rather than to further buy into it.

You're still not seeing. You have your own ideology.

And poststructuralism does not say "we don't exist". It says our reality is subjective. It throws out any idea of authenticity. And I likely prefer this ideology because it makes the most sense to me, just as you prefer your ideology because it makes the most sense to you. Rene descartes has been widely criticised - I imagine you know that. Poststructuralism is also criticised - possibly by those that would prefer to follow Marx or Descartes. But this really is about preference. Poststructuralism isn't about us not being able to prove we exist, either. It by no means throws out physical evidence. It may say "gender is performance" but it does not say "gender is not real" - because gender is real. What's not real is some of the traditions we relate to gender (though this is a minefield and debatable) and what is certainly not true is that gender is binary - one or the other.

Oddly, we're actually coming from the same place on this one. I base my ideology on what I perceive to be empirical evidence. The fact that if a person is on the spectrum of hermophroditism (and this is a wide spectrum that does not only include what organs you have but what hormonal balance you have) then it is not possible to say whether they are female or male, shows that the idea gender is binary is impossible. That does not mean we should not use words like female or male - how could we live like that? - it simply means we should remain within the understanding that neither exists in a concrete manner. They exist, of course, but spectrally. Poststructuralism is a school of thought that sees the world as a chaotic spectrum on to which consciousness draws arbitrary lines in order to understand this. There is plenty, plenty, plenty of empirical evidence to show this is true. The part you are questioning, I imagine, is that this has consequences. But when you think about it - how can it not?

But this is getting into a silly battle of the philosophies We'd never agree on this point. I'm not sure why you want to change other people's ideologies but if there is good reason then it is as @Sonya said - manipulation, people skills. But no one is ever going to throw out their reality. It is how they grasp the world.

And when it comes to relevance to this thread - this thread is precisely about this isn't it? Altering the way people see the world to conform to your reasoning? I see the world differently

 

[Satya]

The problem I have is the one faced by all pragmatic people. How do you take people from traditional ideas or ideas of their own invention to ideas based on sound and valid reasoning and evidence?

I believe the tool you are looking for is called "manipulation".

It is illogical to assume that one must convince others to fundamentally change or alter their core ideals and beliefs and manner of being to fit into one's own set of criteria.

Much better strategy is to become good at "persuasion"
Most effectively achieved when you convince others to initially accept your definition of the problem--then all outcomes solve the problem as you have identified it.

I think I would prefer manipulation.

I have tried persuasion and have found that either nobody can agree to the definitions or that it relies on emotional manipulation. In the long run, it generally solidifies the views of both sides.

However, propaganda is considerably more effective in how it creates connections that don't actually exist in people's minds and utilizes their baser emotions, such as fear and shame, to force them to act. It hijacks intuition and uses it to its advantage. That seems preferable. Religious institutions and political parties have perfected it and there does not seem to be much consequence in using people in this fashion as they are simply happy to follow what they believe is their own conscience.

 

[Satya]

You're still not seeing. You have your own ideology.

And poststructuralism does not say "we don't exist". It says our reality is subjective. It throws out any idea of authenticity. And I likely prefer this ideology because it makes the most sense to me, just as you prefer your ideology because it makes the most sense to you. Rene descartes has been widely criticised - I imagine you know that. Poststructuralism is also criticised - possibly by those that would prefer to follow Marx or Descartes. But this really is about preference. Poststructuralism isn't about us not being able to prove we exist, either. It by no means throws out physical evidence. It may say "gender is performance" but it does not say "gender is not real" - because gender is real. What's not real is some of the traditions we relate to gender (though this is a minefield and debatable) and what is certainly not true is that gender is binary - one or the other.

Oddly, we're actually coming from the same place on this one. I base my ideology on what I perceive to be empirical evidence. The fact that if a person is on the spectrum of hermophroditism (and this is a wide spectrum that does not only include what organs you have but what hormonal balance you have) then it is not possible to say whether they are female or male, shows that the idea gender is binary is impossible. That does not mean we should not use words like female or male - how could we live like that? - it simply means we should remain within the understanding that neither exists in a concrete manner. They exist, of course, but spectrally. Poststructuralism is a school of thought that sees the world as a chaotic spectrum on to which consciousness draws arbitrary lines in order to understand this. There is plenty, plenty, plenty of empirical evidence to show this is true. The part you are questioning, I imagine, is that this has consequences. But when you think about it - how can it not?

But this is getting into a silly battle of the philosophies We'd never agree on this point. I'm not sure why you want to change other people's ideologies but if there is good reason then it is as @Sonya said - manipulation, people skills. But no one is ever going to throw out their reality. It is how they grasp the world.

And when it comes to relevance to this thread - this thread is precisely about this isn't it? Altering the way people see the world to conform to your reasoning? I see the world differently

My philosophy is of doubt. I choose to question everything, even my own convictions so that I am guided by constantly seeking a better answer rather than falling into a certainty of a single answer.

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

My philosophy is of doubt. I choose to question everything, even my own convictions so that I am guided by constantly seeking a better answer rather than falling into a certainty of a single answer.

Good! :-D Sorry, the reason we went off like that was because I didn't know what you intended about intuitive concepts until you mentioned the religion and dragons and stuff and I realised you meant mysticism. That's right, isn't it? Generally. Propaganda works on certain types only and you'd need to be extremely charismatic to pull it off. Often people live with the misconception that information and influence comes from above rather than from around. You would need to be able to offer the individual something they want anyway, because they're not going to change their desires. If you came across someone that believed in psychic powers, you'd have to approach them from the perspective of that. So you need to know what believing that kind of thing offers them and package your own theory as if it delivers the same thing. Without this, no one's buying.

As for things delivered by fear - again, you've got to get the right moment and hit the right buttons according to public opinion. Fear will always be there but at times when it is intensified - recession/war - propaganda works better. And you want to make this slightly less about fear but threat - people want to know where the threat is coming from when they are afraid. I'm assuming this was a conceptual question by the way You're not actually going to start a propaganda campaign But yes, propaganda (on a large scale only) does work. It's about keying into the feeling of the moment though.Individually or as a group, people are looking for something to deliver something they need.

 

[Nixie]

I think I would prefer manipulation.

I have tried persuasion and have found that either nobody can agree to the definitions or that it relies on emotional manipulation. In the long run, it generally solidifies the views of both sides.

However, propaganda is considerably more effective in how it creates connections that don't actually exist in people's minds and utilizes their baser emotions, such as fear and shame, to force them to act. It hijacks intuition and uses it to its advantage. That seems preferable. Religious institutions and political parties have perfected it and there does not seem to be much consequence in using people in this fashion as they are simply happy to follow what they believe is their own conscience.

'

You mean you have tried persuasion and failed. I would categorize "propaganda" as manipulative persuasion. My Fi says you are seeking the path that leads down the slippery slope of hell if you are willing to go for manipulation rather than become more effective at persuasion.

 

[randomsomeone]

That is intuition.

Well, that's the point. If you want to try and change someone's perspective on a matter it is good to understand the emotional, psychological or other factors that might undergird their ideology. Sometimes other factors are powerful influencers and/or barriers...fear (of all kinds), anger, pride, loyalty/group identity. Addressing these other factors (how I don't know) might help the logic sink in.

 

[Satya]

Propaganda works on certain types only and you'd need to be extremely charismatic to pull it off.

Quite to the contrary. You encounter propaganda in your everyday life and you never even realize it.