Do ideologies do more harm than good?

soylentgreen said:

No, that is you being dogmatic. Christian or communist ideology says one thing and unless someone sticks to that then for you they are not doing that ideology. But for them they have taken that ideology and asked themselves how they can fit it into their reality. What do they need from that ideology and what can be discarded. And that is the way ideologies should be treated.

Click to expand...

You are not describing ideologies. You are describing pragmatism.

devildavid said:

You are not describing ideologies. You are describing pragmatism.

Click to expand...

One has to be pragmatic when it comes to ideologies.

.You are correct, i am not describing ideologies. More importantly i am describing how we should deal with ideologies.

soylentgreen said:

One has to be pragmatic when it comes to ideologies.

.You are correct, i am not describing ideologies. More importantly i am describing how we should deal with ideologies.

Click to expand...

Because ideologies can do more harm than good.

devildavid said:

Because ideologies can do more harm than good.

Click to expand...

No, ideologies merely express ideas for people to think about. It's a bit like guns. Guns do no harm, people do.

soylentgreen said:

No, ideologies merely express ideas for people to think about. It's a bit like guns. Guns do no harm, people do.

Click to expand...

I feel like we are getting some crossed wires on 'ideologies' and 'ideologues'.

Perhaps the question would be better framed in terms of 'ideologues'?

William Rea said:

I feel like we are getting some crossed wires on 'ideologies' and 'ideologues'.

Perhaps the question would be better framed in terms of 'ideologues'?

Click to expand...

You might be correct there.
I would find it hard to judge the harm of ideologies in general. I would need to look at a specific ideology itself to make that judgement.

soylentgreen said:

You might be correct there.
I would find it hard to judge the harm of ideologies in general. I would need to look at a specific ideology itself to make that judgement.

Click to expand...

I think it is implied that ideologies are harmful because ideologues make them that way. An ideology, on paper, harms no one. An ideology, not put into practice, harms no one. This is kind of like the silly gun argument. Guns don't kill people , people do. A gun, like an ideology, is an expeditor of harm.

Really, it depends on the ideology itself. Some ideologies are good while others are destructive.

It really depends on what the ideology is and whether or not you let the tenants of said ideology overcome reason and evidence.

Trying to group humans into groups. First it was 50 million.. now it's 7.6 billion.. ..

All ideologies are inherently about division, and as such usually do more harm than good despite the best of intentions.

The basic reason is ideologies by definition are a set of assumptions or beliefs about what people should and should not do. Similar thinking people by collective tend to form ideologies as a means to both pass those standards, some may call social confines, down generations but also inflict the thinking onto all others thinking or operating outside the norm.

Another way of saying this is we were all humans until our on sociological standards developed over time became various ideologies for various reasons, even when some develop in competition with others inside of a single culture.

Example, religion. Competition to be the one with the right answers and be in the highest authority possible while suggesting that position on the matter of deity is historically well established, to the point of being a core means to take the lives of others since humanity bothered with recording history.

Another, politics. The idea of pooling people together of similar thinking into defined (sort of) ideologies that inherently are in adversarial because control of governance is on the line. And that is basically saying governmental theory is also about division.

Another, economics. The idea of land and wealth ownership (control) goes from all modern cultures today back to the earliest of societies we know about and primarily as a means of classification within a society. No matter how free or how regulated, no matter how market based or planned, ultimately it all comes down to who is in control and economic classification within has always (without exception) tagged along.

There are others. Like the idiocy of manufacturing race within humanity to socially disconnect us from one another, and the even bigger idiocy of "aristocracy" (in all of its forms) that some are inherently born into leadership and/or control.

But that said, all ideologies inherently divide and themselves become the building blocks in reasoning to kill someone else who does not agree.

JC Callender said:

Most people don't fit perfectly into an ideology, but it can be a convenient way of organizing groups of ideas. Of course, once one identifies with an ideology, they're often considered an embodiment of anything and everything in that ideology even though almost no one agrees with every aspect of most ideologies, for example, Liberalism or Conservatism. And ideologies often change over time causing confusion. So, what do you think...do they do more harm than good?

Click to expand...

Is it ideology or dogma?

If one is truly seeking knowledge, understanding at the same time wanting it to fit in a certain ideology or dogma things just don't fit often. But with knowledge and understanding comes wisdom.

The important thing I find are those seeking the LORD is it is a personal relationship. Our level of wisdom is all different.

The LORD deals with us all on our own level. It is an individualism thing. For those that truly seek Him, what their ideology or dogma was yesterday could change in a heartbeat with a blessing of wisdom.

JC Callender said:

Most people don't fit perfectly into an ideology, but it can be a convenient way of organizing groups of ideas. Of course, once one identifies with an ideology, they're often considered an embodiment of anything and everything in that ideology even though almost no one agrees with every aspect of most ideologies, for example, Liberalism or Conservatism. And ideologies often change over time causing confusion. So, what do you think...do they do more harm than good?

Click to expand...

Well right now there is the Right and the Left.

The Right Ideology created the US. Although not perfect still the greatest most prosperous nation in all human history.

The Left Ideology killed 200 million people over the last 100 years.

You decide

JC Callender said:

Most people don't fit perfectly into an ideology, but it can be a convenient way of organizing groups of ideas. Of course, once one identifies with an ideology, they're often considered an embodiment of anything and everything in that ideology even though almost no one agrees with every aspect of most ideologies, for example, Liberalism or Conservatism. And ideologies often change over time causing confusion. So, what do you think...do they do more harm than good?

Click to expand...

Ideologies are a collection of simplistic ways to explaining a world that is much complicated. As such, no ideology has the answer to move society or the world forward.

TDGonDP said:

Ideologies are a collection of simplistic ways to explaining a world that is much complicated. As such, no ideology has the answer to move society or the world forward.

Click to expand...

We need ideologies because we need to put labels on our ideas. Without the labels, we can't think or talk.

However, people often seem unaware that ideological labels are simplified shorthand for massively complex cognitive systems.

For example, now they are calling the Scandinavian countries socialist. Or they call China's current system communist.

If you don't know the history of an ideology, you will mangle the concept. And since most people daydreamed through their history classes, and never read a history book as an adult, we have an epidemic of ideological confusion.

Good4Nothin said:

We need ideologies because we need to put labels on our ideas. Without the labels, we can't think or talk.

However, people often seem unaware that ideological labels are simplified shorthand for massively complex cognitive systems.

For example, now they are calling the Scandinavian countries socialist. Or they call China's current system communist.

If you don't know the history of an ideology, you will mangle the concept. And since most people daydreamed through their history classes, and never read a history book as an adult, we have an epidemic of ideological confusion.

Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from. Marketers know they have to make their products much simpler than they really are to sell them.

Here's where the problem occurs. I like Canada's public health care system: government pays for most things. Delivery is reasonably good in most cases. Families don't go broke. The system channels people to the right place at the right time (most of the time). But because of this socialistic opinion, many simplifiers like to cast me in the same group as Stalin and Mao. To them, it is only a matter of time before I start a genocide of my own people. Even when I tell them that I espouse a lot of free market principles, I am still a rabid socialist.

There are different kinds of socialists; there are different kinds of communists; there are different kinds of conservatives, and there are different kinds of libertarians. THere are different kinds of liberals and different kinds of progressives. Wikipedia articles is great to show all these differences. So 20 or 30 different ideologies are often reduced to just a handful--as far as the public and the media are concerned. And they aren't going to read all the Wikipedia articles to educate themselves. They just want a handful to explain how the political world works for them.

So when we cast a vote based on ideology, we are not casting a wise vote.

It's time to get rid of ideologies.

JC Callender said:

Most people don't fit perfectly into an ideology, but it can be a convenient way of organizing groups of ideas. Of course, once one identifies with an ideology, they're often considered an embodiment of anything and everything in that ideology even though almost no one agrees with every aspect of most ideologies, for example, Liberalism or Conservatism. And ideologies often change over time causing confusion. So, what do you think...do they do more harm than good?

Click to expand...

Adherents to an ideology regarding political identity can be all over the board with individual views within a sociopolitical ideology. It is only when adherents become ideologues that they become dangerous. As long as they are just rank and file citizens trying in some way to feed their brains with intellectual stimulation they are harmless unless they become a Caesar Sayoc or James Hodgkinson. On the other hand if an ideologue is elected and rises to high public office they can cause problems in governing. Governing requires accepting advice and compromise. Ideologues are less likely to accept advice or compromise so they can be potentially dangerous.

TDGonDP said:

I understand where you are coming from. Marketers know they have to make their products much simpler than they really are to sell them.

Here's where the problem occurs. I like Canada's public health care system: government pays for most things. Delivery is reasonably good in most cases. Families don't go broke. The system channels people to the right place at the right time (most of the time). But because of this socialistic opinion, many simplifiers like to cast me in the same group as Stalin and Mao. To them, it is only a matter of time before I start a genocide of my own people. Even when I tell them that I espouse a lot of free market principles, I am still a rabid socialist.

There are different kinds of socialists; there are different kinds of communists; there are different kinds of conservatives, and there are different kinds of libertarians. THere are different kinds of liberals and different kinds of progressives. Wikipedia articles is great to show all these differences. So 20 or 30 different ideologies are often reduced to just a handful--as far as the public and the media are concerned. And they aren't going to read all the Wikipedia articles to educate themselves. They just want a handful to explain how the political world works for them.

So when we cast a vote based on ideology, we are not casting a wise vote.

It's time to get rid of ideologies.

Click to expand...

I mostly agree with what you're saying. Over-simplification results in really bizarre thinking, as you described.

But we can't get rid of ideologies, as I explained. We need to get rid of or update some of the old ones. But wouldn't it be nice if people would start thinking and reading a little more?

I understand why they don't, if they're raising a family and working, etc. But it is frustrating seeing how badly the political communication is going now.

There are people who think only in terms of red vs blue. I know someone who told me being a Democrat is like a religion for her, and she would never date a Republican. You can't have a thoughtful conversation with her about politics, because she soaks up whatever Rachel Maddow says and to her it's gospel.

And of course the same thing happens from the red side. But the Democrats are more irrational now because they are so frantic.

Good4Nothin said:

I mostly agree with what you're saying. Over-simplification results in really bizarre thinking, as you described.

But we can't get rid of ideologies, as I explained. We need to get rid of or update some of the old ones. But wouldn't it be nice if people would start thinking and reading a little more?

I understand why they don't, if they're raising a family and working, etc. But it is frustrating seeing how badly the political communication is going now.

There are people who think only in terms of red vs blue. I know someone who told me being a Democrat is like a religion for her, and she would never date a Republican. You can't have a thoughtful conversation with her about politics, because she soaks up whatever Rachel Maddow says and to her it's gospel.

And of course the same thing happens from the red side. But the Democrats are more irrational now because they are so frantic.

Click to expand...

I grew up in Alberta in the 1970s. At that time, the governing political party changed from Social Credit to Progressive Conservative (PC). The PCs marketed themselves mostly as conservative (low taxes, little bureaucracy). But during their first 10 years in office, Alberta went from the province with lowest per-capita civil servants to the highest. A lot of new provincial bureaucracies were started in this time frame.

The point I want to make is that the parties like to position themselves on a particular spot in the left-right paradigm. But their actions are often different from their platforms. And if we were to consider our paradigms to their extremes, the competing parties would be closer to each other (somewhere in the middle) than to either extreme. In other words, the left-right, the liberal-conservative, the socialist-capitalist paradigms are essentially meaningless in the political process. There is no point is trying to educate the public in hopes of them somehow casting a wiser vote.

And yes, some people wear their politics like a religion. I used to be a political junkie. In my six years in party politics, I saw the flaws firsthand and came to the conclusion that western democracy is actually kind of silly. But I invented a new system of governance, one without political parties. I can't get into much detail because I would be violating DP, but if you are interested, you can private message me .