'isms' and ideology - or, is critical reasoning under assault? [discussion]

[cometbah]

@cometbah
Most systems both have self checking premises and further conclusions drawn from those premises.

So the progression would be similar* to:
capitalism is alienating ---> alienating systems experience class struggles ---> there will be class struggle in capitalism
---> the existence of class struggle in capitalism indicates that capitalism is alienating*
and
 ---> I choose to support the revolutionary side in this struggle because I think capitalism is alienating and I don't like alienating systems

It is important to note that the first progression you listed does not go from 'I think capitalism is alienating' to 'I have proven capitalism is alienating' it goes from 'I think capitalism is alienating' to 'I have proven "capitalism is alienating" is self consistent'.

*The example used is slightly off since we do not have a valid circular logic. Probably because it was simplified. However with the pattern of conclusions arising from your premise you should be able to uniquely identify your premise given enough of its conclusions provided it is self consistent.

You are right... that was not such a good example =9
The arrows were meant to indicate some general direction of thought; I was attempting to demonstrate a problematic train of thought with the first example.

I had meant to state that I find, in general, the second sort of progression acceptable, but not the first sort, regardless of whether the subject matter of the progression is Marxism, Christianity, or unicornism.

(I am, however, of the opinion that Marxism (as intended by Marx) does not include the first sort of progression, and is therefore an acceptable sort of system. Of course, my interpretation of Marxism is only that - my interpretation. And I don't usually claim to be a Marxist =9 It may be that many self-proclaimed Marxists do rely on self-validating arguments in an attempt to portray the irrefutable 'reality' of some premise.)

[OdinVanguard]

Sorry for the necro, but I stumbled across this and it got me to thinking.

...snip...

The common thread I see in ideological thinking is that it's a bundle of question-begging: one must put on the glasses the idealogue wears, in order to see the same world; as opposed to all of us taking off the shades and asking about what's actually out there.

...snip...

The notion of "taking off the shades" presumes that there is a point of view from which ones thinking will be uncolored by preformed notions or ideas... I think an interesting question to ask here is whether or not such a point of view exists.
I.e. is it even possible to have a 100% objective point of view? Or must we always adopt some forms of assumptions which will inevitably have an impact upon our own conclusions.
To put it another way, can we ever truly disentangle our reasoning from subjective bias completely?

I would posit that an absolute, universal, objective point of view does not exist... A person can take off a pair of glasses, but will still be limited by the capabilities of their own eyes.

I think the best we can do is to be able to take the time and observe from many different points of view while maintaining a conscientious awareness of the assumption we are taking on in each instance, but most importantly to be prepared for the times when these assumptions break down and for the times when it is revealed that we have made assumptions without knowing we were making them.

So the problem with ideological thinking is not that it prevents the idealogue from seeing things from a universal objective point of view (with the glasses off), but rather that it prevents them from being able to adapt to situations under which their given ideals are inapplicable or insufficient, or worse, from even recognizing when that is the case.

I like concrete examples so here is an analogy: the framework of an ideaology is like a choice of perspective.
Consider a viewing a ball moving directly toward or away from you under an orthographic viewpoint... The ball would appear stationary!
If you were to view the ball under perspective, the ball would appear to grow larger or smaller... but would you ever know if this was because the ball was moving toward / away or if it was growing / shrinking?... No matter what point of view is taken, there will always exist situations in which important information will be obscured.

The problem with aligning ones thinking to a particular ideology is that we often forget to take time to consider things from other points of view. As a result we will miss important information.

Now in the case of the ball, sufficient information can be gained about the ball's motion by switching among a small set of viewpoints... But this is because we were only concerned with a small set of geometric and spatial qualities. The number of variables to consider is small and well known. Real life is trickier.
Problems often have many more variables to consider.
We may not necessarily know what they are before dealing with a given situation.
Often times it only becomes clear that our assumptions have occluded important information after subsequent observations reveal the problem.

Ideologies, archetypes... isms... Are good in the fact that they can give a starting point to us the observer. We make an observation and have a framework to do reasoning and make judgements with out having to go through the nity gritty of mentally deriving the framework. They are also useful because they provide a common grounds for communicating the details of our point of view in a compact way... However, it is important to remember that these frameworks are not and will never be perfect. Ever.

Any ideal that is defined rigidly enough to convey a point of view precisely will also be limited in its applicability... similarly, any ideal defined loosely enough to give a broadly applicable framework of observation and reasoning will have cases in which additional assumptions are required in order to form well posed problems and statements.

There is and never will be any finite set of assumptions, points of view, ideals, etc. which will equip us to deal with every situation we will ever come across. There is no such thing as viewing "with glasses off" because the act of observing always requires putting on a pair of glasses. The best we can do is be aware of this and be ready in the cases where we need a different set of glasses.

[OldTrees]

The notion of "taking off the shades" presumes that there is a point of view from which ones thinking will be uncolored by preformed notions or ideas... I think an interesting question to ask here is whether or not such a point of view exists.
I.e. is it even possible to have a 100% objective point of view? Or must we always adopt some forms of assumptions which will inevitably have an impact upon our own conclusions.
To put it another way, can we ever truly disentangle our reasoning from subjective bias completely?

I would posit that an absolute, universal, objective point of view does not exist... A person can take off a pair of glasses, but will still be limited by the capabilities of their own eyes.

I think the best we can do is to be able to take the time and observe from many different points of view while maintaining a conscientious awareness of the assumption we are taking on in each instance, but most importantly to be prepared for the times when these assumptions break down and for the times when it is revealed that we have made assumptions without knowing we were making them.

So the problem with ideological thinking is not that it prevents the idealogue from seeing things from a universal objective point of view (with the glasses off), but rather that it prevents them from being able to adapt to situations under which their given ideals are inapplicable or insufficient, or worse, from even recognizing when that is the case.

What would an uninformed* objective point of view be other than understanding each possible subjective point of view from each possible subjective point of view?

*Uninformed in that they do not have any objective data because all senses we know of merely obtain subjective data.

However more importantly, the empathetic mindset you described is different from ideological thinking in an important way. By observing through various points of view it is easier to identify the unknown assumptions of each particular ideology. This is a unique difference between ideological thinking and empathetic thinking. I feel this greater clarity is of greater significance than the flexibility you talked about.
(although it is possible that I misunderstood what you wrote and might have just disagreed with the same position)

[OdinVanguard]

I guess the point I was trying to make is that there is no one perfect mindset / way of thinking, even an empathic mindset in which one tries to consider all known / available points of view and correlate between them.

While this is very good as a means of discovering hidden assumptions, it runs into its own set of problems.

For instance, this mindset tends to require much longer and deeper thought process than ideological thinking. Particularly as the number of viewpoints needed expands.
Given plenty of time it will probably yield much better conclusions, but there may not be sufficient time.

Time is sort of the crux there. If the number of possible subjective points of view is infinite then it is not possible to understand every possible subjective point of view from every possible subjective point of view in a finite amount of time.

At some point, pragmatism must win out or one will never be able to come to a conclusion.

[OldTrees]

That I can agree with. (according to most points of view  )

[watche]

Somewhere on page one, there was mention of the impact of dogmas on society, and nobody would defend them. Largely for the sake of playing devil's advocate, I will give it a try:
- Dogmas increase diversity in the pool of ideas, and preserve old ones, so that they won't be discarded when they might still be correct
- Dogmas may prove themselves right or wrong when put into action, which helps to put certain discussions to bed when they otherwise can't

I originally wrote a wall of text, but decided to be more concise instead

[OldTrees]

Somewhere on page one, there was mention of the impact of dogmas on society, and nobody would defend them. Largely for the sake of playing devil's advocate, I will give it a try:
- Dogmas increase diversity in the pool of ideas, and preserve old ones, so that they won't be discarded when they might still be correct
- Dogmas may prove themselves right or wrong when put into action, which helps to put certain discussions to bed when they otherwise can't

I originally wrote a wall of text, but decided to be more concise instead

Taking the devil's advocate position is helpful. Thanks.

I don't remember anyone attacking ideas as ideas. I believe they were attacking dogma as dogma.

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Ideas that are not dogma exhibit both of the positives you mentioned. Holding an idea as incontrovertible hampers the creation of contrary ideas and often protects the idea from a fair examination of the possibility of it being wrong. So it seems like both of the positives you mentioned are created by ideas and prevented by dogma.

[watche]

Ideas that are not dogma exhibit both of the positives you mentioned. Holding an idea as incontrovertible hampers the creation of contrary ideas and often protects the idea from a fair examination of the possibility of it being wrong. So it seems like both of the positives you mentioned are created by ideas and prevented by dogma.

The idea was that Dogma kept disproven ideas in discussion, so that they won't be cast away, which would be important in the event that the disproval was inaccurate. The problem with having people remember these ideas and simply bring them back up is that they would be socially unacceptable, so few people would dare to question the vogue, but with dogmas, any idea will have its supporters. Naturally, every idea will also have its opponents, but in a developed setting, the supporters matter more (opponents are unlikely to cause any serious injury, per legal, social, and moral law.)

For example, what if the global cooling theory from the seventies had been correct,  but nobody would speak against global warming when they knew they would be alone?

(Not to start a global climate change debate; my own views were not there implied)

[OldTrees]

Ideas that are not dogma exhibit both of the positives you mentioned. Holding an idea as incontrovertible hampers the creation of contrary ideas and often protects the idea from a fair examination of the possibility of it being wrong. So it seems like both of the positives you mentioned are created by ideas and prevented by dogma.

The idea was that Dogma kept disproven ideas in discussion, so that they won't be cast away, which would be important in the event that the disproval was inaccurate. The problem with having people remember these ideas and simply bring them back up is that they would be socially unacceptable, so few people would dare to question the vogue, but with dogmas, any idea will have its supporters. Naturally, every idea will also have its opponents, but in a developed setting, the supporters matter more (opponents are unlikely to cause any serious injury, per legal, social, and moral law.)

For example, what if the global cooling theory from the seventies had been correct,  but nobody would speak against global warming when they knew they would be alone?

(Not to start a global climate change debate; my own views were not there implied)

So Dogma keeps discredited ideas from leaving the discussion by keeping more people from adopting new ideas. I could see merit in that if the discrediting mechanism was unreliable. (Politicized science is a reasonable example) However if the discrediting mechanism is reliable but imperfect, then I would suspect that  there wold be more value in having more people move on to test new ideas. Still the issue of faulty discrediting is important. In good science this is handled via repetition of experiments even centuries after the theory has been accepted.