PDA

View Full Version : Can a sophisticated individual rise above ideology?



coberst
03-26-2009, 03:49 PM
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

grotto
03-26-2009, 05:07 PM
Sophistication blinds one to the ultimate truth and keeps one separate from the total awareness of everything that is going on. Being intellectual does not make one smart or some how privileged in “knowing”.

Ideology is a man made concept, argued by man as to what it is and isn’t to the point of killing to prove ones ideology is right. Dualism creates ideology; right versus wrong, up vs down, both are needed and one does not exist without the other.

Continual philosophical battles of proving who is right and who is wrong is pointless, it bores people. As Nietzsche said; Todays philosophers, those with no original thoughts keep blabbering on with stolen ideas and endless linguistic trickery until their point is won by attrition, they become so boring that the last man standing claims victory. What a waste for the future of free thought.

So with that, what is sophistication, intelligence and truth?

Visit the east for a little less sophistication and a bit of a broader mind.

coberst
03-27-2009, 03:27 AM
I think that fairmindedness is the antidote for ideology.

To be fair-minded one must be vigilant (consciousness plus intention) of the need to treat all viewpoints alike. This demands that we adhere to intellectual standards such as accuracy and sound reasoning, which are unaffected by self-interest.

A contrast with fair-mindedness is intellectual self-centeredness.

Fair-mindedness is a challenging task that demands a family of character traits: intellectual humility, courage, empathy, honesty, perseverance, and a confidence in the value of reason.

Our culture places maximum value not on fair-mindedness but upon self-interest, and maximizing production, and consumption.

Intellectual humility begins with the recognition that absolute certainty regarding any matter of fact is beyond human capacity. There exists no mind-independent reality that we have the capacity to know. We can know only that which is “colored” by our experiences and historical perspective.

Our common sense views, coupled with philosophical tradition and religious dogma, all teach us that such is not the case, that we can find absolute certainty. This cultural tradition works aggressively against our goal of intellectual humility thus demanding that we must become more intellectually sophisticated in order to gain the level of intellectual humility required.

Intellectual courage is a difficult assignment. We all tend to place great value on our own opinion, which is more often than not just something that we grabbed as it flew by. But this is even more of a problem when we are “wedded” to something that we have a strong commitment to, for what ever reason. Our political affiliation is one example.

Intellectual courage is especially difficult, and even dangerous to our well being when we hold ideas that society considers them to be dangerous; even though we are confident that they are rationally grounded. Society often punishes severely all forms of nonconformity; the execution of Socrates by the citizens of Athens might serve as a good example.

By developing this character trait of intellectual courage we will often be ostracized from a group or even a large community. Such an experience will give us incentive to recognize that most people live their lives in such a manner as to be secure in the middle of the approval of those about us.

Intellectual courage ain’t for sissies!

Intellectual empathy is a consciousness that one must engage the imagination in an effort to intellectually place your self into the shoes of another so as to comprehend that other person as well as possible. To accomplish this transaction we must try to learn as much as possible about the other person’s situation so as to reconstruct that person’s assumptions, premises, and ideas.

Many of these ideas were gleaned from the book Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life by Richard Paul and Linda Elder

LitNetIsGreat
03-28-2009, 09:21 AM
Can a sophisticated individual rise above ideology?

I have often thought about this, and this is in some ways what Buddhism seeks to do or other strands of philosophy. Personally I think it is very difficult to do so if not impossible because we don't live in isolation from the fabric of the social world, we are very much a part of it and ruled by basic drives at all times.

So I think it is possible that a sophisticated or a philosophically advanced individual can raise above the constraints of the social world, but also extremely unlikely that they would. I can't even see the development of human nature through natural selection taking us any further along this path of what you call sophistication. Even thinking about this takes us down the very uncomfortable path of eugenics...

coberst
03-28-2009, 01:56 PM
I have often thought about this, and this is in some ways what Buddhism seeks to do or other strands of philosophy. Personally I think it is very difficult to do so if not impossible because we don't live in isolation from the fabric of the social world, we are very much a part of it and ruled by basic drives at all times.

So I think it is possible that a sophisticated or a philosophically advanced individual can raise above the constraints of the social world, but also extremely unlikely that they would. I can't even see the development of human nature through natural selection taking us any further along this path of what you call sophistication. Even thinking about this takes us down the very uncomfortable path of eugenics...


I think that humans are far beyond the reach of natural selection. Our big brain has created so many ways of destroying one another that natural selection has little effect. When we lost claw and fang and speed our natural instincts of fight or flight are overwhelmed by our created technology.

LitNetIsGreat
03-28-2009, 03:48 PM
I think that humans are far beyond the reach of natural selection. Our big brain has created so many ways of destroying one another that natural selection has little effect. When we lost claw and fang and speed our natural instincts of fight or flight are overwhelmed by our created technology.

I really don't know how you can say we are beyond natural selection. Yes the modern world has many faults but the offspring of two brown eyed adults is just as likely to have brown eyes as they always have. Yes our ability to exist in the wild, our fight or flight skills have no doubt eroded, but the majority of people do not live in the wild anyway - is this not evolution in itself?

Maybe if you tailored your argument along the lines of Wordsworth who saw the artificiality of the then modern world, the industrial processes as harmful for the human spirit then I would agree with you more. Wordsworth who saw this contamination not just as contamination within its own right, the lust for money, the effects of dehumanised work etc on the human mind, but that the abandonment of simple living in conjunction with nature was just as harmful for human well being. Which is in a nutshell one reading of my current signature below from Wordsworth's To the Same Flower: ie. I've seen what the world has to offer and I have turned my back on that for a more natural, simplistic way of life, although most people would just criticise Wordsworth for writing poems about daisies.

Anyway, I’m not spamming for Wordsworth it’s just that the idea of any life going beyond natural selection is just quite strange.