Post here if you believe left and right will get increasingly authoritarian and exterminate each other along with everyone else if we fail to come up with a post-ideological way of solving politically relevant conflicts of interest.
Do you think ideology has failed? What can it be replaced with?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
marxists.org
twitter.com
What would we replace it with? I'm on board if we can get something
Has radical centrism been tried yet?
We have to understand the nature of the beast we're dealing with before we offer an alternative to it.
What are the defining characteristics of ideology?
It seems to me that ideology divides society in two groups, those who are mostly satisfied with current order and those who believe it must change.
Once people are more or less divided between these two groups, the Us vs Them mentality is established and ideology provides propagandistic ideas - rhetoric - to favor one to the detriment of the other.
The Us vs Them mentality is essential to denigrate the claims of your adversaries and dehumanize them by any means available, whether their interests are legitimate or not. It justifies the use of dishonesty and violence to put the other down.
The ideas present in rhetoric themselves are flexible and barely defined to allow any adaptation necessary for the advancement of your group.
How can we do better than this?
how about \fucking nothing/
I don't know. Ideology seems to be the only thing that gets anything done.
How can we overcome the Us vs Them mentality?
Both the right's obsession with natural law and the Left's obsession to equality will be trifle in a post scarcity world
with either genetic engineering or uploading minds into synthetic bodies
The unabomber goes into this topic briefly and the necessity of it.
You can either ride it out and ignore anything else or you can become an accelerationist.
Could you elaborate?
>Ideology has failed
>Let us make a new ideology, one that centers around not doing what other ideologies have done
>We shall call this ideology, "anti-ideology"
>No way will this be new boss, same as the old boss
oh i don't now i guess communism, amiright?
Has nothing to do with "us vs them".
There will always be an us, and there will always be a them.
To remove this fundamental aspect of being is to remove what it means to be human.
You don't need to remove either, it's the will to subjugate the other for the exclusive benefit of one's group that must be transcended.
People lock into this mindset and become downright evil, blind to their own fuckups.
>it's the will to subjugate the other for the exclusive benefit of one's group that must be transcended.
Read this book Brazil
Thanks for the rec.
how do you plan on erradicating a human will?
You don't erradicate will itself, only the specific will to dehumanize the other to advance your interests. Understanding that the escalation of this mindset may destroy us all is a starting point.
I'm open to ideas, though. One would think that this topic is sufficiently important to merit discussion.
>only the specific will to dehumanize the other to advance your interests
1- what is this human you talk about?
2- how do you erradicate a specific human will?
The person you perceive as your political adversary.
Understanding (for instance, maturity) changes will frequently.
>Understanding (for instance, maturity) changes will frequently.
So there's no mature dehumanizers? Aren't you dehumanizing dehumanizers?
>The person you perceive as your political adversary.
I meant that you say "dehumanize", so there's a humanization, which means there is this humane thing which is actualized in a person to make him a human.
Let me clarify the language, then. To dehumanize, in this context, is to perceive the other without empathy and as a threat to one's own interests, for the most part.
so to treat other as differentiated and a competitor from your own interests is to dehumanize someone?
are you trying to say that being human means not having private property?
Nope. I'm saying that to do so as if that was all the other is - that is destructive. The other is a competitor, but also a potential source of cooperation.
Incidentally, those who believe that being human means not having private property often dehumanize those who believe the opposite.
but a potential source of cooperation can also mean a tool
Yes, which is why I said empathy above. In this case, I merely added the complementary idea of competition to provide a bigger picture.
So empathy is what you define as the main humanizing act. What are the lines though?
What do you mean by lines?
Well, don't SJWs ask for radical empathy too? Who defines when an act comes out of empathy and when it doesnt?
Do you think Mike Pence wants to shock people cause he hates them or because he has extreme empathy for them?
I made a thread a couple weeks ago asking if we could just stop and like, try to do that thing where we chill and maybe have a kind of harmony thing. A little bit less of the screeching and idiocy
A pipe dream yes, but it fell apart rather quickly with the declaration 'YOU JUST WANT TO ROB US OF OUR MOMENTUM'
So really the thing is that people on both sides need to grow up a lot
"Ask for?" They dehumanize people who disagree with them, you know that, going after their jobs and whatnot.
Look, insincerity exists, but we have to start somewhere. If we recognize that the problem exists, we can start discussing how to improve our lot. I'd wager less people would lie to themselves about their intentions if they knew this something they could be doing.
*this is something
Yeah, I'm trying to get at the mentality that gives rise to that and how to fix it to the extent that it's possible.
Yeah, but they do it to protect others from being dehumanized (in their mind)
> I'd wager less people would lie to themselves about their intentions if they knew this something they could be doing.
en.wikipedia.org
>en.wikipedia.org
Yeah, let's try to have true consciousness, then.
Distributism.
Private property, family, integrity freedom, and responsibility.
Give me 3 acres of land, cow, and a wife. In return I shall give you a nation.
Independence is power.
its fake, its a way of control
"you are not you, you are me, remember!"
Only if you assume this is all there can be.
what is this?
btw, you are now promising me an after-life and redirecting my death symbol onto your revolution's symbol
Another assumption.
Do you recognize the problem as diagnosed and have any ideas on how to solve it?
Solve is too strong a word, any improvements would be nice.
You're well on your way, OP. I would recommend looking into eschatologism. Ideologies often have an ideal world they would like to achieve, and a game plan for achieving it. In my research, I've found that the formula boils down to "If only we do X, everything will be great forever!"
Thanks for the rec, I'll look it up.
is not an assumption, this is the bare structure of your thought:
Post here if you believe X and Y will get increasingly BAD and DESTROY FUCKING EVERYTHING if we fail to RECOGNIZE THIS AS A PROBLEM AND ACT AGAINST IT.
i could fill it with
Post here if you believe THE DEVIL and DEGENERATES will get increasingly BAD and SEND THE WHOLE EARTH TO HELL if we fail to RECOGNIZE THIS AS A PROBLEM AND ACCEPT OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Post here if you believe THE COMMUNISTS and THE KIKES will get increasingly BAD and KILL ALL WHITE BABIES if we fail to RECOGNIZE THIS AS A PROBLEM AND 1488 RACE WAR NOW!
Post here if you believe THE CAPITALISTS and THE PIGS will get increasingly GREEDY and SUBJUGATE ALL THE WORKING CLASS if we fail to RECOGNIZE THIS AS A PROBLEM AND START THE REVOLUTION.
Also, Hegel. Look him up. He's arguably the father of all ideology.
This is what will always happen in a democracy, when you tell people that they should choose how they are governed. An absolute monarchy, for example, doesn't have this problem because the people don't have a say to begin with.
Why argue in an endless, toxic circlejerk if the king doesn't give two fucks anyway?
The OP was hyperbolic in its choice of words, but the Us vs Them mentality could lead to that scenario, given our degree of technological advancement.
I don't think we can survive without noticing the degree to which we engage in that pattern of thought. I also believe we can reduce it by increasing our awareness of it, in the same way understanding what an emotional block is may help someone psychologically.
>I don't think we can survive without noticing the degree to which we engage in that pattern of thought. I also believe we can reduce it by increasing our awareness of it, in the same way understanding what an emotional block is may help someone psychologically.
I think that the idea that you can stop it, is the pattern showing itself again, cleverly disguised.
It would be if I wanted to force you to believe it or harm you in any way if you resisted. I'm trying to get rid of this pattern.
Discussing the pattern itself seems to be the way to go.
>I also believe we can reduce it by increasing our awareness of it, in the same way understanding what an emotional block is may help someone psychologically.
i agree with you OP i really think the answers are more simple than what your looking for though. compromise, empathy, refusing to blindly follow ideology, not holding the belief that your way is the only way, considering alternatives.
all of this is attainable and rational people see it clear as day but most of the world is far off from this. As much as of a clusterfuck as the internet can be, it also can rapidly raise awareness, its almost like a super conscious in a way. it can remove language barriers and put you in the same room as someone across the world, a peek into their viewpoint.
really its like you said all we can really do is keep raising awareness and hopefully empathy
I think its like breathing, if you notice it you have to start doing it manually and its kind of a drag.
the problem with this is that action is due now and you are describing processes that evolve in time, you can never reach a place where its static and there is no uncertainty, you always need faith when its time to leap
what you see as "blindly following an ideology" is just disagreement with you about the course of action to take right now
and this can escalate very quickly but this is okay because the consequences of failure to take a direction are far worse
Gets easier with practice, like most things. And the more the social environment we live in starts doing it, the easier it gets for us individually, I suppose.
its breathing, not driving a bike, it doesn't gets easier, it just kind of fades out of attention when you forget about it
Easy as fuck. Evolutionary game theory determinism. Everyone should act according to the best interest of their genetics, as that is the way that receives the greatest natural advantages in life. As it turns out, this has always been the dominant philosophy, just without awareness.
Our unconscious processes can improve as well. If you practice pranayama, your breathing patterns will change beyond your practice sessions.
Shit, gotta go. Anyone who has any idea, please post it.
See ya, dude. Good discussion, the thread would have been dead otherwise, I guess.
im talking about the act of suddenly being responsible for breathing in and out when rememberd about it
its automatic way of working is an evolutionary gain, what you call "the problem" and "blindness" and "fake consciousness" is an evolutionary gain in itself
nice thread
Everything is an ideology. There's no such thing as "post-ideology"
that's like saying "math has failed, we need post-math"
>obsession with natural law
nigga, we live in a world of natural law whether you like it or not
recognizing that fact does not make one obsessed
Post-dualism has already been solved and it's called Dialectical Materialism.
If you think you can escape "ideology", then you are ideology's most loyal slave.
I don't know what this is about but Post-Keynesianism the answer.