Archived When two people are debating and one of them is an ideologue, what does that make the other? (thought)
submitted ago by flyawayhigh
Posted by: flyawayhigh
Posting time: 5.6 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 2/12/2017 1:51:00 AM
Views: 184
SCP: 2
2 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
Archived When two people are debating and one of them is an ideologue, what does that make the other? (thought)
submitted ago by flyawayhigh
view the rest of the comments →
[–] flyawayhigh [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I think when something is plain true (putting aside metaphysics and philosophy for second, but basically true within a certain realm), it is not ideological. The definition you posted, which may very well be correct, seems to eliminate a preference for truth over beliefs.
Let's say I tell you that 4 plus 4 equals 9 because God told me so. I think this would clearly be an ideological perspective. What happens when you come back and say something like, "You're wrong, it's 8 based on our understanding of the decimal system"?
[–] Virtus 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
You originally asked if every point of view is ideological. Is a person's point of view not the set of beliefs they follow, whether true or not?
Without getting too political (not my intention here, just an example) would it be fair to say people who are pro-vaccinations possess an ideological belief that is different from people who are anti-vaccinations? Even though science has proven vaccines to be beneficial and anti-vaccine beliefs false, almost exclusively.
If something is plain truth, how is it not ideological?
[–] flyawayhigh [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
I'd say the truth or facts, to the extent we can determine them, simply are. Facts or truth can be used ideologically, for example withholding one fact in favor of another to prove the validity of an ideology.
Vaccines are a great example. Quality of vaccines are supposed to be determined entirely from science, and therefore not ideology in the usual sense. But, is that what we see happening? I see pro-vaccine ideological groups who allows no criticism whatsoever no matter how factual; and I see anti-vaccination ideological groups who think vaccines are entirely ineffective or always the result of some kind of population control.
In between those extreme ideological groups are those who criticize vaccines where appropriate -- looking at the specific science and studies of each individual vaccine or combination. Which brings me right back to the original question.
If someone is against all vaccines and presents only unfavorable information, and includes in that information some details that are plainly false, and another person responds by pointing out where the first person's claims are false, we can safely say the first person is an ideologue, but we don't really know about the second person. The opposite scenario is also true -- where someone puts up only favorable vaccine information and includes some false information and the second person criticizes the claims.
Now, if both people are putting up false information, probably both are ideologues.
So, it's a tough question. We don't necessarily know. I'm not saying you are wrong at all. I am simply offering up perspective. The problem is in the ambiguity or perhaps the overly broad definition of the word.
BTW, welcome to Voat! :D